Wow! Where do you start with this one?
1 posted on
08/10/2004 8:19:17 AM PDT by
dukeman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40 last
To: dukeman
At work, Schwarz says he takes extra precautions with his daughter's image and "specifically avoids seeing her in anything she performs."
When it's time to choose explicit photographs of DeNyle for use in promotional materials, Schwarz says he refuses to take part.
Wow. Sounds like HIS name should be "DeNyle". If these statements are really true (I have my doubts), then it boggles the mind how he reconciles working to keep his daughter in a job where he can never watch her work.
I'd like to think I'd start sleeping outside on grates before I'd ever agree to start making money by exploiting my own daughter.
38 posted on
08/10/2004 8:33:49 AM PDT by
beezdotcom
(I'm usually either right or wrong.)
To: dukeman
"
Wow! Where do you start with this one?"
How about Democrat Party dad likes to watch his daughter performing so much he takes a job with her porn company to get free seats?
39 posted on
08/10/2004 8:34:04 AM PDT by
G.Mason
(A war mongering, red white and blue, military industrial complex, Al Qaeda incinerating American.)
To: dukeman
Wow! Where do you start with this one? Par for the course for California. Nothing about that state surprises me any more.
41 posted on
08/10/2004 8:35:16 AM PDT by
cuz_it_aint_their_money
(If the Dems want to raise taxes on "the rich", how about a 90% tax on contingency fees? A. Coulter)
To: dukeman
It's possible that Schwarz, who calls his Platinum X family a "team of mother, father, daughter and associates," is breaking new ground in an industry that thrives on expanding the concept of what's acceptable. Sounds as if it's pretty much acceptable here. And so we go on down, down, down that slippery slope.
To: dukeman
How perverted.
Prostitution is illegal. But porn, which is far worse, is legal. This makes no sense except that some judges cannot make it through their day without their porn.
43 posted on
08/10/2004 8:35:39 AM PDT by
Dante3
To: dukeman
what are the odds that a porn princess would hail (come?) from Wetmore !?
44 posted on
08/10/2004 8:36:31 AM PDT by
fnord
(Being humble doesn't mean thinking less of yourself. It means thinking more of others.)
To: dukeman
Hey, before everybody jumps on this guy - he states flat out that he avoids looking at his daughter's 'work', or the explicit promo pics that display her goods. So cut the guy some slack - it's tough being a Republican in the film business.
Um...better do this..(/irony)
45 posted on
08/10/2004 8:36:47 AM PDT by
headsonpikes
(Spirit of '76 bttt!)
To: dukeman
"to help Stephany get her own adult-movie company off the ground"
Such a "touching" family --- getting one's daughter's porn business off the ground (and onto the bed).
48 posted on
08/10/2004 8:40:12 AM PDT by
TRY ONE
(NUKE the unborn gay whales!)
To: dukeman
"At work, Schwarz says he takes extra precautions with his daughter's image and specifically avoids seeing her in anything she performs." Which of course makes him a sensitive, endearing, loving father. [/sarcasm]
57 posted on
08/10/2004 8:51:10 AM PDT by
tom h
To: dukeman
Put on your wading boots, an overcoat and turn down the lights...
65 posted on
08/10/2004 9:04:06 AM PDT by
Old Professer
(The harbor master is largely unconcerned with the direction of the tide - only its amplitude.)
To: dukeman
"I think it's great that Jewel's parents have an open mind about their daughter being in the adult industry," says Michael Stefano, a co-owner of Platinum X and a performer in the industry. "Jewel is very close with both of her parents and would do anything for them." Words fail me.
Shalom.
70 posted on
08/10/2004 9:13:56 AM PDT by
ArGee
(After 517, the abolition of man is complete)
To: dukeman
"[Oh, tell me this guy hasn't been watching porno flicks of his adopted daughter. Ugh!]"
From the article: "At work, Schwarz says he takes extra precautions with his daughter's image and "specifically avoids seeing her in anything she performs."
When it's time to choose explicit photographs of DeNyle for use in promotional materials, Schwarz says he refuses to take part."
lol...You have a dirty mind..
95 posted on
08/10/2004 10:09:43 AM PDT by
monday
To: dukeman
To: dukeman
Nobody's said "May the Schwarz be with you"?
SD
To: dukeman
Authorities raided Schwarz's Wetmore home on Dec. 4, 2001, looking for child pornography.
According to court records, police removed cartoon books depicting children having sex and other items, including tapes of DeNyle from Schwarz's home.
Police also investigated claims that Schwarz had sexually molested family members years earlier.
No charges were filed, but Owens fired him from the Parole Board. Therein lies the problem. He got away with these crimes before.......
124 posted on
08/10/2004 12:00:34 PM PDT by
NotJustAnotherPrettyFace
(Michael <a href = "http://www.michaelmoore.com/" title="Miserable Failure">"Miserable Failure"</a>)
To: dukeman
Well, we start here:
What do ALL politicians, lawyers, corporate executives and people in the porn industry have in common?
They are willing to say and do whatever they have to, to get what they want!
Basically he made a lateral career move.
To: dukeman
"Schwarz says he works on the decidedly unsexy side of the porn business"So. . .daddy helping his daughter sell herself on the open market.
Sick.
129 posted on
08/10/2004 12:30:15 PM PDT by
MEGoody
(Flush the Johns - vote Bush/Cheney 04)
To: dukeman
164 posted on
08/11/2004 8:32:44 AM PDT by
SeeRushToldU_So
(Shut up and sing. I don't care what you think.)
To: dukeman
She was hot when she first got started, but now she's gotten kinda chunky.
A woman, who had been caught in the act of adultery was brought to Jesus Christ by the scribes and Pharisees as a test to see if the Messiah was a liberal in matters of the Law of God. In response to their deceitful query, He didn't condemn the woman, not because He was a liberal, not because He condoned her sin, but because the men who brought the woman to Him were Hypocrites. He was the only person there that day who was free of sin, the only one who had the right to "cast the first stone." He didn't stone her (or her accusers), but instead forgave her and told her to "sin no more." Otherwise, the day is coming when she, if she didn't thereafter repent, won't be stoned, but will be burned - along with the hypocrites who brought her to Him that day, if they didn't thereafter repent of their sin:
169 posted on
08/12/2004 2:33:46 PM PDT by
Leatherneck_MT
(Good night Chesty, wherever you may be.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40 last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson