Lindsay Lohan Sues Etrade $100 Million for “Milkaholic” Ad
Lindsay Lohan is in the news again, this time for suing Etrade Financial for airing a “milkaholic” ad.
Lohan, a once promising actress who has nearly ruined her career with drugs and a wild lifestyle, claims that E*trade Financial Corp aired a commercial with a ‘milkaholic” baby girl that had an uncannily modeled after her.
How such thing is worth a tenth of a billion dollar lawsuit is beyond me.
E*Trade’s ad was shown in the February 7 Super Bowl, which according to Nielsen media drew about 106.5 million American viewers, a record for a U.S. television program. It is part of a series of ads featuring babies who play the markets.
In the ad, a baby boy apologizes to his girlfriend through a video chat for not calling her the night before because he was on E*Trade.
The camera switches to the girl, who asks suspiciously, “And that milkaholic Lindsay wasn’t over?”
It then switches back to the boy, who uneasily replies “Lindsay?” before another baby girl, presumably Lindsay, moves into the frame and asks, “Milk-a-what?”
Lohan was ordered in 2007 to serve one day in jail, undergo an alcohol education program and spend three years on probation after admitting to drunk driving and cocaine possession.
“It is clear to me that my life has become completely unmanageable because I am addicted to alcohol and drugs,” she said in a statement at the time.
I do believe Lindsay needs much counseling. We must not forget how she bared herself in a naked Marilyn Monroe photoshoot only months ago, disappointing us all with her savage behavior.
She also was in a lesbian relationship, did drugs with third world natives and now we see is looking for reasons to sue a quality company, all sins and hopefully she can get her life back on the right track.
- Sinful
- Suspicious
- Scared
- Sad
- Amused
- Laughing Out Loud
Author: Dan Nordgren
Born and raised in upstate New York, Dan Nordgren is currently a film student who enjoys martial arts, mountain climbing and football as components of his very active life. Join Team Sarah TODAY
7:50 pm
My question is since she likes to bare her milksacks for all the world to see, why is she so offended because they call her a milkoholic? Sounds like the name fit.
Praise or Condemn:
0 
0
9:52 pm
“My question is since she likes to bare her milksacks for all the world to see, why is she so offended because they call her a milkoholic? Sounds like the name fit.”
Hmm, maybe because she doesn’t actually have milk in her “milksacks”, thus the reason why breasts in general aren’t referred to as such. I’m sure that even pregnant and/or lactating women would find the term “milksacks” offensive.
Praise or Condemn:
0 
0
10:03 pm
If it is not filled with milk what is it filled with? When a baby goes to eat it you see milks come out so obviously you see your breastes is filled with such.
Praise or Condemn:
0 
0
12:20 pm
“If it is not filled with milk what is it filled with?”
You can’t possibly be that stupid, can you? Oh, for the love of Pete, female mammals only produce milk during pregnancy and nursing. If a female is producing milk and has never been pregnant (or is not currently nursing a child) there’s something wrong. That’s why the breasts get larger during pregnancy, because they’re making colostrum and preparing to produce milk. If I squeeze my nipple, nothing’s going to come out, do you know why? Because there’s no milk in there! The breasts are composed largely of fat. That’s why when women lose weight, their breasts get smaller. They’re also composed of alveoli (different from the ones in the lungs) and ducts, which produce and transfer the milk. If you make a cross-section of a mammary gland (the breast) of a woman who is not or never was pregnant, are you gonna find milk? NO!
Praise or Condemn:
0 
0
8:04 am
Claire will you stop writing pornography. You said “when I squeeze my bre****” and I hardly find that appropriate
My son informed me about your offensive comment before he drove off for school today and now you’ve put undue thoughts in his mind from your comments. Could you please use better language and also not talk about touching yourself in inappropriate manner for future reference. There are people of good bearing and faith, in addition to teenage minors, who use this site. Thanks.
Praise or Condemn:
0 
1
12:15 pm
Breast is not a pornographic word, it is an anatomic word. And I was simply trying to illustrate to Abe that if all women had milk in their breasts, milk would come out of mine if I squeezed them. It doesn’t; case closed.
Praise or Condemn:
1 
0
3:56 pm
Stop talking about touching your naughts please Claire. This is not the venue for doing such things and you should be able to communicate as a responsible adult and not a sick pervert.
Praise or Condemn:
0 
1
9:06 pm
“Stop talking about touching your naughts please Claire.”
Hey dude, grow the fuck up.
“This is not the venue for doing such things and you should be able to communicate as a responsible adult and not a sick pervert.”
Do I squeeze my nipples on a regular basis? NO. But to refute Abe’s claim that ALL women, even those who have never been pregnant, have milk in their breasts, I simply said that if that were true, milk would come out of my breasts if I were to manipulate them. YOU’RE the one who is turning the human mammary gland into some sort of sexual perversion. As I said above, grow the fuck up and take a goddamned anatomy and physiology class. Then perhaps you won’t be such a baby when it comes to talking about the human body in a mature fashion.
Praise or Condemn:
0 
0
4:17 pm
Claire is right on that, Abe. Women don’t always have milk. If it is a woman of child-bearing age, even, milk in the breasts is a problem and could indicate a pituitary adenoma, a major concern.
Praise or Condemn:
0 
0
8:08 pm
So then, Adam, why do you refer to them as “milksacks” as well?
Praise or Condemn:
0 
1