« TARP Inspector General warns of bank bailout plan shortcomings | Main | Why I Miss Nixon »

Carrie Prejean is a Class Act

Perez Hilton, not so much. Because Carrie Prejean, Miss California and 1st runner up for Miss USA, has a different opinion on gay marriage than Hilton, he lashed out at her after the show and called her a dumb bitch and, apparently, a c***. I didn't hear him call her that name myself, but that is what the MSNBC host reported. Thanks to Gateway Pundit for the video:

So what's this again about liberals being so much more open minded and tolerant of differing opinions than conservatives?

Update: Shawn Mallow also addressed this controversy earlier today.

Update II: More of Carrie Prejean on Cavuto:

Hat tip: Hot Air


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/35372.

Comments (119)

Lovely female pulchritude v... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Lovely female pulchritude versus catty homosexual disease bag.

You win THIS time, Kim.

and, apparently, a c***.... (Below threshold)
Brian:

and, apparently, a c***. I didn't hear him call her that name myself, but that is what the MSNBC host reported.

He didn't call her that. In a follow-up interview, he said he was thinking it.

It was stupid for Hilton to ask a gotcha question at a beauty pageant, but if Prejean was interested in winning she should have given the "politically correct answer" that she said she was considering. Taking either side would have offended a different group of people.

She expressed her honest op... (Below threshold)

She expressed her honest opinion, and said WHY she holds that opinion (both of which were asked for in the question from Hilton), and the moron who ASKED the question castigates her for NOT lying to him (after calling her several names, of course).

She is indeed a "class act"...except that her CLASS is no ACT!

and, apparentl... (Below threshold)
and, apparently, a c***. I didn't hear him call her that name myself, but that is what the MSNBC host reported.

He didn't call her that. In a follow-up interview, he said he was thinking it.

Well, that means he essentially called her that.

You are right Kim. Conservt... (Below threshold)
jmc:

You are right Kim. Conservtives are more tolerant. For example, many Conservatives in the south are very tolerant not just of discrimination of gays, but they are also tolerent of racisim.

Perez is a clown. He makes ... (Below threshold)
Kat:

Perez is a clown. He makes teh gey look stoopid.

So what's this aga... (Below threshold)
jp2:
So what's this again about liberals being so much more open minded and tolerant of differing opinions than conservatives?

I think intolerance of intolerance is a good thing, don't you?

You are right Kim. Conse... (Below threshold)
Tim:

You are right Kim. Conservtives are more tolerant. For example, many Conservatives in the south are very tolerant not just of discrimination of gays, but they are also tolerent of racisim.

So conservatives put Robert Byrd over the top? Who knew?

I didnt know who either of ... (Below threshold)
Pretzel Logic:

I didnt know who either of them were before this week...I like her a WHOLE lot better!

So conservatives put Robert... (Below threshold)
jmc:

So conservatives put Robert Byrd over the top? Who knew?

Nahh, they just had david duke, A southern strategy, and of course discrimination agaisnt gays. They are very tolerant.

How do southern conservativ... (Below threshold)
Matt:

How do southern conservatives discriminate against gays? Is it because they won't sleep with them?

Is Perez Hilton the gay, tolerance-challenged sister/brother(?) of Paris Hilton?

jmc,Enjoy your ste... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

jmc,

Enjoy your stereotypes of conservatives.

It just tells me that you don't actually KNOW any conservatives.

My wife works for a black owned small business and travels all over the country for work. The stories she tells me about the racism she sees ALL come from the north side of the US.

Tolerance or acceptance of ... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Tolerance or acceptance of different points of view means just that. It does not mean that everyone has to rally around certain politically expedient points of view in order to be considered tolerant or open minded.

Hilton is waaaaay out of line, not only for asking such a loaded question, but for freaking out when he was not given the answer he wanted. It was no question at all. And I think that people should be able to express their opinions. That does not mean that I agree with her, it means that she should be respected for expressing what she really thinks.

"It was stupid for Hilton to ask a gotcha question at a beauty pageant, but if Prejean was interested in winning she should have given the "politically correct answer" that she said she was considering."

I completely disagree. She answered honestly to a question that was supposedly asked to elicit her views...not some politically correct version of what Perez or the audience or the judges want to FORCE people to say.

It is ok--perfectly ok--for people to have differing views about culture and society. This is a great example of hypocrisy at work, IMO.

I agree with you on this one Kim.

Sorry, jmc -david ... (Below threshold)
apb:

Sorry, jmc -

david duke = robert "sheets" byrd = Jim Crow laws = KKK

Democrats at their finest. 'Course now instead of sheets and chains, the modern dems just keep blacks enslaved through public education. As for the Perez Hiltons of the world, the dems will pay lip service to gay marriage to hook their votes.

Keep 'em, down; keep 'em voting dem.

I am so glad you put up the... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I am so glad you put up the name David Duke, jmc you ultra leftist extremist. If you recall, the republican party immediately disassociated him from the party when he announced. What did the dem's do? Reward Robert Byrd. You lefties have been in the forefront of discrimination and intolerance for a long time. This example is just one small one of many. ww

I completely disagree. S... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I completely disagree. She answered honestly to a question that was supposedly asked to elicit her views...not some politically correct version of what Perez or the audience or the judges want to FORCE people to say.

When asked a question at a job interview, most people won't just give the straight un-spun honest answer, especially if you think it will make you not get the job.

She could have said it's a difficult question that the states need to work out for themselves. Yes, it's evading the question, but it was a stupid question, so she'd be forgiven. I don't see how doing that would have been "forcing" her to say what they wanted.

It appears that Perez Hilto... (Below threshold)
Matt:

It appears that Perez Hilton is Hetero-Phobic. It is obvious that he is most definitely not tolerant of pro-marriage viewpoints.

"Yes, it's evading the ques... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"Yes, it's evading the question, but it was a stupid question, so she'd be forgiven. I don't see how doing that would have been "forcing" her to say what they wanted."

Basically you are saying that she should not have answered the question. Then what's the point? Politics? A show of cultural and political agreement? Why even ask the damn question in the first place if they really don't want to her HER answer. Why not just tell all contestants that they cannot win unless they agree to a set of social and political ideals? Is that how it's supposed to work?

I think that we have enough people who avoid actually answering questions in order to get what they want. I think it's a good thing that she gave an honest answer. I can work with that. I might disagree, sure, but that does not mean that I expect her to parrot my opinions so that I respect hers.

Maybe "forcing" is too strong, maybe not. However, if she has to answer a question--or avoid answering a question honestly--in order to win then in my opinion they are forcing her hand. That's what I think. And this is where "diversity" of opinion all goes down the political tubes.

People do not have to agree with one another in a free and open society. If Miss California thinks that marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman, then that is her point of view. As long as we all agree to listen to diverse POV's, then the rest will get hashed out through the democratic process. Easier said than done, I know...

I am so glad you ... (Below threshold)
jmc:
I am so glad you put up the name David Duke, jmc you ultra leftist extremist. If you recall, the republican party immediately disassociated him from the party when he announced. What did the dem's do? Reward Robert Byrd. You lefties have been in the forefront of discrimination and intolerance for a long time. This example is just one small one of many. ww

Just like you welcomed Strom thurmand and rewarded him you ultra radical right wing nut.

Just like you continue to discriminate against gays. People like you sure have tolerance for a lot of hate don't you ww?


jmc - "Nahh, they just ... (Below threshold)
marc:

jmc - "Nahh, they just had david duke, A southern strategy, and of course discrimination agaisnt gays. They are very tolerant."

I'll see your david duke, and your Strom thurmand....

... and raise you a filibuster conducted by southern Democratic Senators to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a filibuster that lasted for 75 hours.

I must say that after heari... (Below threshold)
Kelley:

I must say that after hearing what Miss California said and how terrible Perez has been I look up to her even more. The fact that she stood up for what she believes in is so brave. The way she has been attacked after being asked her OPINION is so unnecessary. I cant believe how closed minded Perez is for asking a very contoversial question and then trowing a hissy fit when he didnt get the answer he wanted. She has been nothing but gracious and kind to him even though he keeps running his mouth, and showing what a jerk he really is. I truly believe he chose that question to set someone up to DARE to voice their opinion in this cookie cutter world. And when he didnt get the answer he wanted she is wrong for having a voice. That is not what our country was built on and he needs to get a grip on reality and appologize. If he can speak his mind why cant she? I totally agree with her and her desision to stand by her convictions. You go girl!

I think intolerance of i... (Below threshold)

I think intolerance of intolerance is a good thing, don't you?

Ridiculous. Basically you are rationalizing and excusing your own hypocrisy.

Then what's the point? P... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Then what's the point? Politics? A show of cultural and political agreement?

You're coming at this from the wrong angle. It's Hilton who tried to make it about politics. Prejean could have side-stepped the issue. It's Miss USA, for crissake, not a presidential debate.

Why even ask the damn question in the first place if they really don't want to her HER answer. Why not just tell all contestants that they cannot win unless they agree to a set of social and political ideals? Is that how it's supposed to work?

I'm not dismissing the practice of asking contestants questions, just that of asking such hotly political and divisive issues that are no more appropriate for that venue than it would have been to ask her opinion of abortion or whether she thinks Obama is a socialist. It was Hilton's intent to test her on "a set of social and political ideals", and she played along. I see no glory in her recognizing that he was out of line but still willingly walking into his trap. She wouldn't have had to deny or alter any of her values to give a generic answer. It's a pyrrhic victory.

From jmc, "Just like you co... (Below threshold)
Elbon55:

From jmc, "Just like you continue to discriminate against gays. People like you sure have tolerance for a lot of hate don't you ww?"
How about the discrimination and intolerance against Carrie Prejean? She states her belief and doesn't win the pageant! Having Perez Hilton involved in the Miss America contest is like having a vegan judge ribs at a BBQ. Trump has done it again. The guy is a marketing genius. We're all talking about his pageant!

I'll see your dav... (Below threshold)
jmc:
I'll see your david duke, and your Strom thurmand....

... and raise you a filibuster conducted by southern Democratic Senators to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a filibuster that lasted for 75 hours.

I'll see your southern democrats in 1964 (like Strom Thurmand who defected to the Republican party shortly thereafter) and raise you a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in 2004. Looks like the party of the southern strategy in in the 70, 80s, 90s and 2000s, is branching out in their discrimination.

"So what's this again about... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"So what's this again about liberals being so much more open minded and tolerant of differing opinions than conservatives?"

Well, as long as you think like them, you're ok. Otherwise, your a nazi! As for having to give a PC answer in order to win....WHY? If you believe being PC is bullshit, then why not say so. Dickhead Perez is the intolerant one. As for his later comment (followed by an apology) calling her a "bitch", just goes to show who has class and who doesn't. Of course I may be wrong. Maybe in Perez's world, being called a 'bitch' is a compliment.

I've never cited Richard Ro... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I've never cited Richard Roeper before:

There was a time when a pageant contestant would give a nonsensical answer ending with "world peace," and the studio audience would applaud and the judge would say, "Thank you very much," and the home viewer would say, "What did she just say?" and that would be that. On to the talent portion of the evening.

...
Judge Kenan Thompson from "Saturday Night Live" asked, ""Do you think the U.S. should have universal health care as a right of citizenship? Why or why not?"

Miss Arizona's response: "I think this is an issue of integrity regardless of which end of the political spectrum that I stand on. I've been raised in a family to know right from wrong, and politics, whether or not you fall in the middle, the left or the right, it's an issue of integrity, whatever your opinion is and I say that with the upmost conviction."

Now THAT'S a classic. It's an answer that has absolutely nothing to do with the question. Zippo! But here's the thing. Note that I referenced Judge Kenan Thompson, not Judge Clarence Thomas. None of this can be taken seriously. Asking Miss California and Miss Arizona their thoughts on same-sex marriage and universal health care, respectively, makes about as much sense as asking President Obama and John Boehner their thoughts on who should have won the Miss USA pageant.

It's not as if pageant contestants of the past were routinely delivering learned, erudite response to questions about the Gulf of Tonkin, U.S. relations with China or the boycott of the Moscow Olympics.

"You're coming at this from... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"You're coming at this from the wrong angle. It's Hilton who tried to make it about politics. Prejean could have side-stepped the issue. It's Miss USA, for crissake, not a presidential debate."

Look, I see where you're going with this but I think that it became absolutely about politics the second Hilton asked that loaded question. No getting around that. Now, it became a BIG ISSUE because she actually expressed an opinion that went counter to Mr Hilton and some others, who of course have a different opinion. This isn't even about "gay marriage" anymore, it's about whether or not "tolerance" is a two way street. For Hilton, it appears to be a one way expressway, to the detriment of anyone is his path...

If Hilton asked the question he should have been open to the actual answer. She gave her opinion on the subject, as she should, IMO. Why should she have to side-step it? Should we all have to avoid talking about issues--because we're afraid that people might disagree with us? I think she did the right thing, and went with her actual opinion, as opposed to providing some vague non-answer that we are used to hearing from politicians.

Hilton flipped out only because he did not get the answer that HE FEELS is right. And the way he has acted since then shows me that he has a pretty narrow mind. "My way or the highway" is not exactly tolerance/respect of other viewpoints.

"It was Hilton's intent to test her on "a set of social and political ideals", and she played along. I see no glory in her recognizing that he was out of line but still willingly walking into his trap"

It was Hilton's GOAL to have his own political point of view parroted back to him in front of a large TV audience. But when she didn't play into that, and actually said what SHE thinks, Perez flipped out. I don't think she played along. She was in front of god knows how many people and she--gasp--actually expressed her real opinion. The problem here is not Miss CA but Perez Hilton, IMO.

Mr Roeper said."No... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Mr Roeper said.

"None of this can be taken seriously. Asking Miss California and Miss Arizona their thoughts on same-sex marriage and universal health care, respectively, makes about as much sense as asking President Obama and John Boehner their thoughts on who should have won the Miss USA pageant."

Ah, I see. What great logic. Why take her seriously, since she's just a stupid beauty contestant anyway.

That, in my opinion, is a lazy derailment of the main point at hand. This woman, who happens to be a beauty contestant, expressed her opinion. Perez Hilton, who is clearly intolerant of opinions that counter his own, freaked out and displayed a real lack of class.

Ironically, while I disagree with Miss CA's position, I wholeheartedly support her right to express her actual views, as opposed to engaging in cheap politicking in order to win the contest.

Hilton said that he was sad... (Below threshold)
Adam:

Hilton said that he was saddened by her because she was supposed to stand for all American including gays. If she stood for gays then she wouldn't have been standing for us conservative Christians and those for marriage between a man and a women.

She wouldn't have had to... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

She wouldn't have had to deny or alter any of her values to give a generic answer.

I think, at last, I'm beginning to understand the nature of liberals' "values."

Mr Hilton showed he is enti... (Below threshold)
epador:

Mr Hilton showed he is entirely unqualified as a judge in the Miss America Pageant. He should be booted off. I'm sure he could find a position in the Obama Administration.

"I think, at last, I'm begi... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"I think, at last, I'm beginning to understand the nature of liberals' "values.""

Look, in a thread that is about tolerance of divergent points of view, and getting past lame political pandering, why not try to avoid boiling everything down to such overly simplistic categories, eh?

The whole right/left, liberal/conservative schtick get pretty damn old around here sometimes. Those two words are glosses for millions of people with a massive diversity of opinions.

Just sayin.

This whole horse and pony s... (Below threshold)
Myronhalo:

This whole horse and pony show confirms what we have known all along; homosexuals are queers in lots of ways, not just in their sexual orientation.
We used to call a spade a spade, but now we call queers gays instead. A cesspool is still a cesspool by any other name.
The contestant didn't give the "politically correct" answer because she told the truth instead.
I've had it with politically correct.

Perez Hilton is a imbecilic... (Below threshold)
braininahat:

Perez Hilton is a imbecilic douche. He pretends that what he wanted to hear from Miss CA was a non-answer: "Uhm, I think that it's a decision for the states." So why ask a question of which the best answer is avoiding the answer, dumbass?

But, of course, nobody believes moron boy wanted to hear that non-answer; he wanted to hear her support gay marriage, because that's "inclusive."

So while Miss America is supposed to represent all Americans by lying about her beliefs, Perez Hilton is doing an awesome job representing the Miss America Pageant by calling one its contestants a stupid bitch and a cunt.

You stay classy, Miss America Pageant.

She gave her opinion on ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

She gave her opinion on the subject, as she should, IMO. Why should she have to side-step it? Should we all have to avoid talking about issues--because we're afraid that people might disagree with us? I think she did the right thing, and went with her actual opinion, as opposed to providing some vague non-answer that we are used to hearing from politicians.

This is about context. There's no requirement that you have to give a straight answer about your personal or political values anytime some schmuck comes up to you and requests one. No one is hopped up on truth serum. If you're having a drink with your conservative boss and some drunk walks up and right in front of him asks whether you support gay marriage, you're not required to give a straight answer. You're allowed to recognize that it's unnecessary to interject politics/religion/whatever into your business relationship and get out of it by giving a non-answer instead. There's no "class" involved in giving the honest answer and souring your relationship when it was completely unnecessary to go down that path in the first place.

It's not like Prejean was being tortured and despite enduring great pain she refused to denounce God, and now she's being lauded her for her piety. She was asked a stupid question by a stupid person and although she says she recognized it as such, she chose to answer it. For what? To preserve her values? She could have answered "shut the f-ck up, Hilton!" (phrased differently for a TV audience) and retained her values.

But instead, what's happened? She traded her dream for 15 minutes on MSNBC, Hilton goes on with whatever he's got going, and everyone else says "you go girl!" and shuts off their TV.

As much as I disagree with ... (Below threshold)
Jake:

As much as I disagree with her opinion, I'm impressed that she didn't opt for a PC answer or just mind numbingly skip over the question.

Brian is right. ... (Below threshold)
max:

Brian is right.

I get your point Brian: sid... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

I get your point Brian: side-step the issue, avoid Hilton's question, win the title. I just happen to disagree, and think that it was perfectly acceptable for her to express her honest opinion. She answered honestly and respectfully. Works for me, even though I do not share her point of view.

Max -Brian isn't r... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Max -

Brian isn't right, unless you're very much into situational ethics.

Yeah, she could have skipped the question, or gave a non-answer, or told hysteria-boy what he wanted to hear - and maybe made it to the next level.

But she didn't betray her own ethical sense. She answered honestly. And let's be blunt here - there's a considerable difference in this country about whether gay marriage should be allowed, but BOTH sides are currently valid. (I think it should be legal, but then, I think it's the last, great, untapped market for legal services.)

So her opinion isn't wrong as far as she's concerned. She's not in a position to enforce her opinion on anyone else - it was a personal question and she gave the answer she believes.

She didn't lie about what she felt, she didn't evade and try to palm off a non-answer, she didn't tell this twerp who seems to think he's the only arbiter of what people should believe what he wanted to hear.

So, good for her. She was honest, and I prefer that in a person even if I disagree with their point of view.

It also think it's perfectl... (Below threshold)
Brian:

It also think it's perfectly acceptable for her to express her honest opinion. Again, the issue is context. It's also perfectly acceptable to not play into an asshole's hand when he baits you, and to not allow him to use your beliefs against you and give him the pleasure of denying you that which you worked so hard to achieve.

I bet she had handlers telling her how to dress, what to sing, how to do her hair, how to walk, what to eat, what makeup to wear, how to smile, etc. It's too bad she didn't have anyone telling her how to answer sensitive questions.

I'm fed up to here with the... (Below threshold)
CZ:

I'm fed up to here with these intolerant Homos.

When asked a quest... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:
When asked a question at a job interview, most people won't just give the straight un-spun honest answer, especially if you think it will make you not get the job.

I wonder what answers you give in a job interview then.
One would hope you are truthful on technical qualification?
Hopefully you are honest with hours your welling to work.
I know someone who had to work at Media Company and was asked. Do you have an issue with viewing porn?
Now according to you that person should have said yes even if he did. Luckily he was honest and he worked on all the servers that did not stream pron. The SA who do manage those servers have to watch porn clips during failover to ensure that failover is flawless.
ALso let say she did gave the PC answer and was later asked to speak out against CA defeat of prop 8 and said she could not. How many would attack her for being opportunist/fraud or liar?

Brian isn't right, unles... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian isn't right, unless you're very much into situational ethics.

This has nothing to do with ethics. I never said Prejean should have lied.

I refer you to my previous comment that cited Miss Arizona's response to a different question. Was her response "unethical"? Was Miss South Carolina "unethical"? Certainly they could have benefited from better phrasing, but there's nothing unethical about giving a safe answer, especially in response to a question designed specifically to throw you off your game.

she didn't tell this twerp who seems to think he's the only arbiter of what people should believe what he wanted to hear.

And instead she allowed him to prevent her from achieving her goal. Was defying Perez Hilton that important? Is Perez Hilton really worth all that? Was there no way to not tell the twerp what he wanted to hear, and ALSO to achieve her goal? And would taking that path be "unethical"?

One would hope you are t... (Below threshold)
Brian:

One would hope you are truthful on technical qualification?

Of course. But most people give the question "what are you weaknesses" some spin.

ALso let say she did gave the PC answer and was later asked to speak out against CA defeat of prop 8 and said she could not. How many would attack her for being opportunist/fraud or liar?

The "PC" answer would have been non-committal. So the answer to your question is "none". If you think I'm arguing she should have said she supported gay marriage, you're mistaken.

"It's too bad she didn't ha... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"It's too bad she didn't have anyone telling her how to answer sensitive questions."

See that's the thing Brian. I think she answered the question just fine. She was open and honest. Can't do much better than that. I am not sure why you are so adamant in thinking that it would have been better to avoid the question. I understand the fact that she probably would have won, but who cares about that? If she had to resort to pandering to win, then maybe it wasn't worth it after all.

I understand your 'context' argument perfectly well. I just see it differently. We can agree to disagree about that.

And instead she al... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
And instead she allowed him to prevent her from achieving her goal.

Brian, how do you know that? All she did was answer a question, and all Hilton did was get angry and throw a hissy fit for the media. Who's to say she won't be successful regardless of her runner-up status in the contest? Whatever this crap side-show was about, it wasn't about her winning or losing. She'll probably still get all the attention, money and perks her "shocking" response has generated. Way too many people are applauding her and agreeing with her choice.

Many people don't understan... (Below threshold)
Adam:

Many people don't understand what ethics are. Are country was brought up on ethics according to the bible. "One country under God", IN court We swear on the bible", read the founding document to our country. To give the honest answer is the only "ethical" way to go. You either lie or you are honest. She was honest and she bases her morals on the Bible and has a very strong faith.

I am not sure why you ar... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I am not sure why you are so adamant in thinking that it would have been better to avoid the question.

General philosophy, I guess. I think that when you're walking toward a goal, and a big sinkhole appears in front of you, it's better to walk around the sinkhole (staying within the rules) and achieve your goal than it is to walk right into the hole, lose your goal, and have a bunch of strangers say, "well, at least she kept walking". I suppose she may have had a personal rule that "anytime someone asks me if I support gay marriage, I must give a yes or no answer", but I'd doubt it.

I understand the fact that she probably would have won, but who cares about that?

I bet she does.

Brian, how do you know t... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian, how do you know that?

She didn't win, despite Shawn's metaphorical claim to the contrary.

If she manages to turn the lemons into lemonade, good for her.

Carrie spoke from the heart... (Below threshold)
AK:

Carrie spoke from the heart and apparently was punished for her comment. So what she should have done was lie when asked the question? We have enough politicians doing that (lying)on a daily basis. Anyway, I think she is great and now she has a new fan. She is the real winner today.

To give the honest answe... (Below threshold)
Brian:

To give the honest answer is the only "ethical" way to go. You either lie or you are honest.

I ask again, did Miss Arizona and Miss South Carolina lie? Were they unethical?

So what she should have ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

So what she should have done was lie when asked the question?

No. Please read the thread before commenting.

If they did lie then yes of... (Below threshold)
Adam:

If they did lie then yes of coarse the were unethical.

If they did lie then yes... (Below threshold)
Brian:

If they did lie then yes of coarse the were unethical.

Can't you even be bothered to read what they said and give your own answer?

She didn't win, de... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
She didn't win, despite Shawn's metaphorical claim to the contrary.

Just because she didn't win a beauty contest, doesn't mean her ambitions have been squelched. A beauty pageant isn't the be all and end all of human worth. And Shawn is using a metaphor he's not talking about her winning the Miss America pageant. Your goalposts are losing ground.

I don't need to know what t... (Below threshold)
Adam:

I don't need to know what they said. It is if they lied or not. So you can make the judgement.

That was no controversial a... (Below threshold)
914:

That was no controversial answer. That was the normal answer.

Speaking from the heart is ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Speaking from the heart is the wrong thing to do when your opinion is morally indefensible.

And conservatives need to shut the f*ck up about "traditional marriage" unless they start bleating about the evils of divorce at an equal volume.

If I were human cattle prepping for a competition as ridiculous as this one, I'd make damn sure I understood who the judges are and what their politics are. Perez Hilton is a bitchy gay socialiate who profits from the photographed humiliation of celebrities. Add this fool's scalp to his collection.

Just because she didn't ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Just because she didn't win a beauty contest, doesn't mean her ambitions have been squelched. A beauty pageant isn't the be all and end all of human worth.

I didn't say she lost her value as a person. But she clearly lost the contest, which was clearly important to her.

And Shawn is using a metaphor he's not talking about her winning the Miss America pageant

Yes, that's what I said: his reference was metaphorical. My "goalposts" haven't moved. Whatever that means.

Brian -This isn't ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Brian -

This isn't about Miss Arizona, it's about Miss California. What Miss Arizona had to say about health care, (and reading that she's got a FINE career in politics ahead of her, if not descent into downright lawyerdom...) is her own affair. Her reply was obtuse, opaque, and doesn't touch on the question - so as an answer it didn't really qualify. If I were a judge, I'd have marked her down for that blathering mess.

But you're advocating giving a 'safe' answer. Not an accurate one that reflects what the person actually thinks - but a 'safe' one. You don't see that as lying, well... that's your point of view. But it does seem to me that your ethical sense is highly situational, and that you seem to think that lying, not telling the truth, prevarication and evasion are quite acceptable when faced with the chance of losing an advantage over other contestants.

A good sign of a strong moral character is telling the truth or doing what you think is right even if it puts you at a disadvantage in some fashion. The Miss America pageant isn't a life-and-death Truth or Dare game, it's not a contest where the loser will be publicly shamed for life, so EVERYTHING is permissable to grab a 'win'.

It's supposed to show off all the qualities of the woman - internal and external. (Boy, some of those externals... wow!) Whether they'll be honest under pressure is one of those qualities.

JLawson, your sincerity not... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

JLawson, your sincerity notwithstanding, in twenty years her statement will be morally analogous to one expressing personal discomfort with interracial marriages. How she feels about her own views has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of them.

But you're advocating gi... (Below threshold)
Brian:

But you're advocating giving a 'safe' answer. Not an accurate one that reflects what the person actually thinks - but a 'safe' one. You don't see that as lying, well... that's your point of view.

So an answer of "I think it should be left to the states to decide" is lying? Well, I guess that's your point of view.

In boxing, it's legal to stand there and get hit, hit back, or duck. I'd guess you think there's more "moral" value in standing there getting hit than there is in ducking. Lose the match, but never duck.

Hyper - Twenty yea... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Hyper -

Twenty years from now is another matter.

There seems to be a trend for some to judge the past through contemporary moral thinking. But that doesn't really work - you have to judge the people and beliefs of the time as a whole to understand them, not condemn them because they're not up to the standards set in 2009.

I don't judge the Japanese by how my folks felt about them in WW2. I don't judge the Germans by how the Brits felt about them in WW1. I don't judge blacks by how people felt in the '50s and '60s. I can understand the feelings - but I'm not going to use THEIR standards to make MY decisons in 2009.

Neither am I going to attempt to figure out where things are going to be in 2029, and adjust my thinking TODAY to match what I think things will be like THEN. (Hell, for all I know we're going to be slipping into a neo-Victorian age where sex isn't even supposed to be MENTIONED - as a backlash to our current excesses.)

"How she feels about her own views has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of them."

And neither does how YOU feel about her views. YOU do not get to be the ethical arbiter of her (or my, or anyone else's) feelings. YOU may not like what she believes - but that's just plain tough. There's a slow progression towards acceptance of gay marriage - and that's fine. Twenty years from now, and she may believe something completely different from what she believes now. She (along with Ms. Arizona) may even have a legal firm specializing in gay issues.

But she was asked a question by a snarky, nasty judge, and answered honestly. I won't fault her for that.

Brian -Now you're ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Brian -

Now you're trying to apply what's appropriate in one situation to another where it's not. Are you trying to build a strawman here or something?

If she believed "It should be decided by the states" - and she SAID "It should be decided by the states" then that would have been fine. But that's not what she said.

Prejean paused for a moment before replying: 'Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage.'

She continued: 'And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman.

'No offence to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be - between a man and a woman. Thank you very much."
Honesty really isn't that difficult a concept to grasp, is it?

Screw it. She gave the wron... (Below threshold)
Mike G in Corvallis:

Screw it. She gave the wrong response, all right ...

What she should have said was, "I'm sorry, but I don't think this is the time or place for that sort of question, and in any event I don't see why my private opinion on that issue would be any business of yours."

And if he persisted, she should have pointed out that Californians had just voted on that issue, and that she was under no obligation to tell anyone, including clerics, gay activists, and government officials, how she had cast her ballot.

And if he still persisted, she should have openly questioned his fitness to be one of the judges, based on his inability to see how inappropriate the question was.

jp2 wrote: I th... (Below threshold)
Mike G in Corvallis:

jp2 wrote:

I think intolerance of intolerance is a good thing, don't you?

Not in all circumstances. I strongly disapprove of human beings performing the acts of murder, slavery, and coprophagy. You are, of course, welcome to be intolerant of my intolerance.

I didn't say she l... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
I didn't say she lost her value as a person. But she clearly lost the contest, which was clearly important to her.

Lame, Brian. You said Shawn's metaphor suggested she won the contest. Stop trying to squirm your way out of that.

I'll see your david duke... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

I'll see your david duke, and your Strom thurmand....

... and raise you a filibuster conducted by southern Democratic Senators to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a filibuster that lasted for 75 hours.

And I'll throw in a Cynthia McKinney and Maxie Waters to sweeten the pot.

brian - "General philos... (Below threshold)
marc:

brian - "General philosophy, I guess. I think that when you're walking toward a goal, and a big sinkhole appears in front of you, it's better to walk around the sinkhole (staying within the rules)"

The bold faced section of the quote says it all doesn't it, regardless if you accept it or not.

Her rules are based on a religious belief, she stayed within them you twit.

Honesty really isn't tha... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Honesty really isn't that difficult a concept to grasp, is it?

There's no disconnect between "I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman" and "I think it should be decided by the states".

Regardless, "it should be decided by the states" was just an example of a semi-neutral answer. If she didn't believe that, there are many others.

Lame, Brian. You said Sh... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Lame, Brian. You said Shawn's metaphor suggested she won the contest. Stop trying to squirm your way out of that.

I said no such thing. If I thought Shawn claimed she won the contest, I would have said, "despite Shawn's claim to the contrary." Instead, I said "despite Shawn's metaphorical claim to the contrary."

Do you see that word "metaphorical" up there? That means, since you may have missed it, that I was acknowledging that Shawn's claim "looks like she won after all" was a metaphor, not a claim that she actually won.

That's a really silly point you're arguing. I refer to Shawn's comment as a metaphor, and your response to me is "it was a metaphor!" To put things in terms you might understand... well, duh.

Her rules are based on a... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Her rules are based on a religious belief, she stayed within them you twit.

Her religion compels her to reveal her personal feelings about gay marriage upon demand, regardless of circumstance? What religion is that? What else would she be compelled to reveal?

I don't understand why homo... (Below threshold)
Chad:

I don't understand why homosexuals want to use the word "marriage" when civil unions give all the same legal rights. "Marriage" started as a religious ceremony, and morphed into a legal binding contract, yet still has religious conotations. I personally believe the reason behind "same sex marriages" is so that when they become legal, a couple will be able to force a church to perform the ceremony. Otherwise it becomes a legal issue, and a civil rights issue. I've got a very close lesbian friend that pointed this out to me, and said she believes that this is the whole point behind same sex marriages. What really bothers me is the idea that these "laws" are actually court rulings and the whole "by the people" aspect of our system is being shredded by judicial fiat.

Let's try this again, Brian... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Let's try this again, Brian, so you can understand what goalposts are.
You first said:

It was stupid for Hilton to ask a gotcha question at a beauty pageant, but if Prejean was interested in winning she should have given the "politically correct answer" that she said she was considering.
Suggesting she didn't care about winning.

Then you said:

I didn't say she lost her value as a person. But she clearly lost the contest, which was clearly important to her.

Then, of course, the statement about Shawn metaphor and her "winning":

She didn't win, despite Shawn's metaphorical claim to the contrary.

Finally, take your own advice:

Please read the thread before commenting.

Especially, your own broadbrushing, goalpost moving and contradictory comments before you fall out of the boat. You have a good night.

I honestly have no idea wha... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to make. You're nitpicking over figures of speech.

You first said:
...if Prejean was interested in winning...
Suggesting she didn't care about winning.

So if I said, "If McCain was interested in winning, he wouldn't have picked Palin", are you going to claim I'm saying that McCain literally was not interested in winning?

And then once again, you tell me that Shawn's comment, which I called metaphorical, was a metaphor.

If you're calling my comments broadbrushing, goalpost moving, and contradictory, I assume that you're at least understanding them. I, on the other hand, can make no sense of yours.

brian - "Her religion c... (Below threshold)
marc:

brian - "Her religion compels her to reveal her personal feelings about gay marriage upon demand, regardless of circumstance?

I repeat, you're a twit. She's compelled to tell the truth when asked that question.

brian - "What else would she be compelled to reveal?"

That you're a twit.

hyperbolist,<blockqu... (Below threshold)
maggie:

hyperbolist,


And conservatives need to shut the f*ck up about "traditional marriage"
unless they start bleating about the evils of divorce at an equal volume.

Your stereotyping grows old. I suspect there
are socialists, communists, and liberals who
are also married. And your foul suggestion of quelling others freedom of speech, you are out of line.

Brian -What she sa... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Brian -

What she said is what she said. She was asked for her personal opinion - and gave it. She wasn't asked for a hypothetical answer, or told beforehand "Tell this nasty little jerk whatever you think will make him happy."

There IS a significant difference between "I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman" and "I think it should be decided by the states".

The former is what she said. The latter is what you apparently think she should have said.

You are apposolutly right. ... (Below threshold)
Adam:

You are apposolutly right. And Hyperbolist she want ask a question about divorce, she was asked a question about gay marriage. If she was asked a question about divorce then it would be a different story.

I dont understand something... (Below threshold)
Pretzel Logic:

I dont understand something here, why doesn't Hilton want to bitch slap the President? He has opposed gay marriage and in no uncertain terms.

I vote for Brian to be Miss... (Below threshold)
Barrett E. Brooks:

I vote for Brian to be Miss America

She's compelled to tell ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

She's compelled to tell the truth when asked that question.

"That" question? Ah, so you care only about her holding her ground regarding gay marriage, but not, say, about whether she likes baseball.

I repeat, you're a twit.

Heh, keep using that strong logic of yours.

'Cause he's a DEMOCRAT, Pre... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

'Cause he's a DEMOCRAT, Pretzel! LOL...

Seriously, it's a good question. Could it be because he's assuming the Prez is lying, and will put out an executive order in due time?

Maybe it's because OBAMA hasn't given that answer to his face, therefore he can ignore the whole subject? Out of sight, out of mind and all that...

I mean, here's this yucky white woman saying to his FACE that she doesn't support gay marriage. How the hell DARE she do that! To HIM!!!!

Makes me wonder if 'activist' types like him think that hysterical outrage will win folks over where calm reason won't. Regardless, I think he just lost some more votes in CA for the next gay marriage proposal.

I honestly have no... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to make. You're nitpicking over figures of speech.

Which figure of speech? The one where you said it didn't appear that she cared about winning, or the one where you said winning was "clearly" important to her? From now on, I'll regard all of your comments as just a "figure of speech" and a figment of everyone's imagination, because not even you can see what you wrote.

And I second Barrett's vote.

Brian -Hate to say... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Brian -

Hate to say it, but it really doesn't make sense for you to keep attempting to reframe the argument to hypotheticals that didn't occur, that we don't have sufficient information on to answer.

What does her thoughts about baseball, which to my thinking doesn't much bear on gay marriage, have to do with her answer to Hilton's question?

What she said is what sh... (Below threshold)
Brian:

What she said is what she said. She was asked for her personal opinion - and gave it. She wasn't asked for a hypothetical answer, or told beforehand "Tell this nasty little jerk whatever you think will make him happy."

Once again, this is a beauty pageant, not a political campaign. Everything about these girls is carefully crafted to make the judges and audience happy.

There IS a significant difference between "I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman" and "I think it should be decided by the states".

I believe the position of many on the right is that abortion should be illegal, and that it should be decided by the states. There's no conflict in those two positions.

Try applying this position to a less incendiary topic and see if you disagree.

The former is what she said. The latter is what you apparently think she should have said.

Once again, I gave that as an example of a neutral answer that would have served to avoid upsetting one half of her audience or another. Or a cranky judge. There are many other honest, truthful, legitimate neutral answers to choose from. I'm not going to spoon feed them to you.

correction, *not even you c... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

correction, *not even you can see what you wrote.

"I'm not going to spoon fee... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"I'm not going to spoon feed them to you."

That's a good thing, because from you they would contain additives not at all healthy.

Which figure of speech? ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Which figure of speech? The one where you said it didn't appear that she cared about winning

Yes. As I said, and which you skipped over:

So if I said, "If McCain was interested in winning, he wouldn't have picked Palin", are you going to claim I'm saying that McCain literally was not interested in winning?

I think now you're just being obstinate.

What does her thoughts a... (Below threshold)
Brian:

What does her thoughts about baseball, which to my thinking doesn't much bear on gay marriage, have to do with her answer to Hilton's question?

I just wonder if the question was about a non-political, non-divisive, non-incendiary topic, would you really give a damn if she gave an evasive non-answer?

I don't get the argument that a Miss USA contestant must give a straight up-or-down answer on gay marriage, but not on anything else.

I take that back, Brian. Y... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

I take that back, Brian. You're a shoe-in for Miss Teen U.S.A.

"I just wonder if the qu... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"I just wonder if the question was about a non-political, non-divisive, non-incendiary topic, would you really give a damn if she gave an evasive non-answer?"

Brian - what I'm giving a damn about is that the woman answered honestly according to her feelings, and you're not at all happy about that. You seem to feel that was the wrong move, because if she'd said something else she might have won.

If that's the way you really feel, your ethical sense is situational. You would have her lie if it would give her an advantage over telling the truth. Trying to pretty it up by changing the argument to another topic, or not calling it lying, or reframing the entire debate over to baseball doesn't hide the fact that you think that her being honest in this situation wasn't the thing she should have done - that you think she should be dishonest according to her own ethical values in order to win the pageant.

I wonder what your response would be if, after shopping for groceries, you were to go out to your car and find a rather expensive looking purse in a cart next to your car.

Would you open it up and grab any cash or valuables then take it inside and give it to the store management?
Or take it inside without opening it?
Or just leave it?
Or leave it after grabbing the cash?

At what point does your own personal sense of honesty and ethics kick in? Is it the point which maximizes your return? At the point that maximizes the return to the person who lost the purse? Or some intermediate point where you get something and the purse gets returned?

If that's the way you re... (Below threshold)
Brian:

If that's the way you really feel, your ethical sense is situational. You would have her lie if it would give her an advantage over telling the truth.

No, I repeatedly said this has nothing to do with lying, and I never said she should lie. Here's an EXAMPLE (I put that in caps so people will stop claiming I'm trying to tell her what to say):

"That is a very personal issue to a lot of people, and while I may agree or disagree with some of them, states will continue to make the decision that they feel is best for them."

Show me the lie in that statement.

It has to do with the question, not the situation. Hilton tried to trap her. His goal was to cause a scene, one way or another. Instead of thwarting him and winning, she played into his hand and lost. You may call her "classy" for doing so, but I think she had other options.

I'm not saying she gave the wrong answer. I'm not saying her answer was akin to "I hate Jews" or anything unforgivable. If she wanted to say "I'm opposed to gay marriage" in her acceptance speech, I couldn't care less.

I'm saying that when someone tries to play you, play them back.

What if he asked what her greatest sin was, and she said something like, "everyone has their failings, and I have mine, and I've made my peace with God." Would you claim that Perez Hilton is such a commanding figure that his presence compels her to give a straight answer? Would you call that answer a lie?

What other questions would she be required to bluntly answer before a live audience, simply because they were asked by his lordship Perez Hilton? "Have you ever cheated on a boyfriend? Is there anything you don't like about God? Have you ever stolen anything? Have you ever kissed a girl? Do you think George Bush has made the country less safe? Is Obama a good president, or a great president? What do you think of black people? Do you have any black friends? What's your opinion of inter-racial marriage? What do you think of pre-marital sex?"

If you say that she's required by circumstance to provide straight and honest answers to all those questions, I'll at least give you points for consistency.

"You may call her "class... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"You may call her "classy" for doing so, but I think she had other options."

She, obviously, didn't.

"I'm saying that when someone tries to play you, play them back."

Oh, in other words, don't tell what you REALLY think if you think it'll put you at a disadvantage, when you're in a situation where you'll be judged by your answer.

In other words, honesty - to you - is a situational thing. She would have had an advantage if she'd been dishonest, therefore she should have taken that advantage if possible.

"What other questions would she be required to bluntly answer before a live audience, simply because they were asked by his lordship Perez Hilton?"

They WEREN'T asked, Brian. You're attempting to muddy the situation with hypothetical questions.

I think Brian is dead wrong... (Below threshold)
braininahat:

I think Brian is dead wrong on this.

Prejean should be given credit for choosing whether to play it safe or candidly express her opinion. She decided that the title and benefits of Miss America didn't outweigh betraying her own sense of integrity.

If anything, we know that it's more important for her to speak candidly about an issue which she feels strongly about (at least this issue)than to softshoe an answer for pragmatic reasons.

If you think there's a better alternative, then you need lessons on character from Carrie Prejean. She certainly doesn't need advice from anyone here, because she's already proven her wisdom.

It seems the extreme leftie... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

It seems the extreme lefties have a hard time with the concept of truth and honesty. Who woulda knows? I admire her. I bet she knew as she was giving the answer she was losing. That is integrity.. Another foreign concept to you lefties.

I believe marraige should be between a man and a woman. I know, you say you already knew that about me, and I do, but that statement, word for word is Barry's.

Hyper, 20years from now, if the left keeps going the way they are going, we will all be muslims and beheading homosexuals. ww

She, obviously, didn't.<... (Below threshold)
Brian:

She, obviously, didn't.

Really? She was required to say what she said? It was predestined? She was under some kind of Jedi mind control? Was she given a script and told to recite it verbatim or her family would be harmed? She couldn't have skipped that first sentence she said and only said the second? She couldn't have skipped the second sentence and only said the first? Your claim is that she had NO OTHER OPTIONS but to say exactly what she said?

That position is absurd on its face.

Oh, in other words, don't tell what you REALLY think if you think it'll put you at a disadvantage, when you're in a situation where you'll be judged by your answer.

No, it's don't allow a putz to abuse his position and put you in a detrimental situation that he has no right to put you in. It's stand up for yourself and stay in the game instead of letting someone like Perez Hilton use you as his prop. I'm not sure why you think so highly of Hilton and so little of Prejean that you think she had no right to foil his plan.

In other words, honesty - to you - is a situational thing. She would have had an advantage if she'd been dishonest

If your debate tactic is to repeatedly lie about what I've said until I tire of setting you straight, it's working. For now, I will stop doing so, and instead challenge you to show one time I said she should have been dishonest. I also challenge you to identify the dishonesty in any of the myriad examples I provided of things she might have said instead.

They WEREN'T asked, Brian. You're attempting to muddy the situation with hypothetical questions.

You mean like "what if you were to go out to your car and find a rather expensive looking purse"? Questions like that?

Hypotheticals are useful to test if you really believe the principles you are espousing. Your claim is that a person is morally required to give stark yes-or-no answers to questions posed by a celebrity blogger on a TV show, and they are not morally allowed to recognize the question as a trap and cleverly avoid the trap. I asked if you would hold that position with other questions. At least my hypotheticals stayed on topic.

In other words, honesty ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

In other words, honesty - to you - is a situational thing.

By the way, you're the one making this situational, not me. You refuse to engage in discussion around any other thing she might have said, or any other question she might have been asked. My argument applies in any situation. You make this about gay marriage, but I see it as being about not allowing someone to use you for his political purposes while still maintaining your integrity.

Woo-hoo! Post #100! And wit... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Woo-hoo! Post #100! And with that, I'm done.

barrett e brooks - "I v... (Below threshold)
marc:

barrett e brooks - "I vote for Brian to be Miss America"

How is that possible?

brain was in the miss USA pageant.

Nice try, Brian, but some h... (Below threshold)
max:

Nice try, Brian, but some here are either deliberately arguing past you, or simply too thick to understand your argument.

Yeah, Max, we're all just t... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Yeah, Max, we're all just too thick to see past Brian's sophistry. I'm old fashioned, I guess, in that when you don't tell the truth about something, you're lying. There are mitigating circumstances, of course - as in when you don't have all the information you need, or your own CIA and other national intelligence agencies feed you crap - but in general if you answer something and aren't honest about it, most people will consider that you're lying.

And at this point, I'm pretty well convinced that Brian's managed to persuade himself that the situation trumps everything else when it comes to honesty. He can argue it left, right, and sideways - but in the end that's what it comes down to.

This is about context. There's no requirement that you have to give a straight answer about your personal or political values anytime some schmuck comes up to you and requests one." says Brian.
Unless you're in a situation that requires you to be honest. As in an interview, in a pageant. No gun was being held to her head, so it was okay for her to give a PC answer - which according to Brian wouldn't have been lying. It wouldn't have been how she really felt - but far better to NOT tell some schmuck how you feel than lose a pageant, right? So it's okay to lie at that point.

Although it would have been... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Although it would have been fun to make my exit at #100, I just can't pass up the inanity of JLawson's last comment, which ignores everything I previously asked him, continues to lie in saying that I said Prejean should lie, and continues to hide behind the false claim that my argument is situational when I repeatedly demonstrated that it isn't.

I'm old fashioned, I guess, in that when you don't tell the truth about something, you're lying.

Not old-fashioned; just argumentative.

OK, then here are my questions to you: What is your full name, address, and phone number, and what are the names of your wife and children?

And remember, if you don't tell us the straight non-evasive truth, then you're lying.

No gun was being held to her head, so it was okay for her to give a PC answer - which according to Brian wouldn't have been lying. It wouldn't have been how she really felt

See, there's your problem. You equate a neutral answer with "not how she really felt". You're not very clever if you can't come up with an answer that is both honest and neutral.

but far better to NOT tell some schmuck how you feel than lose a pageant, right?

I dunno. I try to not let schmucks control my destiny and prevent me from reaching my goals.

So conservatives put R... (Below threshold)
Brian Richard Allen:

So conservatives put Robert Byrd over the top? Who knew? >>

And knew that but for the Republicans fighting the War Between the States (AKA the "Civil War") for the liberation of slaves, for Republicans' remarkable, unbroken 160-year string of civil rights achievements since then and for their almost total support in the face of the vehemently racist Ku Klux Klannist "Democrats'" throughout the Civil Rights years and in support of every pro-Civil Rights' act ever passed into law -- the endemically and systemically-racist "Democrats" would treat America's "minorities" even worse that they do today. To be "Democrat" is to be racist.

Conservatives also, of course, knew that David Duke was essentially a "modified Marxist." That is, he was what the inventor of the term, Mussolini, (whose moronic mobbed-up murtadd Muslim empty galabia of and ideolgical twin presently besquats and bemanures our once most hallowed house) called the first "modified Marxist," himself: a Fascist. Or, by any other name: a "Democrat."

Brian Richard Allen
Los Angeles CalifO'ZEROcated 90028
And the Far Abroad

"What is your full name,... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"What is your full name, address, and phone number, and what are the names of your wife and children?"

You have no need to know. You aren't interviewing me, nor am I obligated in any way to respond to you with that information. If I were interviewing with you for a job, then it would be relevant. On a blog? Not so much.

"See, there's your problem. You equate a neutral answer with "not how she really felt". You're not very clever if you can't come up with an answer that is both honest and neutral."

Obviously she wasn't neutral on the subject. If she had been, then she could have fobbed off some bullshit answer and maybe won. But she spoke her mind, and lost.

Hmm, so you avoided answeri... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Hmm, so you avoided answering my question, and yet you are not lying. Interesting that you managed to do both simultaneously.

Yeah, I even gave my reason... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Yeah, I even gave my reasons - in that it's none of your business.

Of course, such an answer would have given Mr. Hissy a fit also.

such an answer would hav... (Below threshold)
Brian:

such an answer would have given Mr. Hissy a fit also.

Sorry, it really doesn't make sense for you to keep attempting to reframe the argument to hypotheticals that didn't occur, that we don't have sufficient information on to answer. (Heh.)

Still, acknowledging that it's possible to avoid answering a question without lying is a major breakthrough for you.

"Woo-hoo! Post #100! And wi... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"Woo-hoo! Post #100! And with that, I'm done."

Aw, you're such a tease. I thought you really meant it. And of course, your only real fan is the one whose gray matter compelled him to agree with your huge block quote with, "Brian's right.", as if you said it.

to agree with your huge ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

to agree with your huge block quote

It did? How so? I also had four non-blockquoted comments before that (including one after the blockquote). That's a good talent you have, to know without context exactly which comment he was referring to.

"That's a good talent you h... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"That's a good talent you have"

Yes. Yes it is. :)

I also wanted to add, Brian... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

I also wanted to add, Brian, that you have a way of hijacking a comment thread into a wormhole with no destination.

You know, President Obama, ... (Below threshold)
Kate:

You know, President Obama, who represents ALL Americans, answered the same way, "marriage is between a man and a woman," and no one threw a hissy fit. So nice that a program which pretends to empower women allows such an abusive cyberbully to be the judge.

All it takes is a little vo... (Below threshold)
Erin:

All it takes is a little vocal bigotry for a person to be swept up as the new darling of the right-wing. Maybe I should share my opinion of how I don't think gays should be allowed to share my water fountain, then I could probably get a book deal with Coulter's publisher.

I suspect that no one ever ... (Below threshold)

I suspect that no one ever told Perez Hilton that "beauty comes from the inside"

Let's keep in mind that whi... (Below threshold)
Thuyen:

Let's keep in mind that while Hilton may be the biggest jerk of them and the most blatant, the other two judges Shanna Moekler and Alicia Jacobs also took shots at Miss Cali, piling on, accusing her of lacking in social grace, compassion, etc. Jacobs in her blog, before she deleted it, took shots at Carrie over her breasts and said if she could, she would have placed her 51st.

According to them, she is supposed to give an answer to the question that represents all Americans. But they also say she did not answer the question.

They wanted it both ways.

If she had given answer that would have been neutral, it would essentially not have answer the question at all on which side of the issue should the states go, and explain why or why not. That is after all the bs excuse given to why she did not win.

But if she had given a statement that played along with the judges' own prejudices, that would hardly represent all Americans. (Funny, they don't use that argument on Obama, who as President, represent us, though he by the way opposes gay marriages.)

That kind of question asking her to pick sides on an issue requires not many people to agree with the answer. The arguments the judges throw there strike me as disingenous. Her answer represent majority of Americans. The judges are dead wrong there.

For all their talk of tolerance and social grace as supposedly lacking in Carrie, none of them take Hilton to task for his behaviour and lack of social grace that he has displayed for years, not just this event.

That shows me the judges are in need of social grace and tolerance themselves. Carrie was the one beng tolerant stating her views without attacking anyone personally and since then has avoided attacking anyone on personal level. Cannot say the same for any of the judges who spoke out.

If they did not want her to bring her politics and religion in, don't ask a question loaded with both. Period.

But this occurs me...given that they know her Christian background, as judges, my take is that, unless somehow they did not know (ignorance plea), they are the ones who have no compassion to ask her that knowing that she is conservative Christian, knowing her answer most likely will be then bashing her for it.

All you homophobic ignorant... (Below threshold)
William:

All you homophobic ignorant people against gays, prove nothing except the fact that you don't know any gay people or have any clue what life is like for gay people. I didn't choose to be gay and if you ask most gay people, I'm sure they will tell you that at some point in their lives, they prayed to your same god asking him to take away pain and shame they were feeling as a young child. Asking him what they had done to deserve to feel different, to be treated different. Blaming themselves, "Was it because I was mean to my sister, or because I lied to my teacher?"
Can you imagine what that is like for a child, that hasn't even reached sexual maturity? No, I guess you can't or you wouldn't be writing such nonsense. The fact of the matter, is that you are so worried about something that doesn't concern you, the real picture is being missed. You're the one's going to hell, and if think it includes gay people, it sure sure as hell includes homophobic gay hating bastards like all of you. Gladly see you there, I'll be the one sitting next to Satin watching each and everyone of your souls fry.

Carrie Prejean, I don't kno... (Below threshold)

Carrie Prejean, I don't know what to think of you. I love you for giving an opinion. I really respect taking a stand on something, instead of telling the big lie.

But then I find out that wonderful brain cooked up a scheme to gain fame and honor based on fake boobs. That I cannot support.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy