Media ignore falsehood in Miss California's same-sex marriage response
SUMMARY: Numerous media figures have suggested that Carrie Prejean lost the Miss USA pageant because of the "honesty" of her response to a question about same-sex marriage. But the suggestion that Prejean was merely giving her opinion ignores a factual falsehood in Prejean's response.
Following Carrie Prejean's first runner-up finish at the 2009 Miss USA pageant, numerous media figures have claimed that Prejean, Miss California, did not win because she "supports traditional marriage" and suggested that she was punished for giving "an honest answer." For instance, during the April 21 edition of CNN's No Bias, No Bull, CNN contributor Roland Martin asserted: "I still can't get over Miss California getting raked over the coals for giving an honest answer to a direct question. She doesn't believe in same-sex marriage, and she said so. And it may have cost her the Miss USA crown." But in asserting that Prejean was merely giving her opinion, these media figures ignore a factual falsehood in Prejean's response.
During the pageant, when asked by pageant judge Perez Hilton whether states should legalize same-sex marriage, Prejean responded: "Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage." Prejean continued: "And, you know what? In my country, and in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman." However, contrary to Prejean's claim that "Americans are able to choose one or the other," only a handful of states have legalized same-sex marriage or recognize same-sex marriage licenses from other states.
By contrast, on the April 20 edition of No Bias, No Bull, correspondent Erica Hill stated that "we have to look at the facts of the question, and some of the facts in her answer. Maybe that's more the issue here, is she said it's great that in America we have a choice, but yet that choice is only available in five states." Hill added that discussion of the controversy "should be more about whether or not the facts in the answer were accurate":
HILL: But, also, we have to look at the facts of the question, and some of the facts in her answer. Maybe that's more the issue here, is she said it's great that in America we have a choice, but yet that choice is only available in five states. So, perhaps it should be more about whether or not the facts in the answer were accurate, and whether or not it was a coherent answer, as someone who you would want representing the country, not necessarily the opinion. Those are some of the questions that the pageant would have to answer.
Other media also suggested that Prejean was punished for her opinion, without noting the inaccuracy in her response. For example:
- During the April 20 edition of Fox News' On the Record, host Greta Van Susteren asked: "Did her gay marriage answer cost her the crown?" Fox News correspondent Courtney Friel later asserted: "I've known Carrie Prejean for a couple of years now, and she was just really, really stuck in her convictions that she wanted to, you know, get that answer out, that God really tested her faith and her character by giving her that question that she had to answer in front of millions and millions of people. And she's glad she did it honest." Friel continued: "Perez asked for an opinion. He gave it back to her."
- During the April 21 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly repeatedly discussed the controversy, asserting, "It looks like Miss California lost the Miss USA pageant because she supports traditional marriage," and, "21-year-old Carrie Prejean may have lost the Miss USA contest because she supports traditional marriage."
- In an interview with Prejean during the April 21 edition of Hannity, host Sean Hannity asked, "If they're asking for an honest answer -- I mean, did you have to be dishonest or politically -- ?" Hannity went on to comment: "[T]here's a lot of people cheering you tonight that you stood on your principles, that you put the principles above winning." Later during the "Great American Panel" segment, Fortune magazine's Nina Easton claimed that "it's a freedom of speech question," adding: "The level of abuse that we saw here -- that we saw over Proposition 8 in California, is you're not allowed to express a different view."
- During the April 21 edition of No Bias, No Bull, Martin commented: "Now, look, I'm trying to figure out, what's the big deal with Miss California's answer to a question about same-sex marriage? Of course, she was asked, she answered. Miss California, Carrie Prejean, gave her honest opinion. So, is there no room for her honesty anymore?"
- During the April 21 edition his Fox News show, Glenn Beck said of the controversy: "Whether it's torture, gay marriage, or global warming, we need to protect the right to speak one's mind freely. Is this America or Soviet Russia? Right now, you can only say whatever you want -- I mean, as long as it's the politically correct point of view. This doesn't bode well for America."
From the April 20 edition of Fox News' On the Record with Greta Van Susteren:
VAN SUSTEREN: Miss California is in the hot seat, big time. She answered a question at last night's Miss USA pageant that has set many on fire. It is her answer to a question about gay marriage from Perez Hilton, a judge in the pageant and a celebrity blogger.
[begin video clip]
HILTON: Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?
PREJEAN: Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage.
And, you know what? In my country, and in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think that it should be -- between a man and a woman. Thank you.
BILLY BUSH (host): Thank you very much.
[end video clip]
VAN SUSTEREN: Perez Hilton quickly attacked Miss California on his blog.
[begin video clip]
HILTON: Let me explain to you: She lost, not because she doesn't believe in gay marriage, Miss California lost because she's a dumb [beep], OK?
[...]
HILTON: Miss California, with half a brain, I would have said: "Hmm, Perez, that's a great question. That's a very hot topic in our country right now, and I think that that is a question that each state should decide for themselves, because that's how our forefathers designed our government, you know. The states rule themselves, and then there's certain laws, which are federal."
[end video clip]
VAN SUSTEREN: Miss California was first runner-up, or is first runner-up in the contest, and the buzz tonight: Did her gay marriage answer cost her the crown?
Fox's Courtney Friel joins us live. Courtney knows Miss California, and she's spoken to her since the competition.
Good evening, Courtney. And what did Miss California have to say?
FRIEL: Hi, Greta. Yeah, I've known Carrie Prejean for a couple of years now, and she was just really, really stuck in her convictions that she wanted to, you know, get that answer out, that God really tested her faith and her character by giving her that question that she had to answer in front of millions and millions of people. And she's glad she did it honest.
Perez asked for an opinion. He gave it back to her.
From the April 21 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: All right. Directly ahead: It looks like Miss California lost the Miss USA pageant because she supports traditional marriage?
[...]
O'REILLY: Factor follow-up segment tonight: As we reported last night, 21-year-old Carrie Prejean may have lost the Miss USA contest because she supports traditional marriage.
From the April 21 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: What -- if he's going to ask a question, it shouldn't be based on what your answer is. If they're asking for an honest answer -- I mean, did you have to be dishonest or politically --
PREJEAN: That's how I've always -- I've been doing pageants since I was 17 years old, and I've always been told that you're not judged on what you say, but how you say it.
HANNITY: Yeah.
PREJEAN: And they should never judge you on your opinion. And I think with a question like that that's so controversial, either way, I was either going to stay true to myself and stay true to my beliefs and my faith and stay strong with it, or I was going to give into him and say --
HANNITY: Did you -- did you think at that moment that -- all right, this -- I know you said at one point that, at that moment, you knew that that was a controversial question, and you actually went on to say that you felt God was testing your character and faith.
PREJEAN: I do. At that moment, I was getting ready to answer my question, and I started saying I think that Americans, you know, we have the right to choose. But then something inside of me said, "Carrie, stand up for what you believe in and say how -- what you feel and represent the majority of California. You're Miss California. The majority of voters believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman." And -- and --
HANNITY: You have also said, and a lot of other people believe it, as well -- and I believe it also, based on looking over how the judging goes on -- that if you had been given another question, you would have won this competition.
PREJEAN: I can't tell you how many times I've heard that.
[...]
HANNITY: I think this is -- there's a lot of people cheering you tonight that you stood on your principles, that you put the principles above winning.
PREJEAN: Yeah.
HANNITY: And not enough people do that. And I admire you a lot for it.
PREJEAN: Thank you very much.
HANNITY: It's very nice to meet you.
[...]
HANNITY: All right. Let's start with -- we just had on Miss California, the Miss USA contest. And she gives an honest answer in a very benign way.
Nina, I think the way Perez Hilton -- the rant, A, B, C -- horrible words used against this poor girl for taking a view the majority of Americans have.
EASTON: I'm sorry, Sean. As I was watching this, I was thinking, who else has the same view? Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton -- Barack Obama supports civil unions. He doesn't support gay marriage. You know, it's like -- and he didn't -- he didn't have to undergo the same level of abuse that she underwent. I mean, the, you know, the level of abuse that was thrown at her.
Now, the good news for her is that she's going to be -- her future is far more bright now --
JOE PISCOPO (actor): In this building.
EASTON: -- politically, in this business --
PISCOPO: Right here in this building.
EASTON: -- than ever being just, you know, Miss USA. She's got a great political future ahead of her.
HANNITY: But it's not just that. Joe, look, in all seriousness, we do have some political disagreements.
PISCOPO: Yeah.
HANNITY: So what? She was asked a question, and unlike some of these past pageants, what do you think about this? "Well, I want to solve world peace, and I want to -- and homelessness." She gave an honest answer --
PISCOPO: Yeah. Yeah.
HANNITY: -- that many Americans disagree with. For her to be treated this way is beyond the pale, and this guy owes her an apology.
PISCOPO: You're right. And I'm upset at you for not inviting me over when you interviewed her. I walk in, my buddy, Sean, who I love -- you've got Miss California and Mr. New Jersey. Come on, it's a perfect setup --
HANNITY: You know --
PISCOPO: -- and he doesn't call me. When I come in, where'd she go? What happened? I'm the old guy, Sean. I need all the help I can get.
HANNITY: Listen, we purposely -- I let her go out the other exit. I mean, you know [inaudible].
PISCOPO: But you're right, you know, but it was -- the question was forced. It was inappropriate, I thought. And -- but I have to tell you, I'm anti-marriage, so I'm the wrong guy to talk to.
HANNITY: You are in the middle of a divorce.
PISCOPO: [Unintelligible] I'm not talking about gay -- I love -- I love the gay community, a big proponent of the gay community. Don't get married, please. Just have fun. Just -- no -- [unintelligible] should be upset about.
HANNITY: What do you think?
BRAD BLAKEMAN (Republican strategist): Look, she's not running for governor; she's not running for senator. She was there in a beauty pageant. She's a beauty queen, not a drama queen like the person who asked her the question and set her up.
I think she did a beautiful job. She spoke from the heart. As Nina pointed out, this is what America believes. Why is she being castigated by a few for the beliefs of many?
HANNITY: Now, I just had a chance to spend some time with her and interview her. You know what I liked the most? Is she knew the answer that people would probably want to hear, that would win her the pageant, and she didn't give that answer. She put her values, her principles, her faith, ahead of her ambition.
And I'm thinking, what a great role model, because so many kids and so many people in life, they're pressured to take positions or do things because that's what society tells us to do.
EASTON: Well, it's -- I mean, it's a freedom of speech question. And, you know, I don't happen to agree with her, but you know what? The level of abuse that we saw here -- that we saw over Proposition 8 in California, is you're not allowed to express a different view.
BLAKEMAN: And also --
EASTON: Or you're racist or --
BLAKEMAN: -- it was directed to her personally: What are your views? Not what -- do you speak for millions of other people. How do you feel? That was the question, and that's what it was asked, and that's what she delivered.
HANNITY: Listen, I agree --
EASTON: And I also saw --
HANNITY: -- I agree with her.
EASTON: I saw a commentator --
BLAKEMAN: I do, too.
EASTON: -- there was a commentator who insisted that, well, OK, that's fine, that if Barack Obama supports -- doesn't support gay marriage, but, you know, you should have just said, "Leave the question to the states."
It's like, I'm sorry, she's -- you know, she's a Miss America -- Miss USA contestant.
HANNITY: Yeah, I mean --
EASTON: What do you expect her to say?
HANNITY: No, but she's a very bright young -- young lady. And Joe, look, I just think the left needs to stand up and say, you know what? This is still America. You're still entitled to your views. And you ought not be excoriated and called these names by the judge, of all people, in this -- in this contest.
From the April 21 edition of CNN's Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull:
MARTIN: Plus, I still can't get over Miss California getting raked over the coals for giving an honest answer to a direct question. She doesn't believe in same-sex marriage, and she said so. And it may have cost her the Miss USA crown.
[...]
MARTIN: All right, folks, I'm surrounded by a bunch of women tonight -- Jessica Yellin, Lisa Bloom, Erica Hill, and Jane Velez-Mitchell here.
Now, look, I'm trying to figure out, what's the big deal with Miss California's answer to a question about same-sex marriage? Of course, she was asked, she answered. Miss California, Carrie Prejean, gave her honest opinion. So, is there no room for her honesty anymore?
From the April 21 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: Now, in a completely unrelated story, Miss California believes her answer to a question about gay marriage may have cost her the Miss USA crown. She said she's proud that she stuck to her beliefs and wouldn't change her response.
Wait a minute, I just realize -- well, they do have something in common the last two stories. It's weird. Whether it's torture, gay marriage, or global warming, we need to protect the right to speak one's mind freely. Is this America or Soviet Russia? Right now, you can only say whatever you want -- I mean, as long as it's the politically correct point of view. This doesn't bode well for America.
From the April 20 edition of CNN's Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull:
JANELL SNOWDEN (host, VH1 News): The job of Miss America pageant, or contestant, is to smile, look pretty, and give diplomatic answers that do not offend vast sectors of the population -- to give safe answers, essentially. She did not give a safe answer.
MARTIN: Well, she gave an honest one. Erica, was it an appropriate question to ask?
HILL: Well, you know, it's an interesting question, but I think Janell raises an interesting point, too, in that when you're looking at it, I don't know if the answer is -- if the question is so much is it an appropriate question to ask, but maybe, did she do her job in the answer? As Janell said, should she have been more diplomatic? Possibly.
But, also, we have to look at the facts of the question, and some of the facts in her answer. Maybe that's more the issue here, is she said it's great that in America we have a choice, but yet that choice is only available in five states. So, perhaps it should be more about whether or not the facts in the answer were accurate, and whether or not it was a coherent answer, as someone who you would want representing the country, not necessarily the opinion. Those are some of the questions that the pageant would have to answer.
How does BO the genius know she would have won? I guess it is a score like a Football Game.
If it follows the usual pattern they will make her a bigger star than the actual winner while going on about how she was robbed.
No, both 'judge" hilton and donald trump said she lost because he scored her low on that question. So basically, she spoke what she believed, and because it was not PC and liberal left approved, she lost.
She was rated low because of the way she answered the question, not because of her philosophy though.
She didn't have a good enough vocabulary to be able to say "heterosexual" marriage - she said "opposite". There were a couple of other clumsy things she did in her answer, as well as the falsehood about gay marriage across our nation. It's that clumsy response, and not her philosophical bent, that doomed her chances.
Her answer was barely coherent. A third grade teacher giving an oral exam would have marker her low on that answer even if they were diehard republicans. This STILL doesnt show she lost because of her opinion. You are like Hannity you think because she gave a conservative answer even one that was less articulate than most could have given if English was their FOURTH LANGAUGE, she had a RIGHT to win, since she was being conservative. At least my claim has as much to back it up as yours.
Sure, she should have just said she wished for world piece...
When did that become a Conservative point of concern? If she would have said that, the Cons would hate her.
Oh come on! So she was factually wrong in answering the question. Big deal. She told the truth about her inability to answer questions correctly and for that she should be rewarded - more so than the contestant who's answers to questions that did not contain falsehoods. Come here, failure, it's reward time!
This is one of the most ridiculous items here in a long time. Her answer was NOT incorrect. Just because gay marriage is not legal in every state does not mean that she was wrong when she said it was a choice. The simple fact is the because some idiot like Perez Hilton did not like her answer, he scored her low and she lost.
She gave an honest answer that many in the country agree with and support. And where is the outrage about Perez calling her s dumb B after the contest. Yea….thats real great behavior from a judge in the contest. Had he been called a name based on his sexual orientation there would have been outrage…..be he…..as a judge, calls her that and no one here cares. It shows how pathetic the left really is, and their total lack of the tolerance they demand from others.
I agree he shouldn't have called her that. Has anyone defended him?
after, not during, being the main point of part of the argument...
One person says something, and that means the entire left is wrong? That shows how pathetic YOU are.
And since when does the left demand a "total lack of tolerance" from others? WTF are you even saying?
Exactly, and the Conservative Right Wing Media will be having story after story about this moron for days now.
BTW, don't blame California....
I won't blame California...I live in San Francisco...and we don't do anything wrong here!
I cannot believe this woman even made it to represent California. I'm sure there were smarter, prettier contestants with more talent than this bimbo. Hell, I probably would have rooted for Peaches Christ before this "lady".
Sadly, Californians voted in a manner that matches Miss California's views -- in fact, voted to TAKE AWAY the right that had finally been acknowledged by the courts.
Could it be she lost because she gave a sucky answer to a question? Or maybe her talent wasn't so good. I don't know. Does it even really matter? It's a freakin' beauty pageant, and I'd like to see them done away with anyway. Anyone ever see that show Toddlers and Tiaras?
Agreed. Beauty pageants suck. I think this episode serves as another reminder that the folks who keep losing in elections and losing on the issues will go just about anywhere in pursuit of fake wins in false contests.
That's pretty much the excuse they made for Palin. They actually thought a trailer park bimbo with looks would win over women everywhere and turn the election into a landslide for Gramps and Cramps.
Anyone ever see that show Toddlers and Tiaras? mag
That show creeps me out!
Indeed. Those mothers, yikes man, just yikes. Those kids should be playing in sandboxes, and you know, getting dirty, not having their legs shaved. I'd just about say that it's child abuse, these parents, living very vicariously through their kids. I love it when they say something like, "I wouldn't let her do it, if she didn't want to do it." Yeah, right lady. Kids, at that age, are into pleasing their parents and making them happy. I'd like to see a follow up show in about 10-15 years showing the fallout of the early beauty pageants for this kids. I'm betting more than one ends up with serious issues.
Those kids should be playing in sandboxes, and you know, getting dirty, not having their legs shaved. - mag
Or getting a spray tan! Next a "brazillian wax". Sexualization of children is just not good.
When I happened across the Miss USA pagent on the idiot box I have to say I was a bit shocked. I would never have guessed one of the networks would be carrying such a program in prime time. I just thought that was left behind in the 80s for some reason.
Maybe she meant to say "U.S. Americans".
"... and such as."
It may not have been an intentional falsehood. Her answer was really kind of nonsensical and hard to follow. I think she's just dumb. I am willing to have sex with her though. To prove that I don't hate her. ;)
That's just not going to get old.
both sides are being disingenuous with all of this. Her defenders are victimizing her plight unnecessarily, but the left is hardly as concerned with this falsehood as they are with her stance on gay marriage, let's not kid ourselves. They are just jumping on that as an excuse to say she's stupid.
Dude, this issue has only one side. Cons are running her in some "Public Victim #1" contest all by themselves. I'm sure they'll win, it's a very thin race.
would mmfa be as concerned with this falsehood of hers if she had a given a response supporting gay marriage? Of course not, then her falsehood would be given a pass.
Jimmy, the MM item isn't about her falsehood, it's about the media ignoring her idiocy in order to frame her as a victim and promote their agenda.
I cant believe this is so difficult for you every day.
"the MM item isn't about her falsehood" It isn't? Read the headline here, or is that too difficult for you?
Media Matters would not be correcting this conservative misinformation if it did not occur several times in the media. But how the heck is this correction by Media Matters "an excuse to say she's stupid"?
read the Colonel's reply, perhaps I should have been more specific. mmfa is not saying she is stupid, they are just providing a convenient vehicle for their posters to use her falsehood as an excuse to call her an idiot.
Your variations on WITH? are getting very creative.
I agree, they're becoming so multi-layered crazy, it's like an art exhibit.
No, MMFA only used this as a chance to go after Fox. Plain and simple.
This item played on every network - even far left MSNBC, as well as CNN, NBC, CBS, etc. It also appeared with much the same implied 'outrage' in most of the main stream newspapers. IT doesn't take much to see that this was nothing more than a chance to go after Fox. And please, if MMFA is going to make an issue out of Hannity letting Nugent use the "B" word then they should be going after Perez for his actions - not the beauty contestant.
The fact you think the home of Joe Scarborough is far left shows without a doubt you have lost all touch with reality.
Make a list of the main "Names" at MSNBC and you will fall off the left. It is the home of the ones that get tingles down their legs and use silly college stupid humor to try and attack those that do not follow their tingles with blind faith.
There isnt a single pundit on MSNBC as far left as I am and my wife makes me look like a moderate. To get as far left as Hannity or Cavuto is right you would need Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn. As for the tingle down his leg you are truly delusional if you are saying Matthews who told us Bush shines with a sunny nobility, that he is like Atticus Finch and went on about Romney in a way that was a huge embarassment is a far lefty.
"There isnt a single pundit on MSNBC as far left as I am"
so you are then some barometer for anyone who calls MSNBC liberal as being unfair? And that is your answer?
NO. Had he called MSNBC liberal I still wouldnt have agreed but I wouldnt have complained he said they were FAR LEFT. That is a different thing and frankly ridiculous.
parsing idiocy again.
How true, Tommy. You really should quit.
HOwever, I do notice you fail to disagree with the Fox premise noted above.
It was a statement without substance. They GO after conservative media in this story I dont care if they were all on Fox. IF you cant show the substance of the criticism is lacking then it just doesnt matter whether they were on Fox or not. You cannot logically defend something like this by poining out they were all Fox pundits unless you can show the flaw in the criticism itself. Did you think being on Fox news was some kind of protection against criticism?
They put Scarborough on when no one is watching to dispel the left wing tag. Isn't that pretty obvious. Do they have any conservative representation in prime time?
They're making an issue about Hannity because Hannity uses a double standard. He's only offended when it's politically expedient.
Most of us don't care about Nugent using any specific word.
We just don't like hypocritical, cowardly, Chickenhawk douchebags.
That was an intelligent post, congrats.
IT doesn't take much to see that this was nothing more than a chance to go after Fox.
Oh... poor Fox.
And don't go thinking that JamesB is Tommy.
Both are paid per post but Tommy tried to get a raise and they hired Jimbo and let poor Tommy go. James underbid and got the "WITH" contract.
(If this doesn't smoke out Tommy, I don't know what will).
I think Tommy got laid off when Bush went out of office, and had to renegotiate a contract with some other organization on the right.
You dont seem to think the media HAS any responsibility to give an accurate story do you? MMFA would have run NO story about this at all if Hannity, O'Rieally et al were not out there snivelling that she didnt win. IF they are going to say she lost ONLY because her answer was defending traditional marriage they REALLY ought to include the paltry fact that it was FACTUALLY INCORRECT. Again this site is about the media not about beauty pageants
James,
Her answer was vaguely coherent. The media keep perpetuating that she's been a victim of something, don't know what, the loss maybe, because of her answer, when the truth is, her answer was horrible. It didn't really make much sense, and didn't frame her in a very good light as to the width and breadth of her intelligence.
I understood exactly what she meant in her answer, it may have included this falsehood but she is saying what she believes on gay marriage, I don't agree with it, but I don't find it incoherent. And yes, the Fox-ers are making her out to be a victim, which is ridiculous. And nobody knows if her answer cost her anything, so that is pure speculation.
Come on now this is PARSE and SCORE MMFA. ONly here would we slice an answer to say that free to choose is a falsehood because that is not true throughout the enitre 50 states and their territories. Talk about trying to make a sil purse out of a sow's ear.
THis is plain and simple - a figure in a very public setting shose to say what she believes - I aaplaud her actions because in our effort to be PC we have become a sterile nation unable to deal with anything for fear we offend someone. I say get over it - everybody is not going to agree with everything.
WWWAAHHHHHHHH she gave a barely coherent opinion factually incorrect but it had a conservative message so she should have won WWWWWAAAHHHHHh let me shoehorn something about PC here even though no one tried to arrest her for her opinion she was just criticized by OTHER OPINIONS but WWWWAAHHHHHH cons should be able to give their opinions WITHOUT others criticizing them. You better believe we are going to criticize YOUR opinions but it is so PC when you criticize ours WWWWAAHHHHHHH.
yep. Her falsehood is not what has liberals upset, it's her stance on gay marriage. But they have to be a little careful with that because Obama agrees with her, and they are having a very hard time reconciling that. so they aim their arrows at some silly falsehood she made in order to go after her, but make it look like her position on gay marriage has nooooothing to do with that. baloney.
JimmyB & wordly - maybe take it offline and get the stories straight (no pun). Is the MMFA article attacking Fox or the beauty queen also-ran?
i cannot believe all the naive liberals around here today. no, mmfa is not attacking anyone. what they are doing is putting this up here under the guise of being offended at the media's ingoring of her falsehood, which is flat out disingenuous and ridiculous. The falsehood is so minor and insignificant, read Brabantio's take on that below, even in the question Hilton asked her he made it clear that only 4 states have legalized gay marriage. So it was naturally ignored by most, it's too silly to even criticize someone for. And that is the rub. Zero in on that and put that in the headline then you can open her up for easy criticism from the left WITHOUT having to address her gay marriage opposition; because that would come across as intolerant and could easily be accused of a double standard because the left NEVER criticizes OBama for his exact same position as hers. As I said, disingenuous on both sides.
This is critisisim of the media, not politians, not beauty contestants. This exists here because conservative media is speading a falshood about why someone lost a contest.
In my opinion it's up here simply because she can't take losing well and is milking fox and other like minded media figures to assuage her inner hurty. Like you, I could really care less what she said, but the simple fact is the right is milking this one too. That's what I see as the problem MMFA is pointing out.
no, mmfa is not attacking anyone. JB
Really? Cause now I'm confused as to your point and worldly's point.
No, MMFA only used this as a chance to go after Fox. Plain and simple. - worldly
so they aim their arrows at some silly falsehood she made in order to go after her - jamesb
I cant believe the DUMB conservatives that refuse to aknowledge the SIMPLE FACT that if there had been NO conservative media play on this issue. THERE WOULD BE NO STORY HERE. That is a FACT. You know it. I know it. Everyone here knows it and yet you continue to push this imbecilic storyline that MMFA wanted to attack HER.
So why then did MMFA assert that she commited a falsehood?
Why are so many people on here making a case about her flasehood?
Why? Because she took a stand for something many of you disagree with. I say too bad.
If however, as many of you assert MMFA is going after the conservative media then given the universal coverage I guess all media must be conservative??!!
Because as a matter of fact, had her statement been true, I would have very little to complain about.
If Americans actually did have achoice to choose homosexual marriage or heterosexual marriage and have that choice legally recognized throughout the United States, she could believe that real marriage in the eyes of God should be between a man and a woman. She could also believe that divorce is against the teachjings of Jesus (which it is). Or she could believe that a woman could be divorced for being barren. Any blessed thing.
If this had been 1964, and she'd been asked about segregation, and she'd said "It's great to live in a country where anybody of any color can live anywhere they want, patronize any store they want and marry a person of another race--however I do think the races are better off separate"--she'd lose because people would think she was crazy.
If she had reversed the order of her statements "I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but I think it's wonderful that we live in a country where people can choose gay marriage or straight marriage", the righties would not be so happy, because that's NOT the CPC position--and the lefties' criticism would remain unchanged: she doesn't live in that country.
The falsehood is so minor and insignificant
Then we're agreed that there was a falsehood, and presumably agreed that it was ignored in much of the media.
Ludicrous. Bottom line if Hannity and O'rielly had not brought this lady up there would be NO STORY HERE ABOUT HER. You KNOW that is true so your very premise is frankly ridiculous
it may haI understood exactly what she meant in her answer
Hard to imagine, given how poorly she articulated her answer. I think the fact that there's debate on what she was saying we could "choose" demonstrates she wasn't clear in responding.
but she is saying what she believes on gay marriage, I don't agree with it, but I don't find it incoherent.
Yeah? When's the last time you used the phrase "opposite marriage?" She sounded like a seven year old. I heard her quoted as saying that she studied for the quesiton and answer section, and that's the best she could do? If that's the result of studying, then man, she must be one seriously poor student.
And nobody knows if her answer cost her anything, so that is pure speculation.
Untrue. Both Hilton and Trump have acknowledged that her low score on that question lost her the crown.
mmfa is not saying she is stupid, they are just providing a convenient vehicle for their posters to use her falsehood as an excuse to call her an idiot. JamesB
MMfA doesn't post to give their posters a vehicle to ridicule anyone.
She clearly has problems - we've heard and read her comments. "Opposite" instead of "heterosexual"? Come on.
The issue is the media ignoring her falsehood when covering this story of her being named 1st runner up.
And who brought this up to begin with? The Troglodytes are feigning outrage about this just so they can blame something else on political correctness... let's not kid ourselves.
I don't disagree, she is no victim but her falsehood is not what has a burr in the left's bonnet, it's her stance against gay marriage.
What do you mean by "the left"?
i don't respond to your moronic questions, remember the thread earlier today when I told you to go away, you effectively got dozens of posts yanked, twice, for asking one stupid question after another. This could be a three-peat for you. go away.
No. I won't go away. The fact is, "the left" are not having this fight with "the right" over "the victim" from "the beauty contest". You can pretend it's a two horse race but it's not. It's just the right playing the victim again.
Exactly, the left doesn't really care about Miss runner up California's stance on same sex or gay marriage. The right are the ones hyperventilating about this, because they say because she wasn't PC enough, she lost.
I don't care about her stance on gay marriage. Not at all.
I think the burr is the fact that the FOX morons are trying to make her a victim of "liberalism".
I wonder what these Troglodytes would think if a pageant contestant spoke out against our Middle East adventurism... and subsequently lost? Would they blame her loss on jingoism?
i agree with what Fox is trying to do with her, you get no argument on me on that. But I don't believe her falsehood is some big deal, and not what caused all the fuss for her. It was stance on gay marriage that did that.
I think you're getting closer, James.
coming from someone who read this headline about the media ignoring her falsehood and then proceeds to tell me this item isn't about the media ignoring her falsehood at all, I'd say you're not very close at all.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. The Col NEVER said it wasnt about the media IGNORING HER FALSEHOOD. He said it wasnt ABOUT HER FALSEHOOD. Please tell me that you can understand this distinction.
he said this item was not about her falsehood, which is in direct contrast to what the headline says.
No it isnt. I guess you CANT see the distinction. This story is NOT about her falsehood. There would have been NO STORY about her here at ALL except for the media frenzy claiming victimhood for her. The Col was correct.
don't embarass yourself. I love it when liberals come here to defend these items by insisting it's all about the media and zilch about the person being covered. give me a break. some may believe that nonsense, not me.
Look closely. You will see I am destroying your silly premise and it is YOU embarassing yourself. Try reading the mission statement. You KNOW this story wouldnt be here if it hadnt been a big whine on Hannity and Obullyboys show. Ya got nothin. You are being both silly and petulant
oh and you look even sillier when you parse to defend parsing.
You only look dumber and dumber if you cannot follow the logic any reasonable ten year old would find obvious
Now Solon, Tommy is just trying to make us jealous, 'cause he's got "opposite marriage" in his country (California) and we just are stuck with marriage. It's pretty exotic in the Golden State. When you add hydrogen fuel, it can't be beat.
But I don't believe her falsehood is some big deal. JamesB
Neither do we. But the absence of reporting that mentions that falsehood is the big deal. It's the media, stupid.
With all that is going on in this nation and the world and MMFA and their lemmings want to make a national issue around the fact the media failed to splash across the front page a headline that a beauty queen commited a falsehood - this country is doomed if you liberals don't elevate your game tremendously.
Huh? Worldly missed the point again, but nevermind. He'll come round another day and miss another point, and another, and another.....
Agreed it's a trivial story. The fact it's being blown up by the hannitys etc shows how little substance they have.
What is it with your sweeping statements about 'the left'?
The "burr" (I think you mean to say "bee") in "the left's" bonnet is about all of it. Her position is repugnant, that she would utter it and then say "No offense" as though that absolves her of anything... Yeah, those who support same sex marriage found her answer repugnant. They also support her right to hold and utter that position.
That's separate from what MMFA is highlighting, which is the fact that she also was inaccurate in her response, and that much of the media has ignored that innaccuracy.
you're right, it was a bee. but I think you contradict yourself a little. you imply her "no offense" comment should not absolve of her anything, but then you say you support her right to hold that position. If you support her right, then what does she need to absolved of? I too support gay marriage, as you know, but I don't find her answer anymore than her personal opinion. I don't agree with it, but I wouldn't hide behind some silly falsehood in criticizing her or slam the media for ignoring something so insignificant. As I said, this isn't about that, it is in fact about gay marriage and the "left's" disdain for her opinion,
How is it a contradiction to say that someone can hold views that I find offensive? I defend her right to hold those views. What I don't defend is her desire to use her religious views to take away rights from others. I completely defend her right to be a bigot.
I'm saying there are two issues here. MMFA points out what it believes is a falsehood in her comments, and states that this falsehood is being ignored by big portions of the media. Due to Miss California's incoherence, the "falsehood" in question is debateable by reasonable people. But that is in and of itself a single issue.
There's also the issue of her opinion. Many of us find it repugnant. Nobody here is backing away from saying it is a repugnant view, nor that it's simply her point of view.
You seem to be asserting that MMFA brings up its issue in order for us to have a soapbox to talk about same sex marriage. Assertions on your part demand proof on your part. So far, I've seen none to satisfy your assertion. Restating your opinion over and over isn't proof.
Oh, and following up her bigoted position by saying "No offense" doesn't mean that no one was offended by her repugnant views. That's just more idiocy on her part worthy of point deductions. Usually when one says "no offense" in that manner, it's right after they know they said something offensive.
To be fair, I truly do think she lost because of her opinion. It was a setup question...
To be fair, it's a friggin' meat contest. They just ask these questions to pretend that they care what these women think. All that really matters is how they look.
Can we at least be honest about that?
Yup. During the clip there she was, looking great in her white bikini striding across the stage.
I admit I watched twice just for that part.
To be fair, I truly do think she lost because of her opinion. It was a setup question...
In a sense, all of the questions are "setups". The questions were chosen from a set of a dozen submitted by the judges. Six were included in the set put before the contestants. At that point, the contestents chose randomly from the questions.
There were a number of ways she could have answered the question in a non-controversial fashion. And that's the job of Miss USA -- to talk about a whole bunch of stuff (as though her opinion really matters) "Oh, I love America and all it stands for, and when this moment in our history passes, we as Americans will continue to be proud of who we are, what we are, and what we stand for, and shake hands as we always have."
What she essentially went through was a job interview. She demonstrated that she couldn't leave her own opinions aside while answering a question, and instead had to push her own views out there, despite the fact that (supposedly) she represents us all, or at the very least, she represents the Trump-owned Miss USA pageant. It's not her place to be controversial. Instead, she actually has to be able to field questions like that and not stick her foot in her mouth.
So what if 55% of Americans (or whatever the number is) agrees with her? That means that 100%-n% disagree with her. A Miss USA who has said something like that has failed. Miss California demonstrated that were she Miss USA, she would fail in that role.
But.... see..... all conservatives are VICTIMS now, since Karl Rove's permanent Republican majority turned out to be not so permanent.
PREJEAN: Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage....And, you know what? In my country, and in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think that it should be -- between a man and a woman. Thank you.
Am I reading that right? "In my country"? That would seem to suggest that America should have only heterosexual marriage, yet it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other.
The question dictated that not everyone has the right to same-sex marriage, so I'm not sure anyone should take her answer absolutely literally. I don't know if she's talking about something theoretical, or saying "Americans" instead of "some Americans" or whatever. But in its entirety the answer does come off as sort of dumb and inconsistent.
fair enough assessment
Plus, it contains one of the classic cop-outs, "that's how I was raised".
When somebody gives that as a reason for anything, it means they haven't learned to think for themselves yet.
So if we were raised to respect elders, or open doors for the ladies or to help those in need and when asked why we do it we say that is how we were raised it means we don't know how to think?
This is stooping way low to contradict a statement - but why did I expect anything more from this crowd.
Good lord, man. Why does anyone need to contemplate manners or respect for the elderly? That's wildly different from accepting "gay people shouldn't get married" just because that's how your parents thought.
Plus, it contains one of the classic cop-outs, "that's how I was raised".
Duuuude, didn't you hear it when she said "no offense?" No offense, man!
so I'm not sure anyone should take her answer absolutely literally.
Were it that anyone actually COULD take her answer literally.
I personally believe that, U.S. Americans are unable to do so, because, some... people out there in our nation don't have maps, and I believe that our education, like such, as in South Africa and the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and I believe that they should... our education over here in the U.S., should help the U.S., er, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future for our children.
You know, if Carrie Prejean had won, conservatives would use this by saying "See? Americans don't support gay marriage!" and they would have used that as an excuse to say "See, gay marriage is wrong!"
Honestly, when Prejean said, "In my country" that did her in. That and "opposite marriage". Plain and simple.
That and "opposite marriage".
Is that the same as divorce?
Maybe this woman lost because of her attempt to be Painesque.
She should know that short, sincere, to the point answers are better accepted by everyone, including those people who'd disagree.
But once you start saying that in my country and in my family and opposite marriage and same marriage, people see that there isn't much between the ears and they tend to tune out.
Normal people that is.
Maybe this woman lost because of her attempt to be Palinesque.
The problem is that she didn't answer the question she was asked: should all states allow gay marriage? Why or why not?
Instead she said she thinks marriage is between a man and a woman. Well OK, but should all states allow it or not? I guess she is under the impression that her personal belief should be legislated in all states.
If she had just responded to the actual question, she would have been better off maybe.
We're still talking about a beauty pageant, right?
B.S. She gave her honest opinion to a question and has been ridiculed for it. Perez Hilton, the guy that asked her the question, called her a "stupid b1t$$" on his blog but yet MM won't mention that. So for MM to talk about facts and falsehoods is a joke.
Why is Hilton's blog relevant to this? How does it make her answer any more intelligent, coherent or consistent?
Because he is the idiot that asked the question. It is relevant because he didn't want an honest answer, he wanted a politically correct answer.
I've heard him talk about this, and he listed some other things she could have said which would have been more intelligent. Had she said something that made more sense, and he scored her low, your argument would have a lot more merit.
he wanted a politically correct answer.
Which is Miss USA's job: to given non-controversial questions that supposedly represent all of us, not just the half of America that agrees with her. Her job is NOT to stir up controversy.
So, yep, I'll bet that's part of why she lost points. The other reason is because she sounded like a preschooler.
(of course I meant non-controversial answers.)
but you can't blame the question on her, it was a controversial question to begin with and requires an answer that will tick off somebody with tender sensibilities, for sure. It was a stupid question asked by an idiot in a contest very few watch and even fewer care about, let's be honest. the only answer that would be non-controversial would be for her to say she has no opinion one way or the other, and that would have lost her the crown for sure.
Sorry, but no. Unless you live in a world where everything is black and white, the question does NOT require an answer that will tick off half the population.
I already posted one possibility, and there is an infinitum of others. From my other post: "Oh, I love America and all it stands for, and when this moment in our history passes, we as Americans will continue to be proud of who we are, what we are, and what we stand for, and shake hands as we always have."
Essentially, she was on a job interview to be Miss USA. The job description of Miss USA includes, in part, to not be controversial. What do you suppose would happen if a Miss USA, while on a press junket, spouted some racist nonsense? They'd be invoking that "in the event that Miss USA cannot fulfill her obligations" clause so fast it'd your shoes would fly off. So part of her task the other night was to answer a difficult, controversial question as politely and intelligently as she possibly could without annoying half the populace.
When you're asked in a job interview to list your three weaknesses, do you go into detail on how you take too long in the crapper, can't be trusted with a color photocopier, and you have a habit of sexually propositioning hot customers? No, you find another way to answer the question honestly that doesn't lose you the job.
She failed at that task. She lost the job.
And besides, even if someone's always going to be offended, it makes a difference who that person is. Some people are still not happy about mixed-race marriages. Does anyone care if they're offended by someone's views or actions?
The two options of ticking off this group or that don't hold the same dynamics. To say something outright homophobic would offend people because it's bigoted and restricts people's rights. To say something like "I think people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they're not causing harm" is not bigoted or restrictive to rights. It doesn't personally affect those who disagree with gay marriage. With one group it's much easier to understand and accept their disapproval than the other.
She gave her opinion and part of it was factually incorrect. If my OPINION was that the Earth was flat it would still be factually incorrect. YOU are a joke for trying to deflect from the substance of the story which is the sorry snivelling of conservative pundits.
Yet again, you are wrong. She did not say is was legal everywhere, she said people had a choice. She was clearly correct.
No I am not wrong. As is almost always the case YOU dont know what you are talking about and you just flat dont read very well. She said
We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage."
Unless that WE meant something OTHER than America we DONT live in such a land, the HUGE majority of Americans do NOT live in such a land so she was factually incorrect she didnt say SOME of us she said WE. This is actually quite simple.
I really think the "falsehood" angle isn't the best one to take here. If the question had been "what do you think of gay marriage", that would be one thing, but the question asked established that only a few states allow it. Unless she was napping during the question, I think it's fair to take her answer in that context, and give her some slack for the inaccuracy in the first part of her answer. In extemporaneous speech there is a "you know what I mean" factor at play.
Obviously her answer wasn't well-worded though, and after that point it became horribly confused and inconsistent. That's the tack I think MMfA should focus on, since that really is a valid reason for low marks whether you agree with someone's sentiments or not.
Solon does not care if he is accurate or not. He does not care that some states do allow gay marriage, and therefor it is a choice. Trying to use facts and logic on him is a waste of time.
Wow. You believe in opposite truth! I'd advise you to read his response again, but it probably won't help you.
some states do allow gay marriage, and therefor it is a choice.
You don't actually believe that, do ya? So I have to uproot my entire life and move somewhere else if I want to be married to the person I love? California, for one, would not recognize a same sex marriage from Iowa. That's hardly a fair choice.
I certainly agree that context is a huge part of this. The question was asking if gay marriage should be available in OTHER states. To THEN say she is glad WE live in a land where it IS available when the point of the question is that it ISNT cant really be seen as accurate by any reasonable person pov obviously doesnt qualify. IF she had been from Vermont I would give her the point. She is from California where it is NOT available. I think the context works against her not for her. Now I wouldnt call her a liar but I cant see why ANYONE would dispute it when I say she was factually inaccurate. Except of course POV who couldnt care less about anything except being a jerk
But at the same time, anyone can go to Iowa and get married. It's not convenient, by any means, but it is there.
It just seems to me that if she had a coherent answer that included this statement, pointing it out would seem to be on the weak side. I just wouldn't see how it would justify giving her low marks in itself. And because of that, it doesn't seem like the relevant point regarding the ridiculous victim act that's going on here.
But at the same time, anyone can go to Iowa and get married. It's not convenient, by any means, but it is there.
Problem is that that marriage won't be recognized in a majority of other states.
That's true. For some reason I thought Full Faith and Credit was applicable there. I guess the groundwork for that is there, at least, which will establish recognition at some point.
Solon,
We will use this absolute literal test the next time an item is about what a liberal talking face nmeant or did not mean. I will hold all of you on here that are adamantly convinced she commited a falsehood to the same standard in the futre as we debate the prgress of Obination.
must be cocktail hours for mr. worldly. making prgress, are we?
Worldly, Is this something new?
Silly Solon! UP is DOWN and the grass is black, you fool!
She gave her opinion that marriage is between a man and a woman. She also said that gay couples are free to decide on getting married or not; they can move to a state that allows it. Luckily, California is one of those states that does not allow it so if gays want to get married, move :)
And until you DO move you do NOT live in a land that allows you to chose that option. Fortunatly for YOU California is one of those places where bigotry trumped personal freedom. I guess that means YOU prefer bigotry. That is certainly your choice. Good luck with it
If that is considered BIGOTRY, then I guess i am ALL for it then! Fortunately, it isn't bigotry. Marriage has been around for how long??? I think it has survived very well without the homosexual agenda. It makes me even HAPPIER that more voters believed what I believe at the polls. :)
"Marriage has been around for how long???"
Not quite as long as homosexuality has.
=)
I love the bootycall.com commercials. Rightwingers need advertisements to show them how to get laid...
http://www.bootycall.com/
Your side lost at the polls in November. So fewer voters believe what you believe.
Yeah its bigotry. Marriage has been around a long time and it USED to include gay marriage in many places ancient Asia, America before the pilgrims and so on. However tradition is a very bad argument. The argument YOU just used was one of the same ones they used to support miscegenation laws. Now everyone aknowlegdes that was pure bigotry. In the end you guys are going to lose this argument. Get ready it might take ten years twenty or more but in the end you are on the losing end of this one I guarantee it.
You might wanna actually read about the history of marriage. It has long had more to do with property rights than anything else.
But thanks for admitting you're a bigot.
Solon,
I guess the only two issues on which the Libs prefer personal freedoms are same sex marriage and abortion. Libs consistently wish to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution are socially expedient to them and which parts are not.
If the people of an sovereign state vote for same sex marriage the Libs say "it's the will of the people." If the people vote against same sex marriage, then the Liberal hounds throw the issue to the courts, just like they did in California.
If someone tries to shoot down the 2'nd Amendment, Libs see that is acceptable even though it is unconstitutional. If however someone tries to oppose same sex marriage, then the Libs like to refer to the part of the Constitution which supports their cause.
Therefore I wonder; Are you guys (Libs) in support of Constitutional rights for all, no matter which political party, race, sex, sexual orientation, amout of income, or whatever elso, or are you guys only supportive of some parts of Constituition directed towards some blocks of our society? I mean you can't have it both ways forever.
Miss California gave an answer and she was nervous, she was nervous because she had split second to make a decision if she would give an answer that is P.C. but against her beliefs, or to stay true to her convictions and be true to herself. Anyone out there that is rational and good observer would have noticed that the hesitation in her voice and slight verbal diarrhea was due to that and nothing else.
For those of you that think that you would have had a more stellar answer given that you were asked a touchy question in front of touchy audience in front of all of those cameras and people, I must tell you that you have most likely never been in the similar position, otherwise you would understand.
<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:1; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
Duh - the winner of the Miss USA pageant has to be able to answer questions like this throughout her reign. Her inability to do so with regard to this question is a perfect reason to rate her poorly.
Miss California gave an answer and she was nervous, she was nervous because she had split second to make a decision if she would give an answer that is P.C. but against her beliefs, or to stay true to her convictions and be true to herself.
This assumes that there were only two answers she could have given: "I'm against gay marriage" or "I'm for gay marriage." In fact, there are a jillion different ways she could have answered this question without invoking any controversy. Sadly, too many conservatives see the world as black and white, and fail to see the shades of gray that fill the vast expanse between the two.
The gay marriage issue in California was determined by the courts to begin with, based on their Constitution. Where have liberals tried to override a state Constitution by voting for gay marriage?
As for the Second Amendment, it's not absolute. The Supreme Court has determined that firearm possession can be restricted and regulated, so any laws passed in that regard are not unconstitutional. So what exactly leads you to believe that there's some picking and choosing going on here?
YOU are a joke for trying to deflect from the substance of the story which is the sorry snivelling of conservative pundits.
Your posts would carry more weight without the name calling. It gets really tiresome.
Zamfir, I never realized Perez Hilton was a member of the msm.
He was offered a show on MSNBC along with the guy who threw the shoe at Bush,. Nothing but the best for the National Barack Chanel.
The guy who threw the shoe at Bush would probably be a much better host than Billo the clown.
Your post had a pretty lame ending, and bad spelling, too....
Wow, bad spelling, how terrible. Why don't you scroll down a little further and defend your hero Kennedy some more.
He's my hero, now? You really have an amazingly odd perception of what you read.
I guess I don't see where the "falsehood" is. In certain parts of the US, same sex couples can get married and there are no border fences or other impediments that stop those so inclined from moving to those states and getting "married" if that is their choice. (or if that is not enough, move to certain places in Europe, but I wouldn't try the Middle or Far East.)
You don't really believe that's a fair choice, do ya? Maybe we should let the South outlaw mixed-race marriages then, too, because hey, they can always move somewhere else if they want to get married.
Fact: During these contests, the judges and producers know everything about the contestant down to their political views.
Fact: They set her up by having that filthy degenerate ask a question that they knew what the answer was going to be.
Fact: The filthy degenerate acknowledged his snivelling hate towards the beautiful Miss Prejean on his vulgar and disguting blog. Clearly demonstrating his obvious predisposed position towards her.
Fact: Nothing she said was untrue, incoherent, or stupid.
In my country, meant just that: In the country she lives in, when the matter is put to the people, the degenerate lifestyle subscribers lose every time. Just as it did in California. You liberals just grasp at straws and fling poo like monkeys, it will stick somewhere. Thankfully it only sticks in your cage. That's why you people reek of the filth you throw.
And because I am right, I wonder how long it will take for MMFA to get rid of this *cough* item because of my being right, like the difference between Uzbekistan and Venezuala. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
If she thinks that there should only be heterosexual marriage in her country, then why is it such a good thing that everyone has a choice in the matter?
Yeah that made no sense to me either. "Choice is great! I want to get rid of choice! Woo!"
The answer was idiotic, no matter what her opinion is.
Your use of the language of bigotry shows you have no decency nor are worth wasting time on. You are a bigot plain and simple. There is no denying that. I am ashamed to be the same species as you. You are an embarassment to decent Americans everywhere. The hate in your heart is as ugly as the emptyness in your head.
I think there is no emptiness in his/her head. It is too filled with anger, stupidity and ignorance. You need a lot of space for those items. There is plenty of each for the Limbots and the SeannietheSissy types.
Come on Dose, give us a real Dose of Your Reality say it, come on say it, you got it in you sayit..okay I will PALIN-PREJEAN 2012. The PeePee duo forever.
Yes I have seen how you decent Americans treat people of other opinions than your own. It was particularly evident in the treatment of Sarah Palin. Not to mention Joe the plumber who had the audacity to ask your guy a legitimate question. They refer to a war hero as gramps, and worship at the feet of a murderer like Kennedy who went home to bed and let a woman die. You should be very proud of them.
Gee, you've got all the cliches down pat. Let's see....treatment of Sarah Palin. Hmm, who blew her all up out of proportion to what she was capable of? Who put her face in front of the cameras, then sniped behind her back...
Joe the plumber doesn't even have a license and had no ability to buy a business. He was a plant for the McCain campaign, and unfortunately, didn't have the intellect to understand Obama's very straight forward answer to his question.
You have a problem with gramps? How about grumps. Making a plaster saint out of McCain didn't work very well, considering his inconsistent behavior and flip flopping.
Then we have the 30 year old story of Ted Kennedy. Yeah, you've got that always to negate all the good he's done. You can sleep proud of yourself tonight. Congratulations.
Your response says alot about you and your values. I happen to agree that Palin was not ready for prime time, so to speak but does that give anyone the right to attack her personally and her family. Even Obama saw fit to speak out against that. But you see nothing wrong with it. I see many on the left when addressing the waterboarding issue say that the ends do not justify the means, its too bad they didn't apply that standard when dealing with Palin. I still see the occasional post on here from the Palin haters about her family. You all stand for a woman's right to choose, until that woman chooses other than the way you would, then it is attack. Joe the plumber, it doesn't matter what licenses or financial means he had or didn't have, all he did was ask a question of the untouchable one and the democratic government in Ohio set out to get him and investigated every aspect of his life. Talk about big brother. But I guess the end justified the means in his case also. Were you upset at the democratic plants that were reported at some of the debates, I doubt it. And now gramps, or grumps as you refer to him. Any man who would spend an extra day in a aPOW camp rather than take preferential treatment over his buddies deserves your respect not your scorn. You should be ashamed of yourself. But your defense of the "Lion of the Senate" is the most telling of the true values of the left or the lack of values I should say. I still also see reference to Bush and Cheney's DUI 's pretty regularly here. They are pretty old too, are they not? They count in your mind, don't they? Did Bush's 30 year old national guard record matter, apparently they did. But Kennedy's record, that does not count. And his actions actually caused a woman's death. While he slept peacefully in his bed, she gasped for air in the wheel well of his car. But he knew he could not report the crime while he was still drunk. Think of Mary Joe Kopechne tonight when you put your head down to sleep. Then come back and tell me about all he has done. In the jungle, the mighty jungle, the lion sleeps tonight. http://www.ytedk.com/index.htm
Please use some paragraphs. thanks. I haven't said anything about Palin to you, and not much to anyone else, and did not attack her or her family. I wish them the best. You ignored my point, that the McCain campaign spread crap about her. He ran an ugly campaign; we're not talking about his Vietnam service. I didn't want him for President because of his policy positions, period.
As far as Sen. Kennedy, I'm glad that a higher judge than you will be assessing his life. How small of you. Really.
You criticised my post about Palin which addressed the hypocracy of many left wing positions. Now you say that you didn't say anything to me about her, try reading your own post again.
Okay, I Meant that I didn't critise her to you. I mentioned that the MCCain campaign is the one that put her out there, then tried to discredit her. That is in no way an attack upon her.
Palin is a radical. Joe asked a stupid question based on some fantasy life he didn't actually have. I really don't see how "Gramps" goes beyond the boundaries of decency, and Kennedy made a horrible mistake forty years ago.
Besides that, you're making wild, broad generalizations while solon was addressing one person's behavior. It comes off as a knee-jerk reaction. Do you really think DOR's post is worth defending?
First off , I would love to know what makes Palin a radical in your mind. And even if everything you say is true about Palin and Joe does that justify personal attacks against them. Does it justify the democratic government of Ohio investigating him? And I am not making wild broad generalizations, I am making specific and accurate statements about hypocritical conduct from the left.
Palin palled around with secessionists and thought that rape victims shouldn't get emergency contraception. Do you want to argue those things aren't radical? Conservatives wanted to make hay out of Obama's church, while Palin's church had people speaking in tongues and protecting people against witchcraft. It also seems very much like she did try to ban books at the public library.
What do you consider a personal attack? Is saying that Palin is a religious nut who shouldn't be trusted with power a personal attack? It seems sort of fair to say, considering she was going to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. My impression of Joe's investigation is that it was inappropriate, but I don't know how that applies to liberals in general. Why is someone here guilty of mistreating those with opposing views because someone in Ohio was playing dirty for the sake of politics? My impression was you were talking about public reaction, and the reaction to Joe the Plumber was appropriately condescending. The man has absolutely no clue about anything he talks about. For anyone to pick him as some sort of mascot is absolutely insane.
"And I am not making wild broad generalizations, I am making specific and accurate statements about hypocritical conduct from the left."
Yes, the generalized concept of the left. How do you know that any specific charges apply to solon? By that logic, nobody on either side can ever criticize anyone for anything, because you can always find some disreputable behavior in either ideology. DOR made a bigoted post, and he got called on it. If you want to defend him specifically, do so, but don't give us this crap about how nobody can criticize him for it because liberals aren't nice to radical conservatives.
Did you think that Obama was a radical for palling around with the likes of Ayers or a racist for his relationship with Rev Wright. it seems that there is some disagreement with your claims. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia15-2008oct15,0,2147926,full.story http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_sarah_palin_make_rape_victims_pay.html And libs all over the place were all over Joe the plumber immediately, just because he asked a question and even before he became any kind of a mascot. You are right however about my response being "knee jerk" and perhaps unfair to solon because I do not know what his feeling are on the topics I raised. He was just reacting emphatically to a comment he found objectionable. But in a general sense my remarks are fair and accurate.
More recently, after she was picked to be Sen. John McCain's vice presidential running mate, her spokeswoman Maria Comella told USA Today that the governor "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test." Comella declined to answer questions about when Palin found out about the practice and what, if anything, she tried to do about it. Fannon, who is no longer the chief of police, has not spoken to the press either.
Eric Croft, a former Alaska state representative who sponsored the 2000 legislation, told CNN that "I find it hard to believe that for six months a small town, a police chief, would lead the fight against a statewide piece of legislation receiving unanimous support and the mayor not know about it." But Croft, a Democrat, says he does not recall discussing the issue with Palin at the time.
That's really compelling. First off, the point about her not knowing about this issue is a good one. More importantly, the bolded wording is key. It was never an issue of whether Palin wanted people to pay for "evidence-gathering" or not. Victims of burglaries, for instance, don't pay for "evidence-gathering". Emergency birth control was the issue.
As for the AIP, why did Palin send a video message to them after winning the Governor's race? What is the purpose of associating herself with them at that point in time? I've also seen a high-ranking member of the organization claim that Sarah Palin was a member, but the party wouldn't verify it because their records didn't go back that far. I'm not sure what the definitive denial of her membership is based on.
"Did you think that Obama was a radical for palling around with the likes of Ayers or a racist for his relationship with Rev Wright."
Do you think the Republicans on that board were radicals for palling around with the likes of Ayers? No, of course you don't, because Ayers was mainstreamed at that point. I'm still not sure what Wright has said that is supposed to be "racist".
"And libs all over the place were all over Joe the plumber immediately, just because he asked a question and even before he became any kind of a mascot."
Were they? The first I heard of him was during the third presidential debate, when McCain was repeatedly invoking his name as some sort of everyman hero. Again, his question was idiotic and based on a fantasy life. He was in no position to buy any business, and in the meantime Obama's tax plan was better for him than McCain's. Why shouldn't he be ridiculed for that?
And your refusal to tackle even the simplest of my response that your minute mind can handle demonstrates that you are a coward pure and simple. There is no arguing or debating with a liberal genius such as yourself, as you will cry, whine, temper tantrum and refuse to face the facts head on.
You must be looking in a mirror.
"I know you are but what am I" Are you a five year old?
What are you? A crying, whining, petulant adolescent who throws temper tantrums and refuses to face the facts head on...other than that, I'm sure you're a decent guy...and are probably happily in an opposite marriage.
Fact: She picked a number at random, that number decided which judge she would get. Nobody knew in advance who would be asked which question by which judge.
Fact: you have no clue what you're talking about.
But the judge still knew all he needed to know about her, perhaps he had different questions prepared for different contestants. Fact, you have no idea if that is true or not.
Fact, you don't know either. Perhaps you just don't want to accept that she bobbled the answer with incoherent babble.
Mary, Be kind. You realize that the Conservatives are on a losing streak. But hey, Cons, Superman was in a slump in Number 2, I think.
They lost this one and now the three martyrs of the Cons are Sarah, Carrie and Joe. Maybe all three will run against each other in the primary. These are the poor people who somehow were cheated in life and deserve to be taken care of by the ConMedia. Above, I considered Palin and Parjean as the ticket, the PeePee girls. But now, Joe the Plumber, the third P, has to be considered.
There's jobs for everyone! Maybe they could all run for mayor of Wasilla...
"But the judge still knew all he needed to know about her, perhaps he had different questions prepared for different contestants.
Fact, you have no idea if that is true or not."
Clearly some think Ms. Prejean is a bimbo while others think the judge "rigged" the Q&A. There is only one option here for wingnuts: fly in Jack Bauer to torture everyone associated with the issue and run it live on Fox. Waterboarding, wet t-shirts, a little sodomization--what's not to like? They could bring in Charles Graner and Sabrina Harman as special guest 'interrogators'. Limbaugh and Coulter could be special guest hosts for the event. Fawlty and Amerika needs to know--what is the truth here? Surely a little torture will help us find out.
You obviously failed basic reading comprehension.
You obviously need a bigger dose of reality.
In the piece from Erica Hill - that "... we have to look at the facts of the question, and some of the facts in her answer. Maybe that's more the issue here, is she said it's great that in America we have a choice, but yet that choice is only available in five states.", there is a serious and clear misrepresentation of the truth. In many parts of the Western world, including America, citizens have the liberty to legally choose whether or not to become involved in an opposite- or same-sex relationship - or none at all. This is a choice denied to hundreds of millions across the world. At the same time, as in the case of California's Prop. 8, some people are seeking to overturn a perfectly legally valid vote - albeit won by a small majority - that defines marriage in a specific manner. If anything, the 'undemocratic' hat belongs to these people - who love to claim that they are working to foster democracy - who are determined to overturn such a democratically decided vote.
The problem is her lack of a coherent response that reflected reality, and added to that was her falsehood.
It's really that simple. It's those on the right who are trying to twist this into those on the left smearing her because she doesn't support gay marriage.
If the problem is her lack of a coherent response and a falsehood in her answer, then why did Hilton Call her a Dumb B--- and post of picture of her with a certain part of the male anatomy beside her mouth instead of a microphone??? Regardless of what the left and the right are saying, the score she received and the disgusting treatment on his blog were not due to a simple lack of coherence and falsehood. These pagents have been going on for decades. There have been plenty of incoherent answers, but no one has ever been treated like Mrs. Prejean. She is despised by people that dont even know her just because she holds a different opinion. BTW, the majority of California voters hold the same opinion, as well as the majority of the American people, as well as our President, Barack Obama.
Despised.? Come on. Get a grip.
Her answer was not well spoken, but Ive heard much worse and she didnt deserve a Zero.
Oh? I've been looking for the questions and answers for the other contestants. Can you give a link to those?
The judges chose what they chose. Part of being a judge. It was up to each judge to decide what the contestant "deserved." Don't like those rules? Too bad. She knew what the rules were going in.
Yup, she knew the rules. So did the dems after the 2000 election but still tried to overturn Florida election law to get their boy in the White House. They didn't like the rules until after they lost, too bad. They didn't like the butterfly ballot either , but not until after the election.
Uh, that's a pretty lame comparison. Since you did bring in the 2000 election, you do know that all the ballots eventually were counted, and Gore won Florida. The Supreme Court intervened (highly unusual) and gave the election to Bush. There is no parallel to a beauty contest, and the dems didn't try to overturn Florida election law.
Oh yes they did, the standard was that undervotes and overvotes would not be counted. That was the law. The only recounts that gave Gore a victory was when those under and over votes were counted. People were guessing what "voter intent" was on every ballot. That is a fact. And yes my comparison is a stretch but it is what came to mind when you spoke of knowing the rules.
"Without counting a single hanging or dimpled chad, Gore won by 662, according to the Miami Herald. The votes below were crystal clear votes as determined by the Herald's accounting firm, BDO Seidman. Under Florida law, all of these ballots should have been counted by election officials on Election Day. Their failure to do so is Official Misconduct, not "Voter Error"!"
http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html
There were numerous studies of the recount, using a number of methods, the majority of which concluded that Bush had won. Ironically the full recount that Gore had rejected gave him the victory. But Gore wanted to cherry pick the 3 liberal South Florida counties of Dade, Broward and Palm Beach. And while he spoke of voter intent in South Florida he tried to negate absentee military ballots in Volusia County. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount The first independent recount was conducted by The Miami Herald and USA Today. The Commission found that under most recount scenarios, Bush would have won the election, but Gore would have won using the most generous standards.[41
And actually , that whole mess could have been avoided had Gore been able to win his home state, but the people who knew him best, rejected him.
You know that Gore won. You know that the Supreme Court intervened and installed Bush. The election was so close because people don't bother to investigate the candidates. If they'd studied Bush's Texas record, and his life, the vote for Gore would have been much larger.
Now, Ms. California is probably a good case in point of the kind of voter than would vote for Bush, because the press portrayed him as a centrist, and "compassionate conservative."
The law also dictated that the butterfly ballot was illegal. The votes for Buchanan in Palm Beach alone would have made a tremendous difference.
That is absolutely wrong, the ballot was never deemed illegal. It was called confusing however. It had been in use in prior elections and had in fact been designed by Teresa Lepore the democratic supervisor of elections in Palm Beach County and had been approved by both parties . In addition every registered voter received a copy in the mail prior to election day. Anyone who took voting seriously should have been able to use it without any problem at all. I never had any problems with it. And it is interesting to note that in the 1996 primary Buchanan received 8788 votes in Palm Beach County and in the 2000 election he only received 3407 votes, so it can also be argued that his vote total in 2000 was not inflated but lower than in previous tallies.
That is absolutely wrong, the ballot was never deemed illegal. It was called confusing however. It had been in use in prior elections and had in fact been designed by Teresa Lepore the democratic supervisor of elections in Palm Beach County and had been approved by both parties . In addition every registered voter received a copy in the mail prior to election day. Anyone who took voting seriously should have been able to use it without any problem at all. I never had any problems with it. And it is interesting to note that in the 1996 primary Buchanan received 8788 votes in Palm Beach County and in the 2000 election he only received 3407 votes, so it can also be argued that his vote total in 2000 was not inflated but lower than in previous tallies.
Sorry for the duplicate post.
My understanding of the court ruling was that it was not a large enough violation of state law to warrant a revote. That means it's illegal, just not important enough to correct.
Florida election law dictated that Gore should have been placed second on the ballot, since he was a major party candidate. Buchanan was placed second, since his was the second hole. I'm not sure what you call a violation of the law, but I personally call it "illegal". Whether it was sent out ahead of time or approved by both parties or not, the law remains the same.
As for your argument that since Buchanan got less votes in 2000 than in 1996 that his vote was not inflated, you must be joking. Buchanan got more votes in Palm Beach than in any other county in the state. It's still inflated, whether it was previously more inflated or not. His percentage of the votes was four times higher at the polls than in absentee voting. The Reform party only had 337 members in that county according to Florida records. And let's not forget the fact that Buchanan has a sketchy history with his views on Nazi Germany, while Palm Beach county is heavily Jewish.
Most importantly, Buchanan himself said that the ballot was confusing, and admitted that many of his votes belonged to Gore. In other words, Buchanan said his own vote total was inflated.
I dont have links to pagent answers over the years, sorry. The point is that she was judged more on her politics than her ability or lack there of to answer a question. How do I know she was judged on her beliefs? Because Hilton is angry at her. He is furious. I saw his video blog after the contest. Fumbling over a question or answering incoherently does not warrant an angry, hateful diatribe. He hates her politics and judged her poorly because of it. Do you dispute that Marv???
No she lost because she was against gay marriage and we just cant tolerate that in today's society. But the real question is: How does a group that does not have the ability to reproduce naturally have such allegedly increasing numbers? Answer: Indoctrination
I can’t believe this Miss California story is being so blown out of proportion. I think people need to let up on her. She has a traditional view on marriage and that is okay. If anything, i respect her for giving her real opinion on the issue! Anyway, i found this video today that shows how different news outlets are covering the story… definitely worth a look:
http://www.newsy.com/videos/miss_california_stands_by_pageant_answer/
Least significant topic on Media Matters ever.
It's the kind of trivia that gets blown up by the right wing everyday. They are using her.
Please Miss California is absolutely beautiful but oh my....the girl just can't speak. How did she ever get the title of Miss California? I can understand if gay folks are glad that she is on the other side. The judges did the USA a favor to dump her. Mr. Hilton....your nasty little disposition set the gay marriage back years. Gay people wish you were straight and on their side. As dumb as Miss California came across...Mr. Hilton did even more damage to the Pro Gay Marriage cause. Miss California...go back to school. Mr Hilton...take an anger management class.