Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how. - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009 4:16 PM on j-body.org
I didn't watch the pageant, but I did see the hubbub resulting from Miss California's backhanded volley and "celebrity" homo, Perez Hilton. If you want verbatim quotes....google them.

Miss California's question from Notorious F.A.G. "Vermont became the fourth state to legalize homosexual marriages....do you feel all states should do this...why or why not?"

Her answer. I believe it should be between a man and a woman. (I watched the split screen version and watched mr. fancy pants face fall...he was pissed.)

I think she knew right then that she had lost. Of course Miss N. Carolina had to answer this toughy.. "should taxpayers being bailing out big corporations?"

C'mon, they might have just as easily asked her "are you in favor of landmines on school playgrounds?"

When was the last time you heard some hot button political issue like that asked at a beauty pageant?

Those girls rehearse hundreds of possible answeres....however, I doubt any of them saw that one coming.

We'll see who gets the most guest spots on t.v. and the book deal.

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009 4:25 PM on j-body.org
Perez is a douchebag. I love these liberals who talk about tollerance, free speech, and different views, etc., but can't stand when someone has a different view. I heard the clips of both of them, and she was very polite, but simply said "no offense, but this is my view...". He first appologized for calling her a b!tch, but then 24 hours later, decided to retract his appology and said he should have "called her the C word instead". Loser.

Kudos to her for feeling comfortable stand up and stick to her opinion, regardless of people ridiculing her. We need more people willing to do this today, especially in the face of all the "tollerance" that means we can't disagree with anything.







Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009 4:38 PM on j-body.org
Quiklilcav wrote:

Perez is a douchebag. I love these liberals who talk about tollerance, free speech, and different views, etc., but can't stand when someone has a different view.

Kudos to her for feeling comfortable stand up and stick to her opinion, regardless of people ridiculing her. We need more people willing to do this today, especially in the face of all the "tollerance" that means we can't disagree with anything.



True story.


What's funny to me is people bragging about beating Cavaliers in street races.








Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009 5:45 PM on j-body.org
ScottaWhite: it's rare that I agree with you but this time you are 100% correct.








“Please do not be cynical. I hate cynicism. Nobody gets in life exactly what they thought they were going to get. But if you work really hard, and you’re kind, amazing things will happen.” Conan O'Brien

Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009 6:39 PM on j-body.org
Im actually agreeing too.

He shouldnt have agreed to ask that question when he knew what the answer could be. Its like having a black man ask "Do you think segregation is ok?"

I wouldnt expect her to answer anything but truthfully.

Edit: Im also adding that Perez Hilton is probably part of the reason that gay people are stereotyped as such and arent respected. Would you take a "man" like that seriously in an serious discussion?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Tuesday, April 21, 2009 6:44 PM


Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009 8:08 PM on j-body.org
ScottaWhite wrote:

When was the last time you heard some hot button political issue like that asked at a beauty pageant?

Those girls rehearse hundreds of possible answeres....however, I doubt any of them saw that one coming.
I agree that's dumb. First off, who cares about someone's poiitical views in a beauty pageant anyways? Second, she can't win for having her own opinion that is in disagreement with the judges own? Granted I disagree with her opinion but she's free to have it... its a freaking opinion people! Why would she have to agree with the judges just to advance to the next round?

I guess they should have asked "Would you rather be disqualified by being honest or just tell us what we want to hear?" Granted, I haven't watched the pageant at all and I'm not terribly interested either.





Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009 8:39 PM on j-body.org
Funniest @!#$ episode of Jimmy Kimmell (MAinly cause Kimmell is not funny... but anyway) was when he had Perez ?Hilton on there, interviewed him, then had the guys from deadliest catch (read as badass @!#$s) come out, interviewed them (Seated next to that faggot) Then had Katy Perry singing "Your so Gay" to end it...


It could have been funnier...I would have loved to see the two guys from Deadliest Catch beat the @!#$ out of that faggot..



Buildin' n' Boostin for 08' - Alex Richards
Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009 3:50 AM on j-body.org
bk3k wrote:

Second, she can't win for having her own opinion that is in disagreement with the judges own? Granted I disagree with her opinion but she's free to have it... its a freaking opinion people! Why would she have to agree with the judges just to advance to the next round?

This is the heart of it. Perez claims later that he was upset that she didn't give a more thoughtful answer about whether or not the states or the federal government should be the ones to make that law, but that was a weak attempt at backpedalling. His question was should all of the other states adopt the policy, not should the federal government pass the law. He was mad that she stood up there and had an opinion that he didn't like. He's just a raving idiot, and he can go away now.






Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009 6:38 AM on j-body.org
Perez Hilton can DIAF.



Desert Tuners

“When you come across a big kettle of crazy, it’s best not to stir it.”


Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009 6:45 AM on j-body.org
She's a beauty contestant for Gawd's sake. This is a woman who has food RIPPED OUT FROM HER HANDS if she even dares go near hot-dogs. She's forced to diet, primp, sleep covered in weird crap for her skin, and get some slight plastic surgery to fix little problems. Are you telling me that after all those compromises, she couldn't just BS?

A beauty contest is the EPITOMY of bullsh!t. Why does she choose to be honest now?

Also, the fact is that most guys that a beauty queen would be in contact with would tend to be gay. What? Hairdressers, makeup people, fashion designers are all straight?

My suspicion is that she was giving sh!t backstage to the staff and Perez decided to screw with her. Who knows? One thing I do know is that nobody wants a beauty queen with an opinion. Shut up and smile.
Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009 6:32 PM on j-body.org
Whatever happened to "If you had a million dollars......."?




Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Thursday, April 23, 2009 6:46 AM on j-body.org
Alex Richards wrote:

Funniest @!#$ episode of Jimmy Kimmell (MAinly cause Kimmell is not funny... but anyway) was when he had Perez ?Hilton on there, interviewed him, then had the guys from deadliest catch (read as badass @!#$s) come out, interviewed them (Seated next to that faggot) Then had Katy Perry singing "Your so Gay" to end it...


It could have been funnier...I would have loved to see the two guys from Deadliest Catch beat the @!#$ out of that faggo
t..


I agree that perez is extremely annoying, but try not to be so ignorant. You look no better than him.


-Markus
2002 Yellow Cavalier LS Sport
Check it out! --> Flickr

Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:15 AM on j-body.org
Ok lets just agree that gay couples deserve the "FULL rights" of Married couples, but any Church not wanting to Marry them can pass on wedding them ! AS long as they have the right to Legal union(by the government) I think all is well. So really I see no problem WITH gay Marriage/Union at all. IF your Baptist minister does not want to wed a gay couple.. HE doesn't have to ! BUT be told that those 2 gay partners are entitled to ALL the same legal rights as a straight couple. ANy church willing to be in the right century will wed the couple anyways.. :p/ (BUT Again, each church/ministry has the right to practice their marriage ceremonies as they please!)

IS this not the solution ? Why is it so hard to accept ? The ceremony within your church may be sacred, but the institution of a partnership between two people is not. To deprive citizens of this in my mind is against your very own constitution.

End Rant.



My Cav
I give up...
i'm buying a VW those people love trees, so they should love eachother too... "Andy"
Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Thursday, April 23, 2009 9:17 AM on j-body.org
EcoMark wrote:

Alex Richards wrote:

Funniest @!#$ episode of Jimmy Kimmell (MAinly cause Kimmell is not funny... but anyway) was when he had Perez ?Hilton on there, interviewed him, then had the guys from deadliest catch (read as badass @!#$s) come out, interviewed them (Seated next to that faggot) Then had Katy Perry singing "Your so Gay" to end it...


It could have been funnier...I would have loved to see the two guys from Deadliest Catch beat the @!#$ out of that faggo
t..


I agree that perez is extremely annoying, but try not to be so ignorant. You look no better than him.


I dont care if he's gay or not, its the fact that he captilizes on it to bring himself into the limelight. Like previously stated, he hates anyone that does not agree with him, but he uses that to make himself more popular. Im not against being outspoken and having an opinion, just the way he puts himself out there its an insult to any gay people as much as its an insult to anyone else.



Buildin' n' Boostin for 08' - Alex Richards
Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Thursday, April 23, 2009 9:55 AM on j-body.org
Short Hand wrote:

Ok lets just agree that gay couples deserve the "FULL rights" of Married couples, but any Church not wanting to Marry them can pass on wedding them ! AS long as they have the right to Legal union(by the government) I think all is well. So really I see no problem WITH gay Marriage/Union at all. IF your Baptist minister does not want to wed a gay couple.. HE doesn't have to ! BUT be told that those 2 gay partners are entitled to ALL the same legal rights as a straight couple. ANy church willing to be in the right century will wed the couple anyways.. :p/ (BUT Again, each church/ministry has the right to practice their marriage ceremonies as they please!)

IS this not the solution ? Why is it so hard to accept ? The ceremony within your church may be sacred, but the institution of a partnership between two people is not. To deprive citizens of this in my mind is against your very own constitution.

End Rant.


just wait until they take away tax exempt status and other benefits the churches get. They'll be forced to recognize gay "marriage", at which point politics will have overpowered religion, which is what they want.





Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Thursday, April 23, 2009 12:43 PM on j-body.org
J03Y wrote:

Short Hand wrote:

Ok lets just agree that gay couples deserve the "FULL rights" of Married couples, but any Church not wanting to Marry them can pass on wedding them ! AS long as they have the right to Legal union(by the government) I think all is well. So really I see no problem WITH gay Marriage/Union at all. IF your Baptist minister does not want to wed a gay couple.. HE doesn't have to ! BUT be told that those 2 gay partners are entitled to ALL the same legal rights as a straight couple. ANy church willing to be in the right century will wed the couple anyways.. :p/ (BUT Again, each church/ministry has the right to practice their marriage ceremonies as they please!)

IS this not the solution ? Why is it so hard to accept ? The ceremony within your church may be sacred, but the institution of a partnership between two people is not. To deprive citizens of this in my mind is against your very own constitution.

End Rant.


just wait until they take away tax exempt status and other benefits the churches get. They'll be forced to recognize gay "marriage", at which point politics will have overpowered religion, which is what they want.


Gay Marriage will NOT bring about the end of tax exempt status for Religious groups. NO idea where you got that idea........



My Cav
I give up...
i'm buying a VW those people love trees, so they should love eachother too... "Andy"
Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Thursday, April 23, 2009 1:06 PM on j-body.org
If the right people get in yes it can.


I accidentally the SHIFT LIGHT!!!!!!!!!!



The proper way of using the word seen. It is not I seen it that would be I saw it. He has seen the car is the right way to use the word. English class is Cool. By the way thats my sig
Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Thursday, April 23, 2009 1:08 PM on j-body.org
Short Hand wrote:

J03Y wrote:

Short Hand wrote:

Ok lets just agree that gay couples deserve the "FULL rights" of Married couples, but any Church not wanting to Marry them can pass on wedding them ! AS long as they have the right to Legal union(by the government) I think all is well. So really I see no problem WITH gay Marriage/Union at all. IF your Baptist minister does not want to wed a gay couple.. HE doesn't have to ! BUT be told that those 2 gay partners are entitled to ALL the same legal rights as a straight couple. ANy church willing to be in the right century will wed the couple anyways.. :p/ (BUT Again, each church/ministry has the right to practice their marriage ceremonies as they please!)

IS this not the solution ? Why is it so hard to accept ? The ceremony within your church may be sacred, but the institution of a partnership between two people is not. To deprive citizens of this in my mind is against your very own constitution.

End Rant.


just wait until they take away tax exempt status and other benefits the churches get. They'll be forced to recognize gay "marriage", at which point politics will have overpowered religion, which is what they want.


Gay Marriage will NOT bring about the end of tax exempt status for Religious groups. NO idea where you got that idea........


that's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. However mine differs. Only a matter of time IMO.





Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Thursday, April 23, 2009 1:11 PM on j-body.org
My life isnt going to change if gay people get married. Is anyones? I dont see why people get so upset about this. If you dont like your church marrying gay people then go to a different church. Theres two gay guys in my church and they actually do more for the church than most heterosexual people.



Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Thursday, April 23, 2009 1:21 PM on j-body.org
J03Y wrote:

just wait until they take away tax exempt status and other benefits the churches get.
I'm all for gay marriage, but I have to agree with you here.




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Thursday, April 23, 2009 1:23 PM on j-body.org
J03Y wrote:

Short Hand wrote:

Ok lets just agree that gay couples deserve the "FULL rights" of Married couples, but any Church not wanting to Marry them can pass on wedding them ! AS long as they have the right to Legal union(by the government) I think all is well. So really I see no problem WITH gay Marriage/Union at all. IF your Baptist minister does not want to wed a gay couple.. HE doesn't have to ! BUT be told that those 2 gay partners are entitled to ALL the same legal rights as a straight couple. ANy church willing to be in the right century will wed the couple anyways.. :p/ (BUT Again, each church/ministry has the right to practice their marriage ceremonies as they please!)

IS this not the solution ? Why is it so hard to accept ? The ceremony within your church may be sacred, but the institution of a partnership between two people is not. To deprive citizens of this in my mind is against your very own constitution.

End Rant.


just wait until they take away tax exempt status and other benefits the churches get. They'll be forced to recognize gay "marriage", at which point politics will have overpowered religion, which is what they want.



IMO churches should not have tax exemption to begin with. Organized religion is a sham.


KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:


and I'm NOT a pedo. everyone knows i've got a wheelchair fetish.



Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Thursday, April 23, 2009 1:25 PM on j-body.org
Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:

IMO churches should not have tax exemption to begin with. Organized religion is a sham.
The quickest road to Civil War II would be for the government to admit to that...




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Thursday, April 23, 2009 1:37 PM on j-body.org
Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:

J03Y wrote:

Short Hand wrote:

Ok lets just agree that gay couples deserve the "FULL rights" of Married couples, but any Church not wanting to Marry them can pass on wedding them ! AS long as they have the right to Legal union(by the government) I think all is well. So really I see no problem WITH gay Marriage/Union at all. IF your Baptist minister does not want to wed a gay couple.. HE doesn't have to ! BUT be told that those 2 gay partners are entitled to ALL the same legal rights as a straight couple. ANy church willing to be in the right century will wed the couple anyways.. :p/ (BUT Again, each church/ministry has the right to practice their marriage ceremonies as they please!)

IS this not the solution ? Why is it so hard to accept ? The ceremony within your church may be sacred, but the institution of a partnership between two people is not. To deprive citizens of this in my mind is against your very own constitution.

End Rant.


just wait until they take away tax exempt status and other benefits the churches get. They'll be forced to recognize gay "marriage", at which point politics will have overpowered religion, which is what they want.



IMO churches should not have tax exemption to begin with. Organized religion is a sham.


While I'm not really a religious person, there are alot more things the govt hands money or exemptions to that are far worse.






Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Thursday, April 23, 2009 1:37 PM


Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Thursday, April 23, 2009 1:44 PM on j-body.org
I totaly agree.

We need to move to a flat tax system and do away with all tax exemptions. That way everyone pays their fiar share, including people who make money "under the table" and through the black market (drugs and what not).


KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:


and I'm NOT a pedo. everyone knows i've got a wheelchair fetish.


Re: Miss California lost because of WHAT she said...not how.
Thursday, April 23, 2009 1:47 PM on j-body.org
Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:

I totaly agree.

We need to move to a flat tax system and do away with all tax exemptions. That way everyone pays their fiar share, including people who make money "under the table" and through the black market (drugs and what not).


+1





Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search