Judgemental Miss California Busted for Naughty Pics

[DJ Bat]

I agree that usually 'No Offense' is a precursor to ignorance and one should hold their tongue - I'm more curious about the psychology of it as when you're on a televised pageant and already know the stakes are high, THAT'S when one really isn't prone to be so foolish about their decision to use that phrase offensively - usually at least :-)

Like I said before, she could simply be stupider then a wet paper bag of hammers, but it does bring up my point that is a proven factor in the past of brainwashing kids to be either ignorant, hateful, bigots, etc... and unfortunately, those people grow up into full fledged hate mongering adults unless they gain their own insight into realizing they need to change on their own and that change rarely ever happens overnight. She's also 21, the same age as those few same kids that just last week in class thought AIDS was somehow still a 'gay disease' in some form or manner and who were genuinely at odds with how they could still be thinking that in this day and age.

I'm also not questioning "freedom of speech" - not sure what that's referring to - I'm talking about the reactions on a psychological level of "what-if's" based on known indicators. (Her position in a pageant, televised broadcast of her statements, her age, the 'no offense', etc...) - I just find it all interesting enough to talk about it - thats all.

[malcolm]

hey wait a minute, i say no offense all the time lol. ofcourse that's probably because i was raised white trash in redneck states and have a tendency to say rather lewd things or cuss like a, well....sailor which is excusable because i am a sailor lol.
as for freedom of speech. people have the right to express their opinions and should be able to do so openly and freely.

alot of people have fought for that right to remain a right, even larry flint who one could arguably say was shot and paralysed from the waist down for exercising freedom of expression when he published an interracial couple in hustler magazine back in the 70's.

I just think her saying what she said and her posing semi nude when she was 17 years old have very little to do with each other and that the two are merged together because her opinion of gay marriage is less than favorable with the majority of people in this country at the moment.

basically she broke a rule and she should be punished accordingly for what she did but it's become amplified because of her opinion abuot something completely different than what she's in trouble for.

[Amelia G]

hey wait a minute, i say no offense all the time lol. ofcourse that's probably because i was raised white trash in redneck states and have a tendency to say rather lewd things or cuss like a, well....sailor which is excusable because i am a sailor lol.
as for freedom of speech. people have the right to express their opinions and should be able to do so openly and freely.

alot of people have fought for that right to remain a right, even larry flint who one could arguably say was shot and paralysed from the waist down for exercising freedom of expression when he published an interracial couple in hustler magazine back in the 70's.

I just think her saying what she said and her posing semi nude when she was 17 years old have very little to do with each other and that the two are merged together because her opinion of gay marriage is less than favorable with the majority of people in this country at the moment.

basically she broke a rule and she should be punished accordingly for what she did but it's become amplified because of her opinion abuot something completely different than what she's in trouble for.

Carrie Prejean demonstrably broke multiple rules of the pageants she competed in, but I really don't much care about pageants, so that is kind of a less important and more cut and dried issue. I couldn't care less whether or not she keeps her Miss California crown. But I do care that reasonable people are made aware that someone opposed to marriage and speaking for NOM is a hypocrite.

I believe that she claimed to be that young in the photos in order to prevent the racier ones from being released. Even if she were that young at the time, which I do not believe, she can't claim her upbringing as the reason for her bigotry, if her upbringing had not had any impact yet four years ago.

As one of the only excuses people will accept for evil points of view is religious upbringing, the obviously opportunistic Carrie Prejean played the religion card.

Carrie Prejean playing the religion card to excuse her own bigotry is what makes her posing nude and getting implants and having divorced parents relevant to this specific debate i.e. she can't claim, without being obviously a hypocrite, that she just lives her life by extreme and inflexible Xtian standards.

Regardless, if she expressed, in public, her opinion that other people deserve fewer rights than she has, why is it wrong for other people to, in public, criticize her?

[Morning Glory]

For example, I'm extremely pro-choice, but I think we don't really know what the nature of life is from a scientific perspective. We kind of don't have any factual evidence about when life actually starts, so the legal distinction is not based on factual evidence.

Sure there is. It's the conception of a self-aware deterministic aka. conscious being that is a bit fuzzy to pin point.

Ova and sperm (separated) both fit the criteria for the scientific definition of a living organism.

What's the difference between an acorn, a human embryo, and your left lung? It's that an acorn is the only one of them that will continue to develop and thrive after it is removed from the group of organisms that it is attached to.

So if you think that life is sacred, it seems pretty obvious to me which one of them is the most sanctified. It's those egotistical Humanists (who like to reserve for themselves as the sole definers of the term, usually in a un-scientific way) that are uncomfortable with the distinction.

But I think I've said that before and it's really off topic.

Not that I think government should decide what is marriage at all. I think American government is only empowered to determine civil unions and nothing else. Separation of Church and State and all that. But that is a whole nother discussion.

That's what I think to.

So upbringing is no excuse.

Dito.

[malcolm]

Regardless, if she expressed, in public, her opinion that other people deserve fewer rights than she has, why is it wrong for other people to, in public, criticize her?

it's not wrong to criticize her for what she said.
and i didnt say it was wrong to criticize her for what she said

[DJ Bat]

The LOL:

Keith Lewis, Co-executive director of the Miss California Pageant said today:

"Lewis said the state pageant has never criticized Prejean for her beliefs, but he added that Miss California USA must represent everyone in the state."

Ummm... now how is it that in a free country/world, it's proper and right for anyone to speak their opinion and in response, proper and right for anyone under their own freedom of rights to agree or criticize said person, yet in this pageant a co-director clearly admits the asinine and impossible requirement of the Pageant rules that a contestant must be able to have ESP, read everyone's mind in California and deduce a middle ground for all of them.

DUDE, WTF!?

Typo? Misunderstood? Slanted to insinuate that they ARE in fact criticizing her for what she said?

I'm gonna just chalk this one up to this Director was high or something... cause that statement on it's own is as much as an insult to human rights as what Carrie said in the first place about gay marriage.

Story: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...4HIVAD9848BV82

[Amelia G]

The LOL:

Keith Lewis, Co-executive director of the Miss California Pageant said today:

"Lewis said the state pageant has never criticized Prejean for her beliefs, but he added that Miss California USA must represent everyone in the state."

Ummm... now how is it that in a free country/world, it's proper and right for anyone to speak their opinion and in response, proper and right for anyone under their own freedom of rights to agree or criticize said person, yet in this pageant a co-director clearly admits the asinine and impossible requirement of the Pageant rules that a contestant must be able to have ESP, read everyone's mind in California and deduce a middle ground for all of them.

DUDE, WTF!?

Typo? Misunderstood? Slanted to insinuate that they ARE in fact criticizing her for what she said?

I'm gonna just chalk this one up to this Director was high or something... cause that statement on it's own is as much as an insult to human rights as what Carrie said in the first place about gay marriage.

Story: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...4HIVAD9848BV82

How is the director's statement remotely an insult to human rights in any way, shape, or form?

Surely you are aware that people who are considered most universally attractive do precisely that i.e. deduce what the lowest common denominator, likely to be objectionable to the fewest people is . . . and behave in a fashion likely to offend the smallest possible percentage of the population.

Not that I personally enjoy noncommittal as a goal, but I think pageants want women who present general ideals of femininity to win and not women who are particularly activist for anything more controversial than, "gee, it would be nice is no children were starving" and "cute animals are cute". If a woman is not able to answer a controversial question in a placating and noncommittal fashion, then she does not deserve to win a pageant. Nobody should get a job because it's a free country; they should get the job because they are qualified to do the job.

Obviously, Carrie Prejean also violated her pageant contract multiple ways and times -- making unapproved public appearances, missing required public appearances, doing unapproved endorsements, doing unapproved press outreach, posing nude, lying about posing nude, etc. -- but being sweetly apolitical is generally a pageant requirement as well, no matter what question is put to a contestant.

[DJ Bat]

How is the director's statement remotely an insult to human rights in any way, shape, or form?

That was clearly explained. To break it down - you can't represent all of California. That would mean every single person.

Since human rights allow for each person to their own opinion, you will always have that right and consequently there will always be different opinions. What the co-director then said was either a royal screw up in words or in one breath, he alienated and took away the human rights of anyone who didn't agree with him and/OR the will of the pageant as they see ALL Californians should apparently think.

Read it again: "Miss California USA must represent everyone in the state."

Gooooood luck with that one then.

[Amelia G]

That was clearly explained. To break it down - you can't represent all of California. That would mean every single person.

Since human rights allow for each person to their own opinion, you will always have that right and consequently there will always be different opinions. What the co-director then said was either a royal screw up in words or in one breath, he alienated and took away the human rights of anyone who didn't agree with him and/OR the will of the pageant as they see ALL Californians should apparently think.

Read it again: "Miss California USA must represent everyone in the state."

Gooooood luck with that one then.

You know that most pageant winners, political representatives, and similar positions require that people do their best to represent the largest possible percentage of their constituents, right? Among other things, that generally means not taking aggressive hardline stances on hot button topics. How is this situation different from all other pageants and suchlike in what should be expected? How is expecting someone to do their job well a violation of their human rights?

[DJ Bat]

> Read it again: "Miss California USA must represent everyone in the state."

That's an unrealistic and impossible expectation. That's saying that every Californian that they think the pageant contestants are against by not "representing them" are not 'Californians' and therefore their voice means nothing. I think that point is pretty clear. The pageant contestant is just the catalyst for this behavior.

[ForrestBlack]

When it is your job to represent a product, organization, or even a large population, it is sometimes simply unwise and/or unprofessional to take strong stances on third-rail topics. She had the right to say it (to some degree, depending on how much rights she signed away in her various contracts) but that doesn't mean it's OK to say it. She has the right to say it, but should also expect to hear the backlash. That's how the system works. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to silence the response. She also has 2nd amendment rights, but you wouldn't see her packing a Glock on the runway, because that would be unwise and inappropriate. If she did, it would be unreasonable for her to expect not to have some fallout. Saying she shouldn't do it isn't a rights infringement, it's just good advice.

[karyn]

??? Someone who obviously doesn't know me -

No, nothing of the sort - why would you even remotely think such a thing?

because you seem to care a lot about defending someone's right to be a right wing nutjob who attacks and oppresses other people. are you saying you are actually in favor of gay marriage and against the war?

[karyn]

> Read it again: "Miss California USA must represent everyone in the state."

That's an unrealistic and impossible expectation. That's saying that every Californian that they think the pageant contestants are against by not "representing them" are not 'Californians' and therefore their voice means nothing. I think that point is pretty clear. The pageant contestant is just the catalyst for this behavior.

can you rephrase that in English with complete sentences because i have no idea what you said here and i doubt anyone else does either?

[DJ Bat]

because you seem to care a lot about defending someone's right to be a right wing nutjob who attacks and oppresses other people. are you saying you are actually in favor of gay marriage and against the war?

Wow - are you not reading anything? Where do you see me saying that?

[DJ Bat]

can you rephrase that in English with complete sentences because i have no idea what you said here and i doubt anyone else does either?

No. It's pretty clear. And continuing to ask me the same question over and over about my stand on gay marriage and the war when I've already explained that I'm not (you're the only one who's made that up in their head) is just showing your nothing but a troll.

[DJ Bat]

/troll prevention on

Sorry, it's late - dropped a word in the sentence above so before you make something else up, the above means I'm not against gay marriage and if you actually think for one second that I approve of the war, then do us all a favor, go troll on AOL instead.

/troll prevention off

[DJ Bat]

When it is your job to represent a product, organization, or even a large population, it is sometimes simply unwise and/or unprofessional to take strong stances on third-rail topics. She had the right to say it (to some degree, depending on how much rights she signed away in her various contracts) but that doesn't mean it's OK to say it. She has the right to say it, but should also expect to hear the backlash. That's how the system works. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to silence the response. She also has 2nd amendment rights, but you wouldn't see her packing a Glock on the runway, because that would be unwise and inappropriate. If she did, it would be unreasonable for her to expect not to have some fallout. Saying she shouldn't do it isn't a rights infringement, it's just good advice.

Absolutely true - I don't think anyone here would think otherwise.

[Morning Glory]

I don't think karyn qualifies as a troll. possibley a spammer, but hey, I like those news articles.

[DJ Bat]

I don't think karyn qualifies as a troll. possibley a spammer, but hey, I like those news articles.

nahh... Karyn's a full on troll - Those spam bots that post unrelated HI messages on the forums here are spammers.

[Amelia G]

nahh... Karyn's a full on troll - Those spam bots that post unrelated HI messages on the forums here are spammers.

Bat, please do not call other forum members trolls. karyn has been a member in good standing for years. Does she sometimes say things in a more hostile way than necessary and piss some people off? Yes. But so do you. I do not think either of you are trolls and it is a total cop-out for you to call someone names, instead of explaining your position.

I have to admit that I don't think I understand what your position is either, although, knowing you from more than just forums, unlike karyn, I would not assume that you were a giant homophobe. Can you explain how you can agree with what Forrest Black wrote and still feel that the pageant director violated Carrie Prejean's human rights or somehow misspoke? Or have you changed your thoughts on it, as you learned more about the situation?

[FedorasBox]

If she represents me, she is certainly naked.

[DJ Bat]

I didn't see Forrest quote me. I didn't see anything there that I would disagree with. I didn't see anything there that correlated to my pointing out that the co-director's statement that a requirement of a candidate is that they MUST represent ALL of California, (which on it's own, is naturally impossible and preposterous to even suggest) and Forrest's blanket statement. I've explained how the co-director's statement violates human rights - Re-read it if you need. It's there already.

Also, Do you always speak for Forrest? You must be to have said this - That's odd -

Anyways, simply re-reading what I've posted will show the pattern that I think led to her not loosing her crown. If it was taken away based on what you are claiming that she's dissing the human rights of gays, then that would of made you just as guilty of violating her human rights. Don't understand? Here...

What I'm seeing here is that you're confusing Human Rights with being a complete idiot which Carrie was, is, and continues to have every right to be based on her actions. I've never agreed with her nor her actions - I've taken this as a psychological study on the viciousness and blindness of parts of humanity that jump on the Lord of the Flies bandwagon and can't see the forest through the trees.

My initial point was that in her mind, she could of actually been trying to be sincere to not offend, else why make such a bonehead move? We recently learned it was because she was talking to god so ok, another point for not a self-thinker, but again, there's no violation of human rights here.

In fact, even as a spokesperson for her asinine and ridiculous cause, she has NO POWER to violate anyone elses human rights by campaigning against whatever the fuck she wants, even if it does make her a complete fuck-tard - SHE HAS NO POWER. So why are you giving her that power and why are you making shit up about me and ignoring everything I've said and re-asking questions that don't pertain to me as they're just attempts to say that I'm somehow a gay-hating war loving jesus freak? I mean come on, how much more immature do trolls like Karyn have to get?

I thought there was some form of intelligent conversation here on this forum but for fuck's sake... this is as bad as high school.

Anyways, I'm tired of this egotistical form of questioning where you don't seem to read anything that I've said and instead pose unrelated statements and questions that at times are even snidely lambasting. Insinuating that I'm not a giant homophobe just because you know me from more then forums - *sigh* - please, don't insult me like that - You obviously don't know me at all apparently else you would know how rude that was to even insinuate that. What, you want names and addresses of all my gay married friends? Yes, I know quite a few and was brought up to not be a prejudice bigot thank you very much - so please don't be condescending to prove some sort of point.

And if you need a recent example of you doing this to someone else:

You've also tried this tactic on Malcolm earlier putting words into his posts which he too did not:

Originally Posted by Amelia G
Regardless, if she expressed, in public, her opinion that other people deserve fewer rights than she has, why is it wrong for other people to, in public, criticize her?
Response Posted by Malcolm
it's not wrong to criticize her for what she said.
and i didnt say it was wrong to criticize her for what she said

Again, a mistake? You didn't really read what he said? Sure it's a small example but they're all over these forums and by this thread's example and the burning man one, I can see you aren't listening to anything I'm saying anymore because you mistakenly thought I said something about you that I never did. THAT I've explained already as well - And if the two are unrelated and you're just always jumping to conclusions like this, then BYE BYE.

[soma_stardust]

If she represents me, she is certainly naked.

if she represents me, she's naked and likes to do dirty things with other girls.

[DJ Bat]

if she represents me, she's naked and likes to do dirty things with other girls.

I'm pretty sure it'll end up that way with her - Throw a repressed catholic girl into the fray and things are eventually bound to unravel

[Amelia G]

I didn't see Forrest quote me. I didn't see anything there that I would disagree with. I didn't see anything there that correlated to my pointing out that the co-director's statement that a requirement of a candidate is that they MUST represent ALL of California, (which on it's own, is naturally impossible and preposterous to even suggest) and Forrest's blanket statement. I've explained how the co-director's statement violates human rights - Re-read it if you need. It's there already.

Also, Do you always speak for Forrest? You must be to have said this - That's odd -

Anyways, simply re-reading what I've posted will show the pattern that I think led to her not loosing her crown. If it was taken away based on what you are claiming that she's dissing the human rights of gays, then that would of made you just as guilty of violating her human rights. Don't understand? Here...

What I'm seeing here is that you're confusing Human Rights with being a complete idiot which Carrie was, is, and continues to have every right to be based on her actions. I've never agreed with her nor her actions - I've taken this as a psychological study on the viciousness and blindness of parts of humanity that jump on the Lord of the Flies bandwagon and can't see the forest through the trees.

My initial point was that in her mind, she could of actually been trying to be sincere to not offend, else why make such a bonehead move? We recently learned it was because she was talking to god so ok, another point for not a self-thinker, but again, there's no violation of human rights here.

In fact, even as a spokesperson for her asinine and ridiculous cause, she has NO POWER to violate anyone elses human rights by campaigning against whatever the fuck she wants, even if it does make her a complete fuck-tard - SHE HAS NO POWER. So why are you giving her that power and why are you making shit up about me and ignoring everything I've said and re-asking questions that don't pertain to me as they're just attempts to say that I'm somehow a gay-hating war loving jesus freak? I mean come on, how much more immature do trolls like Karyn have to get?

I thought there was some form of intelligent conversation here on this forum but for fuck's sake... this is as bad as high school.

Anyways, I'm tired of this egotistical form of questioning where you don't seem to read anything that I've said and instead pose unrelated statements and questions that at times are even snidely lambasting. Insinuating that I'm not a giant homophobe just because you know me from more then forums - *sigh* - please, don't insult me like that - You obviously don't know me at all apparently else you would know how rude that was to even insinuate that. What, you want names and addresses of all my gay married friends? Yes, I know quite a few and was brought up to not be a prejudice bigot thank you very much - so please don't be condescending to prove some sort of point.

And if you need a recent example of you doing this to someone else:

You've also tried this tactic on Malcolm earlier putting words into his posts which he too did not:



Again, a mistake? You didn't really read what he said? Sure it's a small example but they're all over these forums and by this thread's example and the burning man one, I can see you aren't listening to anything I'm saying anymore because you mistakenly thought I said something about you that I never did. THAT I've explained already as well - And if the two are unrelated and you're just always jumping to conclusions like this, then BYE BYE.

On my phone, so I'll be brief. It is normal intelligent conversation, when one is unclear on what someone is expressing, to rephrase and ask if that is what they mean. For example, are you flipping out and making random accusations because I asked you to respond to questions with actual answers and not name-calling? See, that is what I am understanding from what you just said, only I'm not sure, so I'm giving you the opp to clarify.

[DJ Bat]

I've answered your questions already over and over in prior posts and just like now, you avoid with more unrelated questions. You're giving me the opp to clarify something that I've clarified over and over again?

No, I'm done with the game and have proven my initial point over and over and answered every question fully and methodically - you still don't recognize that -

Have a great time running your forums but they're just too enforced to force people to meet your criteria, else get treated like an underling to your own journalistic dogma but hey, it's your forums - your rules. Enjoy.

[Amelia G]

I've answered your questions already over and over in prior posts and just like now, you avoid with more unrelated questions. You're giving me the opp to clarify something that I've clarified over and over again?

No, I'm done with the game and have proven my initial point over and over and answered every question fully and methodically - you still don't recognize that -

Have a great time running your forums but they're just too enforced to force people to meet your criteria, else get treated like an underling to your own journalistic dogma but hey, it's your forums - your rules. Enjoy.

My primary concern for the forums here is that they remain a place where people can intelligently exchange varied points of view. Most folks who have ever posted here, if expressing an unusual or confusing point of view, are capable of having a conversation about it, without calling other people names. If you feel the need to resort to name-calling because you are not capable of backing up your point or, in this instance, even expressing what exactly your point is, that is really your issue for you to deal with and nothing to do with me or Blue Blood. I simply asked you not to resort to name-calling when responding to other forum members. It is not singling you out and karyn can testify that there have been times I told her the same thing. If you think asking you one time not to stoop to name-calling is being too enforced, that seems a bit unreasonable on your part.

In response to your random list of accusations and suchlike:

Representing a group is not the same thing as being identical to everyone in that group.

No, I do not speak for Forrest Black and I'm totally baffled by your suggestion that I do. I simply expressed that what he wrote was the opposite of what you wrote, so I didn't get how you could persist in your older point while agreeing with his. Seemed like there would have to be more info there.

How is saying that, because I have seen more of you than just what you post on forums, I know you are not a homophobe . . . secretly saying you are a homophobe?

When I asked Malcolm to clarify his point, he was thoroughly capable of doing so.

Whether or not someone uses the quote function, one can assume that any message posts in a public forum is likely to be on the overall topic of the thread and not solely for one person's eyes.

What difference does it make what type of power Miss California has? (If you want to get all sociological about it, she has influential power, but it is not like anyone suggested she had legislative power.)

It is normal intelligent conversation, when one is unclear on what someone is expressing, to rephrase and ask if that is what they mean. If clarifying or expanding on something you said makes you foam at the mouth, what do you think is appropriate for intelligent conversation?

[Amelia G]

If she represents me, she is certainly naked.

Yeah, but you don't live in Cali. Which remind me, when you comin' back to Cali, hotness?

[Amelia G]

if she represents me, she's naked and likes to do dirty things with other girls.

I'm pretty sure I'd rather watch you than her, but, still, entertaining as that might be, representing someone is not the same thing as being like them.

[DJ Bat]

My primary concern for the forums here is that they remain a place where people can intelligently exchange varied points of view. Most folks who have ever posted here, if expressing an unusual or confusing point of view, are capable of having a conversation about it, without calling other people names. If you feel the need to resort to name-calling because you are not capable of backing up your point or, in this instance, even expressing what exactly your point is, that is really your issue for you to deal with and nothing to do with me or Blue Blood. I simply asked you not to resort to name-calling when responding to other forum members. It is not singling you out and karyn can testify that there have been times I told her the same thing. If you think asking you one time not to stoop to name-calling is being too enforced, that seems a bit unreasonable on your part.

In response to your random list of accusations and suchlike:

Representing a group is not the same thing as being identical to everyone in that group.

No, I do not speak for Forrest Black and I'm totally baffled by your suggestion that I do. I simply expressed that what he wrote was the opposite of what you wrote, so I didn't get how you could persist in your older point while agreeing with his. Seemed like there would have to be more info there.

How is saying that, because I have seen more of you than just what you post on forums, I know you are not a homophobe . . . secretly saying you are a homophobe?

When I asked Malcolm to clarify his point, he was thoroughly capable of doing so.

Whether or not someone uses the quote function, one can assume that any message posts in a public forum is likely to be on the overall topic of the thread and not solely for one person's eyes.

What difference does it make what type of power Miss California has? (If you want to get all sociological about it, she has influential power, but it is not like anyone suggested she had legislative power.)

It is normal intelligent conversation, when one is unclear on what someone is expressing, to rephrase and ask if that is what they mean. If clarifying or expanding on something you said makes you foam at the mouth, what do you think is appropriate for intelligent conversation?

I told you already - I'm not playing anymore. Think what you want - it's all you.

[Morning Glory]

DJ Bat, why don't you build a bridge and get over it?

I don't know what the hell you are talking about, and maybe I'm just dense, but it seems to me that other people sincerely are having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say.

Out of all of the forums that I have ever seen this is truly the one with the least ammount of personal attacks and censorship by the administrators. I think in the whole time I've been on here I have maybe once seen a frequent member get banned or have thier topic closed, as opposed to most sites where it seems to happen daily.

[DJ Bat]

DJ Bat, why don't you build a bridge and get over it?

I don't know what the hell you are talking about, and maybe I'm just dense, but it seems to me that other people sincerely are having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say.

Out of all of the forums that I have ever seen this is truly the one with the least ammount of personal attacks and censorship by the administrators. I think in the whole time I've been on here I have maybe once seen a frequent member get banned or have thier topic closed, as opposed to most sites where it seems to happen daily.

So this is sincere?:

no offense but are you some kind of iraq-war-loving gay-marriage-hating jesus freak?

Now go back and read what she quoted me to have said that. No, really - read it - It had NOTHING to do with what she said - Karyn simply acted like a troll. Why else would someone say such an utterly foolish thing and even think to claim I'm those things? Did I attack anyone here? NO - Did I insult anyone here? NO - nothing of the sort... unless is there something I should know? Is The Dirty really an offshoot of BB or perhaps Amelia knows them? I don't know - I don't care - I wasn't attacking anyone - I was making a psychological point of human actions and reactions. I never said Carrie was right and in fact I said she was a fool to say what she did - but no one here can see past this and instead, I'm now against Human Rights and other accusations (just read em folks) by some strange proxy of Amelia's decision?

That's just perpetuating some sort of hate towards me that I never in one iota put forth towards anyone here on BB's forums. EVER. So yea, If there are any bridges needing building, it's not mine.

[karyn]

Miss California Topless -- Oops, She Did It Again

from tmz

Carrie Prejean must have a really, really bad memory -- because TMZ uncovered a brand new set of topless photos "biblically correct" Miss California took before she applied for the crown.

These pics were taken just last year -- meaning Carrie was the ripe ol' LEGAL age of 20.

This time, Carrie dropped her top for a professional photo shoot ... another partially nude gig that she forgot to tell the Miss California officials about.

[Morning Glory]

I think we need to see a topless set post-boob job. Just for the sake of comparison.

[Rockwulf]

I think the writer over at wwtdd.com put it best:

Are people under the impression that Miss California is like the governor or something? It’s sort of implied that any contest that includes the contestant in a bikini and high heels won’t result in the winner being given control of the legislature, so calm down everyone. She’s pretty, and she thinks things that may or may not be what you think, but that’s okay because we allow that here. She has power over my pants and whether they stay on or come off, but that’s about where her authority ends.

[Raza]

What does authority have to do with it, though? It's not like having nudie pics around is any more relevant to governing than it is to gay rights.

[Rockwulf]

It has to do with people claiming she's a hypocrite. So, she is. So what? She's not in charge of anything. She's not gonna say she'll sign the treaty and then bomb her enemy. She's worthless to society.

The fact that this is being debated so heavily is ridiculous. It's like finding out that the homeless guy that's on the corner by my office thinks jews eat babies. He's allowed to think that and his thinking that doesn't change one detail of life the slightest bit.

[Ajax Knucklebones]

It has to do with people claiming she's a hypocrite. So, she is. So what? She's not in charge of anything. She's not gonna say she'll sign the treaty and then bomb her enemy. She's worthless to society.

The fact that this is being debated so heavily is ridiculous. It's like finding out that the homeless guy that's on the corner by my office thinks jews eat babies. He's allowed to think that and his thinking that doesn't change one detail of life the slightest bit.

Jews don't eat babies?

[Rockwulf]

I didn't say that. I just said the guy thinks they do.

[Amelia G]

It has to do with people claiming she's a hypocrite. So, she is. So what? She's not in charge of anything. She's not gonna say she'll sign the treaty and then bomb her enemy. She's worthless to society.

The fact that this is being debated so heavily is ridiculous. It's like finding out that the homeless guy that's on the corner by my office thinks jews eat babies. He's allowed to think that and his thinking that doesn't change one detail of life the slightest bit.

If the homeless guy on the corner by your office were given a megaphone to television and the internet, such that lots of people would hear his jackass opinion, then it would be culturally important for the opposing non-jackass opinion to be stated to at least as wide an audience. Because we live in a representative democracy, it matters what the common man thinks and the common man is influenced by media. If we lived in an oligarchy, then it would only matter what people in government thought, but that ain't how it is.

For the record, you have really ignorant homeless people where you work. Jews do not eat babies. The homeless people near where I work just think they are about to drop charting albums or have sex with famous people . . . and they are at least sometimes right.