great sift.

*politics

Adding video to channels (Politics) - requested by NetRunner.

I'm normally not a fan of piggybacking on another video, but I love this video so much I had to find the PSA the Director was referring to at the end of the video. Here it is for reference: http://www.videosift.com/video/I-Believe-PSA-Response-to-Miss-California-and-NOM

*promote.

I want this to be #1. Best *talks I've heard in a while.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, May 11th, 2009 10:54pm PDT - promote requested by EDD.

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by EDD.

*promote

I see porn in her future...

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, May 12th, 2009 4:02am PDT - promote requested by MycroftHomlz.

You see where dishonesty gets you?

Interesting... Donald Trump just announced that Prejean (A) keeps her crown and (B) her stance on gay marriage is the same as Obama's. It is nice to see that common sense, civility, and freedom of speech will occasionally triumph over bigotry, demagoguery, propoganda, and agenda politics.

And make no mistake, that's all this so-called 'issue' ever was...

nomnomnom?

This is not, and never was a "freedom of speech" issue. Prejean can say anything she wants, whenever she wants. However, the organizations she belongs to also have the right to disassociate themselves from her whenever they like. In this case, Trump chose not to exercise that right, but it has nothing to do with her "freedoms". Give me a fucking break.

Prejean can say anything she wants, whenever she wants. However, the organizations she belongs to also have the right to disassociate themselves from her whenever they like. In this case, Trump chose not to exercise that right, but it has nothing to do with her "freedoms". Give me a break.

Do you also advocate that private organizations such as churches, the boy scouts, and various professional organizations have a "right to dissassociate themselves whenever they like" when applied to gays?

I have no problem with a gay chick standing up in the MAP and saying that she thinks gay marriage is cool. Why? Because I'm not threatened by other people's opinions. By comparison, the neo-libs & gay lobbyists collapse into puddles of intolerance, fear, and hatred when someone says or does something they disagree with.

gay lobbysts?
lol?

These cowards, degenerates and inquisitors are blaming others for all the problems they created for Carrie Prejean? Laughable.

Her only thoughtcrime was not giving the Correct- WINK WINK- answer.

Beauty pageants - serious business.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I have no problem with a gay chick standing up in the MAP and saying that she thinks gay marriage is cool. Why? Because I'm not threatened by other people's opinions. By comparison, the neo-libs & gay lobbyists collapse into puddles of intolerance, fear, and hatred when someone says or does something they disagree with.


perhaps that's because a dissenting view of gay rights usually involves bigotry of some stripe or another? or perhaps that's just more gay propaganda, that equal rights means equal for everyone?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
And make no mistake, that's all this so-called 'issue' ever was...


Yeah, equality for gays?

What's all the fuss about?

Let's be snide and chuckle to ourselves, knowing that our lives will never be affected by such things.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'miss, california, gay, marriage, carrie, prejean, slap, fight' to 'miss, california, gay, marriage, carrie, prejean, slap, fight, nomnomnom' - edited by volumptuous

I think these vanity pageants are disgusting and sad, but I still enjoy a good cat fight.

Miss California didn't loose because she gave the wrong answer, she lost because she gave a BAD answer. She said specifically.

"Well, I think it's great that Americans can choose one or the other. Um.. we live in a land where you can choose, um.. same sex marriage or opposite marriage. And, you know what? In MY COUNTRY.. in my family.. I think that, I believe that, marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody but thats how I was raised and thats how I think it should be - between a man and a woman."


Read that paragraph again, she didn't loose because she gave the 'wrong' answer, she lost because she was completely inarticulate, said one thing and meant another. (She said it's great we have the right to choose, but in the next line she thinks we shouldn't). If she had gotten a harder question she would have been like that chick last year who was spewing all kinds of nonsense to her question. This chick is just another ditsy plastic-model with a pretty face, nice legs, fake tits and plumped lips who has never exercised her brain.

Since she lost, she is just a whiny whore who broke the rules (and would have been stripped of her crown had she won in the first place for breaking said rules) and is bitching that she feels she said the wrong answer and is being punished for doing so. She simply gave a bad answer. And the organization who runs Miss USA has ever right as a private organization to rule as they feel right. Just as the Boy Scouts don't allow woman, gays, pagans, etc into their ranks. It may not be the right thing to do but it is their right to do so.

In the end, it doesn't matter what answer she gave. She simply gave a poor one, whether it was 'right or wrong' in any one persons view.


And wasn't there an incident like this last year where the Miss USA winner got into a bunch of trouble and she was crying all over about it and finally Trump invited her to a 'meeting' where they discussed the issue behind closed doors. Then they came out, she was crying and he had a big shit eating grin on his face and announced she would retain her crown?

These whiny-slut fests are worthless anymore. Lets free up some of the millions and millions that go toward these (and pay for people like Miss California to get boob-jobs before the event,) and give them to some charities or something.

Was there actually any more politically charge questions at the pageant than the one given to Ms. Prejean? This whole thing is a farce brought on by one gay man with an hidden agenda.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker: Do you also advocate that private organizations such as churches, the boy scouts, and various professional organizations have a "right to dissassociate themselves whenever they like" when applied to gays?

Hmmm, what's the difference? Oh yeah a little thing called 501(3)(c).

Typical cheap, lazy dodge. Be a man and answer the question. Do you think organizations - like the MAP - should have to "right to dissassociate themselves whenever they like" because of a person's sexual orientation? Or is your view (as I suspect) limited to applying that standard only when the organization enforces an orientation which you personally favor?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Typical cheap, lazy dodge.

1) organizations are not persons, and have no rights, but they do have an obligation to deal fairly, both with their employees, and with the public. You can't open a "no gays" restaurant, but you have the right to leave a restaurant if there are gay people there. Person vs. Business vs. Non-profit are all completely different issues.

2) Applying for 501(3)(c) makes churches and the boy scouts quasi-public entities, they give up some privileges in order to not pay taxes, this does not apply to MAP. Throwing them in shows that you aren't really thinking it through.

3) Prejean is MAPs employee, not just someone who showed up at their event, they have every right to fire her for making PSAs for NOM as Miss CA without their approval, for hiding the existence of the photos before the pageant, and for not meeting her other contractual obligations as Miss CA. MAP still can't decide not to hire black people or gay people, they still must deal fairly with the public.

4) Prejeans gross breach of contract is grounds to fire ANYBODY, the fact that she breached her contract by running around doing a political media blitz is not particularly relevant. She wants to pretend that it's her position, not her actions, which made firing her an option. She wanted to be a martyr, so she did something to get fired, while conflating her misdeeds with her political position. This is all her fault, and she still has not been punished for it, but still stands up and whines about being punished, because the media train wreck is what this is all about, and she does not have the decency, or strength of character to admit her error.

Shame shame shame.


Honestly? Who cares.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Be a man and answer the question.

You're steadily revealing yourself as a fuckin' moron (with a fabulous name).

>> ^MycroftHomlz:
promote
I see porn in her future...


Gay porn?

I only read relevant/important news on the internet, and (mercifully) only heard about this crap today. Has Paris Hilton spoke up on the issue yet? That's about the only thing that could add to the worthlessness of this as a news item.

WHO.
GIVES.
A.
FUCK.


this is not news.

organizations are not persons, and have no rights

Groups have freedom of speech, can own property, assemble, participate politically, apply for permits, et al... Those are rights.

2)501(3)(c) makes churches and the boy scouts quasi-public entities, they give up some privileges in order to not pay taxes, this does not apply to MAP. Throwing them in shows that you aren't really thinking it through.

It was plain from my quote that I was giving a laundry list of various possiblities. You're the one fixating on one example or another. Regardless, I deduce from your verbose parsing that you feel a 501c entity doesn't have the right to exclude exclude membership, but you think a non-501c should be able to be exclusionary. That's good. We're making some progress.

Prejean is MAPs employee, not just someone who showed up at their event, they have every right to fire her for making PSAs for NOM

I have no problem with MAP booting any contestant they want for any reason they want. Their contest their rules. But apply the rules FAIRLY. If the MAP fires Prejean for speaking out in favor of an 'external group' then they bloody better disqualify ALL contestants who do anything even remotely close to that. That includes speaking for pro-gay groups. The problem neo-libs encounter is that they want to selectively apply the rules so they can discriminate against things they hate, and give a free pass to things they like. I'm not a that big of a douche, so I apply all rules equally.

for hiding the existence of the photos before the pageant, and for not meeting her other contractual obligations as Miss CA.

Deceptive language. Everyone knew about the pics. You can't take those kinds of pics at a shoot with a 17 year old without MAJOR supervision. Saying they were 'hidden' is disingenous. The MAP knew all about them long ago. Not meeting her contractual obligations? Which ones? I heard there was a big group photo shoot she didn't show up for, but it was not one she was 'contractually obligated' to attend. It was an invitation.

To me it seems like you're parsing to the nth degree in an effort to avoid having to conceed your errors. There is nothing bad about being wrong sometimes. But don't rhetorically flail around when you make a mistake.

^ "neo-libs" - no bias in your court. Nope.

And it's so original of you to invent a phrase that would mirror the notorious, and self-named "Neocons" who, with thinking like yours, have worked so hard and have done so much to make this world so much better, as we call all plainly see.

We can always count on you, Winston, to stand up and defend people's rights to be bigoted, greedy, superficial, and hypocritical.

It's the mark of sound conservatism.

Oh, Winstonfield. Always the myopia with you, always the myopia.

I don't understand how you can think that excluding gay people from being able to marry is not hate-based, I can't see. Please, try and explain that one. I think we can pretty much be certain that people lobbying for the rights of women to vote were good, and those lobbying against them were bad. The same with rights for black people. And now it's the same with rights for gay people. How can you even think that it is fair and inclusive to not allow gay people to marry? It is not. If someone spouts women-hate or racist bullshit they deserve to be kicked out of whatever organizations they are creating their problem in, just like the law allows. The same is true for gay-haters (ghaters? (; ) it's just that it is not yet officially recognized that anti-gay marriage is also a form of hate.

It is just another step in the correct path of tolerance and compassion for all people regardless of their creed. We are all human first. I'm sorry, Winstonfield, that you believe some people deserve your intolerance because you've somehow come to the conclusion they are not worthy. I'm sorry, Winstonfield, you are arguing for the side that has always lost as civilization advances forward. You can continue scrabbling with your laughable 'neo-lib' stance, but you must realize that 90% of the people who see such phrases immediately laugh at them.

Most of all, Winstonfield, I'm compassionaly sorry for you.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker: Those are rights.

No, here again you throw things together either without thinking, or with intention to deceive. How can an organizational structure assemble? What you mean to say is that the people who use the organization have the right to assemble, or do the other things you mentioned. That does not imply any rights for the organization as an entity. It is lawful to restrain the activity of an organization, and its resources, in any way that courts or legislatures wish, this my not have been done, but it does not imply that the organization has a right.

501c entity doesn't have the right to exclude exclude membership, but you think a non-501c should be able to be exclusionary.

No, they both have a responsibility to deal fairly. Religious organizations are currently give more latitude, by legislative fiat, to exclude, but that is not particularly relevant, as the only reason we are even talking about it is that you threw them in an attempt to confuse the point.

The problem neo-libs

Do you know that neo-liberal already means something? It's not what you think, it's very much like neo-con.

As to your "point", you assert that "we" want selective application of the rules, and I, for one, do not. Anybody can stand up and answer questions however they want on a prime-time soft core porn show, and she did. She was neither jailed, nor arrested, nor beaten, nor fired. She got second place, she may have been penalized for her incoherent/disrespectful answer, but that is why they ask questions to JUDGE them.

Her only basis to claim "penalty" is that she did not win, which implies that the 48 other women who did not win are also being penalized for their answers, and they don't even get to milk it for a speaking tour/book deal.

Prejean makes the alarmingly common white/conservative/Christian assertion that nobody else has a right to speak against them because they are "exercising freedom of speech", this is absurd on its face. Having people say you are wrong or stupid is not a denial of freedom of speech, it's an exercise of freedom of speech. She is asking for a double standard, I see no indication that she is suffering from one.

Everyone knew about the pics...17 year old

More pics came out 2 hours before the trump press conference, and their is no indication that any of the pics are her at 17, that was just a ruse to try and get people to take them down because they might be technically "kiddie porn". If she misrepresented herself on the application for the pageant, which the organizers claim she did, that's grounds for termination. It's stupid for an organization built around T&A to penalize that, but they have a long history of doing it, so stop whining about selective application of the rules, letting her off is the exception.

Which ones?

Her bosses claim she was MIA for weeks, claiming to be "unable" to make appearances, while at the same time making appearances on Right wing Radio/TV to fan the flames, and doing so as Miss CA, which is a significant issue in itself.

How about you try not showing up to work for weeks, and see how "oppressed" you are as a result.

There is nothing bad about being wrong sometimes. But don't rhetorically flail around when you make a mistake.

That's the only sensible thing you have said, perhaps you should read it to yourself a few times...no offense (that makes it all okay)

>> ^MaxWilder:
Prejean can say anything she wants, whenever she wants. However, the organizations she belongs to also have the right to disassociate themselves from her whenever they like. In this case, Trump chose not to exercise that right, but it has nothing to do with her "freedoms". Give me a break.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Do you also advocate that private organizations such as churches, the boy scouts, and various professional organizations have a "right to dissassociate themselves whenever they like" when applied to gays?



YES!

Get that? That clear enough for you? As long as it is a private organization that is receiving no government funding, they should be allowed to exclude whoever they want, whenever they want, without explanation. As long as they are not fanning the flames of violence, I don't give a rats ass if a church doesn't want to perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple! WHO THE HELL EVER SAID CHURCHES WOULD BE FORCED TO PERFORM GAY MARRIAGES?!!? I know that's not specifically what you said here, Picklepecker, but you were driving at it, and that ridiculous idea drives me crazy.

If a Mormon was kicked out of the church for supporting gay rights, I wouldn't give a shit. If a Coca-Cola employee was fired for publicly supporting Pepsi, we wouldn't blink an eye. I see no difference.

So please stop pushing those ridiculous blanket statements on everybody who has more intelligence and better defined positions than you.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by ctrlaltbleach.