Miss California

Screech · **Joined:** Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:57 pm **Posts:** 1751

Chairman Mao wrote:

karent wrote:

Miss California is taking a position with an anti-gay marriage group in Washington. Doesn't she have commitments in CA?

It's because she's a sore loser. She can't accept the fact that she is runner-up, and continues to shamelessly try to steal the spotlight from Miss North Carolina.

I dont' think she's acting like a sore loser. She is proud of the stance she took in support of her faith in God. She has no regrets!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUlDpZ9MFgI

IMO, a sore loser would be crying that she should have answered it the way they expected.

Screech · **Joined:** Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:57 pm **Posts:** 1751

Chairman Mao wrote:

happy jack wrote:

If the gay community claims that their goal is to effect a simple policy of live and let live, then they are displaying the ultimate in hypocrisy by not denouncing those, such as Olbermann, who would destroy this girl's life for truthfully answering a question.

So the gays are all of the sudden responsible for the words coming out of Olbermann's mouth?

Seriously?

And then you take it further by suggesting that Miss California's life is being destroyed?

Dramatic much?

I don't think that was his point. Olbermann is a gay himself, and has set himself up as a spokesman for the gay community. I believe he is the personification of the attitude and mentality of the gay community, along with the likes of Hilton. WARPED!

Miss California is being criticized by this attitude and mentality, and it is only damaging her credibility in the circle of those who are warped. I don't think that is diminishing her effect on normal people, rather strengthening us. I highly doubt that Olbermann's opinions, meant to brow-beat her, have any negative effect on her beliefs. The comment is 'who would destroy' her life, if it were possible. It is not possible.

Chairman Mao · **Joined:** Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:27 pm **Posts:** 1079

Screech wrote:

Chairman Mao wrote:

And now it comes out that Miss California was packing some performance enhancing silicone... :lol:

But it's still all Perez's fault right? Not only was Miss North Carolina graceful... all of her parts are real too.

You can't use that as an argument.

I can use that as an argument. I fall in line with the majority of American men who prefer real breasts over implants. You're too busy making this a political whining about "liberals and fags" to realize that were talking about a pagent.

Screech · **Joined:** Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:57 pm **Posts:** 1751

Miss California goes to Washington

Carrie Prejean was the face of California. But now Miss California has become the poster child for marriage between a man and a woman. Miss California buzzed up to a national news at the Miss USA competition after she gave her opinion on gay marriage (she's against it). Searches on the beauty queen surged over 1,000% in this week alone. Her denouncement caused an uproar and most likely cost Miss Cali her chance at the Miss USA crown. Now the runner-up is number one with marriage defense groups, and she's crusading across the country to defend "traditional marriage." Pageant officials, meanwhile, were miffed that the beauty queen is neglecting her official duties.

They didn't do right by her, so she is not feeling the need to do right by their expectations of 'official duties', and I don't blame her one bit.

happy jack · **Joined:** Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:32 am **Posts:** 3789

Chairman Mao wrote:

Screech wrote:

Chairman Mao wrote:

And now it comes out that Miss California was packing some performance enhancing silicone... :lol:

But it's still all Perez's fault right? Not only was Miss North Carolina graceful... all of her parts are real too.

You can't use that as an argument.

I can use that as an argument. I fall in line with the majority of American men who prefer real breasts over implants. You're too busy making this a political whining about "liberals and fags" to realize that were talking about a pagent.

What may also be used as an argument is that Miss California spoke for the majority of the state she was representing, based on how the referendum vote went.

Screech · **Joined:** Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:57 pm **Posts:** 1751

Chairman Mao wrote:

Screech wrote:

Chairman Mao wrote:

And now it comes out that Miss California was packing some performance enhancing silicone... :lol:

But it's still all Perez's fault right? Not only was Miss North Carolina graceful... all of her parts are real too.

You can't use that as an argument.

I can use that as an argument. I fall in line with the majority of American men who prefer real breasts over implants. You're too busy making this a political whining about "liberals and fags" to realize that were talking about a pagent.

It sure opened a huge can of worms internationally, so I am not the only one in the world pointing out the whining and crying of the "liberals and fags" is getting out of hand. I'm not the only one using this pagaent and the results of it as an example.

:smt019

Chairman Mao · **Joined:** Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:27 pm **Posts:** 1079

Screech wrote:

Chairman Mao wrote:

karent wrote:

Miss California is taking a position with an anti-gay marriage group in Washington. Doesn't she have commitments in CA?

It's because she's a sore loser. She can't accept the fact that she is runner-up, and continues to shamelessly try to steal the spotlight from Miss North Carolina.

I dont' think she's acting like a sore loser. She is proud of the stance she took in support of her faith in God. She has no regrets!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUlDpZ9MFgI

IMO, a sore loser would be crying that she should have answered it the way they expected.

She's not? Well where was her anti-gay marriage activism before she lost the crown?

Chairman Mao · **Joined:** Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:27 pm **Posts:** 1079

Screech wrote:

Chairman Mao wrote:

happy jack wrote:

If the gay community claims that their goal is to effect a simple policy of live and let live, then they are displaying the ultimate in hypocrisy by not denouncing those, such as Olbermann, who would destroy this girl's life for truthfully answering a question.

So the gays are all of the sudden responsible for the words coming out of Olbermann's mouth?

Seriously?

And then you take it further by suggesting that Miss California's life is being destroyed?

Dramatic much?

I don't think that was his point. Olbermann is a gay himself, and has set himself up as a spokesman for the gay community.

Do you have any proof to back this up?

Screech · **Joined:** Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:57 pm **Posts:** 1751

Chairman Mao wrote:

She's not? Well where was her anti-gay marriage activism before she lost the crown?

Everyone has a starting point. Are you denying her that reality?

Screech · **Joined:** Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:57 pm **Posts:** 1751

Chairman Mao wrote:

Screech wrote:

I don't think that was his point. Olbermann is a gay himself, and has set himself up as a spokesman for the gay community.

Do you have any proof to back this up?

If he's not gay, he's sympathetic to their cause, for sure.

He might as well be gay.

I couldn't care less if he is!

Chairman Mao · **Joined:** Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:27 pm **Posts:** 1079

Screech wrote:

Chairman Mao wrote:

karent wrote:

Miss California is taking a position with an anti-gay marriage group in Washington. Doesn't she have commitments in CA?

It's because she's a sore loser. She can't accept the fact that she is runner-up, and continues to shamelessly try to steal the spotlight from Miss North Carolina.

I dont' think she's acting like a sore loser. She is proud of the stance she took in support of her faith in God. She has no regrets!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUlDpZ9MFgI

IMO, a sore loser would be crying that she should have answered it the way they expected.

She's so mad that she lost that she's taking up a newly found interest in activism.

Chairman Mao · **Joined:** Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:27 pm **Posts:** 1079

Screech wrote:

Chairman Mao wrote:

She's not? Well where was her anti-gay marriage activism before she lost the crown?

Everyone has a starting point. Are you denying her that reality?

Denying her that reality? Of course not.

Equating it to the bitterness she feels over losing the crown. You bet!

Chairman Mao · **Joined:** Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:27 pm **Posts:** 1079

Screech wrote:

Chairman Mao wrote:

Screech wrote:

I don't think that was his point. Olbermann is a gay himself, and has set himself up as a spokesman for the gay community.

Do you have any proof to back this up?

If he's not gay, he's sympathetic to their cause, for sure.

He might as well be gay.

I couldn't care less if he is!

That's still evasive to the question I directed towards Happy Jack.

happy jack · **Joined:** Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:32 am **Posts:** 3789

Chairman Mao wrote:

happy jack wrote:

If the gay community claims that their goal is to effect a simple policy of live and let live, then they are displaying the ultimate in hypocrisy by not denouncing those, such as Olbermann, who would destroy this girl's life for truthfully answering a question.

So the gays are all of the sudden responsible for the words coming out of Olbermann's mouth?

Seriously?

No, gays are not responsible for the words coming out of Olbermann's mouth - I didn't say that.
They are, however, responsible for their cowardly silence.

happy jack · **Joined:** Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:32 am **Posts:** 3789

Chairman Mao wrote:

Screech wrote:

Olbermann is a gay himself, and has set himself up as a spokesman for the gay community.

Do you have any proof to back this up?

I don't know one way or another the sexual persuasion of Mr.Olbermann, but my safest guess would be that he is a very ugly woman trapped in a man's body.

Northwest Indiana Discussion

Miss California

Who is online