# Poor Miss California



## terryl965 (Jun 10, 2009)

here is the article about her being fired enjoy. LINK


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 10, 2009)

terryl965 said:


> here is the article about her being fired enjoy. LINK



How tolerant of you.


----------



## JDenver (Jun 10, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> How tolerant of you.



Is there something intolerant about posting the link to a beauty queen fired for not even bothering to honour her own contract?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 10, 2009)

JDenver said:


> Is there something intolerant about posting the link to a beauty queen fired for not even bothering to honour her own contract?



I think it had more to do with the extreme joy all the people in favor of same-sex marriage seem to be expressing at the thought of an avowed 'hetero-only' marriage proponent lost her job.  If she lost it for failing to honor her contract, then that's what she gets.  But the _Schadenfreude _being expressed here and elsewhere makes me believe they're happy not because she got fired for not living up to her contract, but for daring to voice a non-California PC opinion about marriage.  They'd probably be over the moon with happiness if she were raped and murdered.

It just so happens that I sometimes notice that the PC crowd are pretty quck to demonstrate just now intolerant they are - in their world, 'tolerance' is only what non-PC people should show - they never apply the same yardstick to themselves.


----------



## JDenver (Jun 10, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> They'd probably be over the moon with happiness if she were raped and murdered.



I see what you were saying, unfortunately it all dissolves under the weight of this one, fairly scary, assertion.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 10, 2009)

JDenver said:


> I see what you were saying, unfortunately it all dissolves under the weight of this one, fairly scary, assertion.



I'm exaggerating, of course.  But you should read the comments online in the newspaper articles.  They're going on about how she should be banned from working anymore, she's a slut and a whore, etc, etc.  It's clearly joy that she got fired for daring to make one simple statement.

Let's say they'd be pleased if she broke an ankle and it hurt really bad.  I'll retract the raped and murdered bit.


----------



## terryl965 (Jun 11, 2009)

Bill I just posted about her getting fired, no hidden anything here. I hust thought man are we getting so bad that we are just firing people just to fire.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 11, 2009)

terryl965 said:


> Bill I just posted about her getting fired, no hidden anything here. I hust thought man are we getting so bad that we are just firing people just to fire.



In that case, please accept my apologies!  I read the title "Poor Miss California" as snarky, rather than humorous, and this is also popping up on the other discussion forums I frequent.  Knee-jerk on my part, and I'm sorry about it.


----------



## crushing (Jun 11, 2009)

terryl965 said:


> Bill I just posted about her getting fired, no hidden anything here. I hust thought man are we getting so bad that we are just firing people just to fire.


 

Terry,  I think including the word "enjoy" in the OP may lead people to put a little more thought or second guessing about the purpose of the OP.


----------



## terryl965 (Jun 11, 2009)

crushing said:


> Terry, I think including the word "enjoy" in the OP may lead people to put a little more thought or second guessing about the purpose of the OP.


 
Sorry about thst, I did not know everything else was going on with her.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 11, 2009)

terryl965 said:


> Sorry about thst, I did not know everything else was going on with her.


 
I didn't either, I do now and I still don't care.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 11, 2009)

Ya know, I don't care either, and I personally think beauty pageants are stupid.  

But in fact, people experience a certain evil glee when someone makes a very public point of expressing his or her moral conviction, and then is exposed as a hypocrite.

Like a married Congressman who is publicly against gay rights, but then solicits gay sex in a men's room.

Or like a prominent TV minister being exposed as an adulterer or an embezzler.

Or when someone publicly espouses the morality of her profound religious beliefs, but is discovered to have posed for "racy" photographs (something I also don't care about).

And that probably explains why some people have that sense of evil glee about Prejean.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 11, 2009)

Phoenix44 said:


> Ya know, I don't care either, and I personally think beauty pageants are stupid.
> 
> But in fact, people experience a certain evil glee when someone makes a very public point of expressing his or her moral conviction, and then is exposed as a hypocrite.
> 
> ...



All of those make sense, except Prejean.  She did not espouse 'her profound religious beliefs' as I understand it, she said that in her opinion , marriage was between a man and a woman.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517215,00.html



> "I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman," she said on the live broadcast. "No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."



She was excoriated in the press and by pro-gay marriage proponents for her views - simply for her views - if you'll recall.

Then, she was whipped in public yet again for her 'hypocrisy' of having posed for nude photos.  What nude photos has to do with being against gay marriage, I don't know.  Do you?

And even if her stance on marriage is based on a religious conviction, I still don't see the 'hypocrite' label - being religious hardly precludes someone from posing for nude photos or even doing porno, as far as I know.

I agree with you that beauty contests are stupid and pointless and I have no interest in them.  I also had no knowledge of or interest in Prejean prior to the dustup that ensued when she said what she said during the beauty contest.

But I do not agree that her anti-gay marriage statement has anything to do with her nude photos or her religious convictions.


----------



## zDom (Jun 11, 2009)

Bill, welcome to the New America.

As dictated by the all powerful kingmaking (er, sorry, PRESIDENT-making.. for the moment) national media,

&#8226; the *ONLY* time intolerance is permitted is to denigrate and ridicule Christ, Christianity and traditional Christian beliefs

and

&#8226; the most heinous intolerance of all intolerance is not acknowledging the cultural superiority of homosexuality.

You will do well to remember these two key, important de facto edicts.

Miss California made the mistake of being on the wrong side of both of these. She's lucky she only lost her job.


----------



## Carol (Jun 11, 2009)

If I talked to my boss the way Carrie Prejean did in these e-mails, I'd probably be fired too...



> From: cprejeanXXXXSent: Friday, May 29, 2009 7:57 AMTo: Keith LewisSubject: Re: Messages
> You do not cooperate with me, and you pick and chose the the things YOU want me to do. That is not happening anymore. Stop speaking for me. I have MY own voice. What are u gonna do fire me for volunteering for the special olympics hahaha ur crazy No I am doing this appearance. You do not need details. Its for the SPECIAL OLYMPICS!!! You just need to know I will be doing it alright
> You will not facilitate this appearance
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
> ---


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525726,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525728,00.html


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 11, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> If I talked to my boss the way Carrie Prejean did in these e-mails, I'd probably be fired too...


 
Not if your boss knew your violent (flashlight) past


----------



## JDenver (Jun 11, 2009)

zDom said:


>  the most heinous intolerance of all intolerance is not acknowledging the cultural superiority of homosexuality.



Say what?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 11, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> If I talked to my boss the way Carrie Prejean did in these e-mails, I'd probably be fired too...
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525726,00.html
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525728,00.html



No doubt.  I would not stick up for her losing her job.  Sounds like she had it coming.  My ire is directed at those who found it 'justice' that she lost her job, as righteous 'punishment' for being anti-gay marriage.  It's not a crime to have that opinion.  Yet.

Consider the term _schadenfreude._


----------



## Brian King (Jun 11, 2009)

Do you job and be worthy of your hire. If not move on. No big deal but at the same time I have a couple of questions that came to mind when I heard the story that the young lady was fired. I wondered how many other ladies with her position had been fired for the same offensives how many had missed even more appearances yet remained in their positions. More than that I wondered if the appearances were set before or after the controversy. If after, I wonder what the appearances were and if they were contrived to continue the controversy or to punish the young lady. If I disliked you, thought you were terrible but had control of your life I could surly make your job so difficult that you would want to leave or quit. I have to admit that I wondered what those events that she missed consisted of. Not that big of a deal, some jobs do not work out, move onward and upward. Some employees do not work out, move on and hire one better. In this situation, they did not pick their employee she won the position, and she apparently did not have any control over where she had to go and what she was expected to say other than to not show up. Bad situation for all that has now been seemingly resolved. That it makes the press is not surprising but does tell some about our society. 

*Bill Mattocks wrote*


> My ire is directed at those who found it 'justice' that she lost her job, as righteous 'punishment' for being anti-gay marriage. It's not a crime to have that opinion. Yet.
> 
> Consider the term _schadenfreude._


 
It is part of human nature Bill. A low form no doubt but natural and to be expected, that said I agree with the usefulness of highlighting it when it is seen or felt.

Regards
Brian


----------



## zDom (Jun 12, 2009)

JDenver said:


> Say what?



Oh, I don't personally believe this. I'm very much Old America (baseball, mom, apple pie, clinging to my religion and guns )

But what I wrote above is pretty what the national media are telling us, increasingly: that it is not only an acceptable lifestyle choice, but a superior one.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 12, 2009)

zDom said:


> Bill, welcome to the New America.
> 
> As dictated by the all powerful kingmaking (er, sorry, PRESIDENT-making.. for the moment) national media,
> 
> ...


 Unless said homosexual is a republican, then they are a dangerous perv





> You will do well to remember these two key, important de facto edicts.
> 
> Miss California made the mistake of being on the wrong side of both of these. She's lucky she only lost her job.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 12, 2009)

She was/is attacked for the same views on gay marriage as Obama.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jun 12, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> All of those make sense, except Prejean. She did not espouse 'her profound religious beliefs' as I understand it, she said that in her opinion , marriage was between a man and a woman.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517215,00.html
> 
> ...


 
Thing is, if she wasn't born pretty -- and she wasn't motivated by her own hobgoblins to seek parleying that physical chance of birth into fame and cash -- nobody would care what she had to say about the subject. 250 million Americans, each with an opinion, the vast majority of which we'll never hear.

Her bubble extends beyond the scope of frinds, family, and co-workers only for a time. And only because she was born more attractive than most of us folks.

As for me? I don't really care what she said, or what the repercussions are...I have other priorities, that don't include glorifying or villifying her for being who she is. Moot. But I did like your reality check.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 12, 2009)

As a child, I was always a fan of the Miss World competitions. Dozens of gorgeous women prancing around in bikinis, what boy wouldn't be? Since I moved to HB It's just the same as taking a walk to the beach o a summer's day, so I don't really care anymore.
I do find it scary that the homosexual movement (and it is a movement) is becoming so aggressive. Remember when the prop 8 vote first came up? People who were discovered to be against gay marriage were targetted. Businesses had picketters shouting all kinds of filth outside of them and churches such as Saddleback had demonstrations outside of them for weeks. 
I knew as soon as Prejean spoke that she would be fired. I knew that they would find some excuse to get rid of her. When I heard various gay activists going after her, it made my skin crawl. David Axelrod even mocked her and his boss has the same opinion. Why doesn't the gay population go after the president? I'll tell you why, it wouldn't be politically correct. Where are all the so called women's groups like NOW? Where were they when Palin was (and still is) being viciously attacked?

I actually believe that gay people, polygamists, bigamists, sisters and brothers, mothers and sons, fathers and daughters and any other alternative marriages should be allowed. I think as long as all in the arrangement are consenting adults, all these arrangements should be allowed. I do, however think that if these gay activists keep behaving like they are to people who don't tow the line of their political agenda, they will lose support. I, for one am beginning to get tired of them.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jun 13, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> As a child, I was always a fan of the Miss World competitions. Dozens of gorgeous women prancing around in bikinis, what boy wouldn't be? Since I moved to HB It's just the same as taking a walk to the beach o a summer's day, so I don't really care anymore.
> I do find it scary that the homosexual movement (and it is a movement) is becoming so aggressive. Remember when the prop 8 vote first came up? People who were discovered to be against gay marriage were targetted. Businesses had picketters shouting all kinds of filth outside of them and churches such as Saddleback had demonstrations outside of them for weeks.
> I knew as soon as Prejean spoke that she would be fired. I knew that they would find some excuse to get rid of her. When I heard various gay activists going after her, it made my skin crawl. David Axelrod even mocked her and his boss has the same opinion. Why doesn't the gay population go after the president? I'll tell you why, it wouldn't be politically correct. Where are all the so called women's groups like NOW? Where were they when Palin was (and still is) being viciously attacked?
> 
> I actually believe that gay people, polygamists, bigamists, sisters and brothers, mothers and sons, fathers and daughters and any other alternative marriages should be allowed. I think as long as all in the arrangement are consenting adults, all these arrangements should be allowed. I do, however think that if these gay activists keep behaving like they are to people who don't tow the line of their political agenda, they will lose support. I, for one am beginning to get tired of them.


 
While I am in agreement with much of your points, there is an unfortunate truth about initiating cultural change. That is, it requires a militant beginning to raise awareness of the matter. Eventually, cooler minds prevail. But in the meantime, the wheel must be sueakier than the rest to hearken a need for change. I've not seen anyone wracked on a barbed wire fence for being a white angle heterosexual male.

And I'm jealous of your HB address...lived there from 74 to 2005 (mostly), and the summer bikini visuals were always pleasing. However, I don't miss the traffic. It was better when oil derricks and strawberry fields dotted the landscape, instead of so many homes, stoplights, and strip malls.

D.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 13, 2009)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> While I am in agreement with much of your points, there is an unfortunate truth about initiating cultural change. That is, it requires a militant beginning to raise awareness of the matter. Eventually, cooler minds prevail. But in the meantime, the wheel must be sueakier than the rest to hearken a need for change. I've not seen anyone wracked on a barbed wire fence for being a white angle heterosexual male.
> D.


Good point. I do believe however, that recent behaviour by gay activists may draw the 'right to marry' battle out longer. I can't understand why anyone would want to deny people the right to the happiness I have with my wife. It does go much deeper than this though.
As an immigrant, I received my I-551 (green card) as a result of my marriage. This benefit cannot be obtained through a civil union, so this is truly a matter of equal protection under the law. How many gay people want to be with their partner who happens to live in a foreign country but cannot because of the absense of a certificate of marriage. Anyone who says a civil union gives the couple all the rights of marriage is mistaken.

All this being said, I still feel appauled at the way Prejean was treated. That guy Perez Hilton is a despicable little fella, who thrives on the misery of others.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 13, 2009)

yorkshirelad said:


> All this being said, I still feel appauled at the way Prejean was treated. That guy Perez Hilton is a despicable little fella, who thrives on the misery of others.



It's not just that little toad.  He has lots of fans who feel exactly the way he does, gay and straight both (and sorry, especially in California).  Not just that gay marriage is OK, but that you are not allowed to hold a differing opinion.

It is being made clear - you MAY NOT hold the opinion that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman, and if you don't get that yet, we'll find a way to ruin your life until you do.

Hilton makes it a war instead of a debate.  If it's a war, then I will chose a side, but it won't be the one he likes.  I despise being told what I have to believe.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 13, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I despise being told what I have to believe.


 
Agreed. 

I classify myself as a libertarian. We need basic laws and taxes in order to have a just society. After that, do whatever floats your boat, its your life, live it as you see fit. Do not spend my tax dollars frivolously or interfere on my/anyones life and its all good.

* Yes I know its more complicated than that, but basically.*

Everyone should have the same rights and freedoms. 

If gays want to marry, so what? If polygamists want to marry multiple people, (Among consenting, and not forced upon adults), so what? If you want to shack up with someone and not marry, so what? If someone wants to worship Elvis? So what? If you want to have a private club and exclude whites, blacks, greens or purples, thats your right, so what? If you want to have a stupid opinion and you want to express it, you have the right to not be prosecuted for it. 

I have the right to shut off my computer, radio or TV if the programming is pissing me off. I have the right to say no thank you to religious people and expect them not to harass me because I dont hold the same beliefs they do. I have the right to defend myself, my family and those citizens who I believe need assistance. I have the right to express my opinion in whatever media I so chose, regardless of how popular it is. 

Why is it that some people feel they have the right to tell others how to live their lives? 

Mom was right all those years ago, mind you own business.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 13, 2009)

> It is being made clear - you MAY NOT hold the opinion that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman, and if you don't get that yet, we'll find a way to ruin your life until you do.


 
Just out of curiosity, how is your life being ruined by people who disagree with you on this issue?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 13, 2009)

Phoenix44 said:


> Just out of curiosity, how is your life being ruined by people who disagree with you on this issue?



Mine?  I haven't been attacked for having an opinion on marriage that is contrary to the zeitgeist.

But apparently, Prejean has, and she's far from the only one.  And that's pretty typical these days.  Even though Prejean's opinion mirrors that of President Obama, even though the majority of Californians voted against allowing gay marriage in California, take that opinion as a public figure (unless you're Obama) and watch the knives being sharpened.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 13, 2009)

Prejean isn't the loser in all of this nonsense. She will probably get a nicely paid career in the media (a fox news anchor ect). I just hope that gays get the right to marry and then all the 'Gay Pride' nonsense gets the axe.

 A friend of mine went to the city of Long Beach with a plan for a 'Straight Pride' march. The idea was that he wanted to appeal to all the straight people who chose to , to walk through Long Beach hand in hand with their wives, husbands, boyfriends and girlfriends along with banners and floats, just as they do in 'Gay Pride'. The council shot him down immediately and accused him of being intolerant. Talk about intolerance. Where is the equal protection in this situation?


----------



## Carol (Jun 13, 2009)

Not sure if her life is being ruined.  No one even remembers who the winner of the Miss USA contest was, and according to her interview with Matt Lauer, she has many offers rolling in.  I bet she inks a TV deal with someone within the next month or two.  She looked pretty cozy with Sean Hannity when he had her on his show, I can see Fox News bringing her on board.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 13, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Not sure if her life is being ruined.  No one even remembers who the winner of the Miss USA contest was, and according to her interview with Matt Lauer, she has many offers rolling in.  I bet she inks a TV deal with someone within the next month or two.  She looked pretty cozy with Sean Hannity when he had her on his show, I can see Fox News bringing her on board.



That may well be - but she could also end up on the scrap-heap, depending on how far the kings of intolerance and the media try to take their persecution of her.  I am recalling a different circumstance entirely, but someone destroyed by the media - Richard Jewell.

And I don't think the people who went after her get a pass if everything works out OK for her - their intent was clearly to destroy her, based on their joy at her losing her job, and if they failed to do so, they still tried.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 16, 2009)

Cry me a river.  She expressed a bigoted opinion, and a lot of people expressed their perfectly legal right to free speech to respond to her views.  If her views ruin her career then so be it - see how far you get expressing racism or other similar bigotry.  If she didn't want to take heat for her views, then she should have kept her mouth shut.  Having an opinion doesn't shield you from the consequences of expressing it.

Let's just hope the scary homosexuals don't repress us all.  Ooooooh, I'm scared!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 16, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Cry me a river.  She expressed a bigoted opinion, and a lot of people expressed their perfectly legal right to free speech to respond to her views.  If her views ruin her career then so be it - see how far you get expressing racism or other similar bigotry.  If she didn't want to take heat for her views, then she should have kept her mouth shut.  Having an opinion doesn't shield you from the consequences of expressing it.
> 
> Let's just hope the scary homosexuals don't repress us all.  Ooooooh, I'm scared!



My original point was not one of sympathy for her, but to note the 'tolerance' of the people who view homosexual marriage as a right and have no trouble expressing their glee when something bad befalls someone who has a different opinion.

It's like being happy because your neighbor who voted for the 'other guy' gets cancer or his house burns down.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Jun 18, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Cry me a river. She expressed a bigoted opinion, and a lot of people expressed their perfectly legal right to free speech to respond to her views. If her views ruin her career then so be it - see how far you get expressing racism or other similar bigotry.


Her views expressed no bigotry. If the question had been,"What are your views on polygamy?" and she responded, "I think a marriage should be between two people". Would you have considered them bigotry?

Let me just tell you that bigotry against the Christian world is saturated in the media, but because it's fashionable to express such views, it gets a pass.


----------

