Posts
The liberal hypocrisy in this Miss California drama is beyond belief. Liberals love to preach how they believe in free speech, everyone should be able to give their opinion, everyone should be able to think and do what they want. Yet here's a woman that gave her opinion when asked a specific question and what does she get for it? Being called a "b*t(h, pictures of her posted on the internet, digging into her past, etc. It's unbelievable that a woman is being put through this for simply giving her opinion.
Let's just pretend that she said she was for gay marriage and the crowd then booed her and vilified her. Liberals would definitely have her back then! Women's rights organziations, the ACLU, Hollywood, etc. They would all be backing her up. Instead none of these groups are backing her up and instead are joining in the blasting of her image. How about if Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. were doing what Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, CNN, mainstream media, Hollywood are doing to her?????
And just a reminder to liberals - your hero, your Messiah, your "greatest president ever", the annointed one, the great Barack Obama - IS AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE!! So if you're going to direct your hatred at Miss California for daring to say she's against gay marriage, then maybe you should blast The Messiah as well, because he shares the same views. Oh, and over 50% of the state she represents voted AGAINST gay marriage. So she represents the majority. Hmmmm.
I'd love to hear a liberal explain how there isn't hypocrisy in this whole mess. I don't think you can get around it, but I'd love to hear it.
16 comments:
She was both cheered and booed during the pageant obviously there are people who agree and people who disagree with her. She now is becoming a spokesperson for the National Organization for Marriage where she can speak out in support for "opposite" marriage all she wants.
and if i remember correctly we all also have a right to disagree with her and voice our disagreement. I think that the majority of attacks against her have mainly been against the answer itself and her explanations afterwards. Let's just say she has been less than eloquent. But obviously in our land of free speech she got to answer the question, and then she got to go on the Today show and other shows to defend her opinion. She is not some helpless victim in this situation, she said what she thought and she can continue to say it. But obviously this is a very touchy subject for many people, many gay people will find it offensive when someone who represents california says that in her country, in her family, she believes marriage is between a man and a woman no matter if she says "no offense" afterwards. And they might voice how upset they are, Bill Oreilly who has the segment talking about the biggest idiots of the day or whatever shouldn't get too upset at people calling her dumb. And Perez Hilton who called her a B, is a gossip columnist and has probably said a lot worse.
The ACLU defends civil rights, and gay civil rights are included so i don't think that they will be helping a beauty pageant contestant speaking out against gay rights.
Also she is in a beauty pageant so having pictures of her posted on the internet is not really a surprise. She's the one who took the half naked pictures, and got the breast implants both of which might not exactly be "biblical correct", but hey as long as you can pick and choose which parts of the bible to follow and preach to the rest of the world you're a role model. If you want to talk about hipocrasy
Here is the point that most miss here. If you want to know someone's opinion on something, don't vilify them for stating it.
Here's what is lost in translation as far as her stating her faith. Church is for the sick. No one that sits in those pews has lived a perfect life. They are just striving to be forgiven as they seek him.
The ACLU has taken the platform to defend Civil Liberties including one's right to speak. In choosing that platform, they cannot pick sides. They have to defend her right to speak as well whether or not they agree with what she says. What the ACLU is guilty of exposing their bias. They need to defend both sides right to speak if they are to call themselves the "American" Civil Liberties Union. Otherwise they need to choose a different name.
What exactly is the ACLU supposed to say? Sue perez hilton for calling her a B? really? Obviously she has the right to free speech, she spoke, then she went on the today show and spoke again, now she's working with an organization that's going to let her speak a lot more about gay marriage, so what's the problem? People have the right to disagree with her, that's another part of our country. They can voice that disagreement on TV on blogs, wherever. I really don't get what the big deal is, it's not like she was thrown in jail for her comments, she lost the crown which i'm pretty sure they can base that decision on whatever they want, it's a beauty pageant. in fact her comments got her a job with the national organization for marriage.
That's what is so hypocritical about the church itself, we are all sinners etc. Everyone has done something wrong no one's perfect. But the church has the right to preach to the world about what we are all doing wrong? To preach about gay people being wrong or gay marriage being wrong because the bible says so, when they don't follow half of the other things the bible says.
When she says that she doesn't agree with gay marriage because it is not biblically correct, people take that as a reason that it shouldn't be allowed, when the same argument could be made against breast implants, modeling, and tons of other things that she and everyone else has done, so why is that still a valid argument?
She was "less than eloquent" in her answer? She said she doesn't believe in gay marriage. What was she supposed to say??
And due to the blasts against her from the liberal media and Hollywood she had a right to defend herself.
And why shouldn't O'Reilly get mad at people calling her dumb? She's being called dumb for stating her belief that gay marriage should not be allowed.
You fine with us calling you dumb if you believe in gay marriage?? You believe in gay marriage, well therefore you are a dumb b*tch? Fine with that?
Sawa, I don't even know where to start with you. First the point Cub Fan is making is not that Miss Prejean can't handle herself. It's that the liberals that claim to stand for free speech, feminism, etc., should be rejoicing that this young woman was allowed to speak her opinion. Instead they are some of the people who are vilifying her. My belief, and I belief the Cub Fan would agree, is that Miss Prejean should be allowed to say Marriage is between a man and a woman, just like Sean Penn is allowed to say that Bush endangered America. However, they should both treated equally. You can't praise one and try to have the other destroyed. You can voice your disagreement, but personal attacks should never be even condoned or you lose all credibility. Here, Sawa, is where you seem to miss the point. By saying Hilton is just a gossip columnist, you essentially validate his right to vilify Miss Prejean. That's the problem. If you belief in free speech, you should condemn Hilton and all others that have resorted to personal attacks.
first to cub fan
her actual answer was Prejean: “Well I think its great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”
just read that through and tell me that it's an eloquent statement. first the beginning begs the question, wouldn't it be great if we lived in a country where you could actually choose to have a same-sex marriage or an opposite marriage as an individual? rather than as a state?
Her only backing in this statement is that's how i was raised, and then when she went on the shows later it was because the bible says so. So yes I can criticise that. I personally feel that those are stupid reasons, and it is a stupid opinion to have.
And yes there is a problem with O'Reilly getting mad at people calling her stupid. Maybe because he has a segment on his show called "pinheads or patriots" and calls people stupid on a daily basis for lesser or equal reasons to this one. I'm not saying he's the only one, Olbermann has the "worst person in the world" segment that is just as bad, but if you are going to complain about hipocracy on the left you might as well at least look for it on the right as well.
No I am not fine with being called a dumb b*tch for any reason, it's not exactly something I aim for, but there are definitely worse things in the world, and i don't exactly expect the ACLU to step in on my behalf. No i am not happy that perez hilton said it, i wish he would have taken a more mature stance and instead of attacking her personally, attacked her opinion. He should have argued for gay marriage and left personal attacks out of it, but he didn't and many people don't on a regular basis that's just how the world is. but she was not prevented from speaking and she can continue to defend herself, so i don't see what the big problem is.
Julio
First of all, feminism and a beauty pagaent queen? really? Feminists are all for free speech, but tend to choose smart women who have accomplished something of worth to be their spokespeople. They are not going to argue that she shouldn't have had the right to speak, but they are not going to ask her to be their mouthpiece any time soon.
Why should i be rejoicing that she was allowed to speak? yes we have free speech, people use it every day, do i really have to rejoice? I am speaking freely right now, should we have a party? Seriously this doesn't make any sense to me, she was on a beauty pagaent she was asked a question and she answered it, so did every other girl on the pagaent are you rejoicing in what the other ppl said? I disagree with what she said so i voice my disagreement, that doesn't hinder her free speech in any way.
Also I don't think that both should be treated equally, because they said different things. If someone says "America is a terrible country" and someone else says "it's sunny outside" I will not treat those comments the same because I don't agree with one of them. They are still allowed to say it, but their comments will be treated differently because they are different.
Yes I get it, personal attacks aren't the best argument, and i know that, i just don't think it is that big of a deal. They happen all the time to people on all sides. And i am just saying that perez hilton probably makes them daily so it is not a huge surprise that this was his response. What exactly do you want anyone to do? Punish perez hilton in some way?
People who disagree with her, people who are gay and are mad about what she said have a right not to like her because of something she said. They can't have her arrested or anything, but they can not like her and they can say they don't like her.
It's not that they disagree/don't like her, it's the level of the personal attacks that are aggregious. Then there is the essential acceptance of those attacks by many groups that supposedly condemn these types of attacks, at least when it's against someone they agree with. These groups would be Women's rights, they don't have agree with her statements, but they should stand against the vitriol spewed against her. Also MSNBC basically endorsed these types of attacks. That's where the problem is.
This is crazy. Really? aggregious personal attacks? I'm sorry, but these are no worse than stuff said in the media (and blogs like this one) every day about all kinds of celebrities and politicians. Once again I will point to O'reilly's "patriots and pinheads" segment. Personal attacks are everywhere.
Seriously how much crap is said about Obama, Pelosi, Hillary and Palin? Not to mention ARod, Madonna, Jon and Kate, Lindsey Lohan, the Hogans, Britney and Jamie Lynn Spears?
She is a beauty pageant queen and is in the public eye, so she is not immune to tabloid type stories.
I didn't think calling someone dumb was such a big deal.
I'm crazy???? and you're trying to compare this to Linsey Lohan, Britney and Jamie Lynn Spears??? Those are so off target, you lost all respect I might have ever had for you standing up to your point. Those are about people and how they live their lives. This about someone voicing a view that is commonly held on an issue that is very contentious, and being attacked for it. Not only that, but major news networks (MSNBC) have essentialy endorsed these attacks. Being called "dumb" is not what I'm talking about. This has devolved into attacks on her breast implants, (who cares, it's a common High School graduation gift in CA), her integrity, and her morality. Your comparisons are mostly derided for their "extra-curricular activities", not their views. As far as bringing up O'reilly, you liberals are sad. He is far less offensive to anyone on a 'bad' day, than Olbermann is on a 'good' day. Plus, O'reilly allows far more view points on his show in an hour, than MSNBC has in 24 hours. How else do you explain him having Ellis Henican on regularly???
I wasn't saying that she was the same as those people, but it's the same kind of attacks that are made against those people. So you think personal attacks are Ok if it's about something that they did, or the way they live their life? but not if they're about something you said? And the breast implants were paid for by the Miss California Organization not a graduation present. I don't see a huge difference. You act like she is being crucified for having an unpopular opinion, and she is not being crucified. She has been able to defend herself and a lot of other people defend her too (fox news). I don't get what the big controversy is.
Bill O'reilly is probably far less offensive to you than msnbc, but I would have to disagree. For me Fox news is far more offensive, not just for personal attacks more for blatant misinformation. That's an actual problem. In real life does this miss california controversy matter to anyone? No. A national news network calling a presidential candidate a communist or a terrorist? and then acting like it's the end of the world when he's elected. That's a problem.
Obviously we are not going to agree. I just don't think that anything wrong or unusual has happened.
All right, you apparently will never comprehend the reason that I feel this is an issue, so we'll move on.
However, your most recent response requires more evidence. I need to know what this blatant misinformation is.
Also, there is no way that Fox news is worse to Obama than MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC were to Bush.
How about when fox reported that obama went to a madrassa that taught a radical version of islam? When in fact it was a public school in jakarta that didn't focus on relgion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/24/us/politics/24obama.html?ref=politics
Steve Doocy on fox news- "the first decade of his life raised by his Muslim father as a Muslim and was educated in a madrassa … financed by Saudis, they teach the religion that pretty much hates us. The big question: Was that on the curriculum back then?"
http://abcnews.go.com/nightline/story?id=2823943&page=1
No wonder in march 2008 10% of america thought he was a muslim
http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_8723194
Then there was the ayer's controversy
Hannity: I don't understand how someone who wants to be president of the US started his political career at a guys house who bombed our pentagon capital and police headquarters.
Saying he is friendly with Ayers who is a terrorist. trying to give Stop Obama Express Tshirts to the kid in the interview. Encouraging guilt by association.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndsMWT_ZAM4
Remember terrorist fist jab controversy? Where the fox news reporter said something like friendly fist bump, terrorist fist jab whatever you want to call it about michelle and barack.
Hannity let someone go on his show arguing that obama became a community organizer to train for a radical overthrow of the government with the coaching of Ayers. Letting him speak, not refuting anything. This man by the way is a crazy anti-semitic who should not be allowed near a mic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmJVzEMrGyU
Also calling him anti-american for speaking in other countries, or apologizing for something we have done. Trying to link him to terrorists, and muslims. Often emphasizing Hussein. Questioning his citizenship.
And that's just during the election. Now there's the communist, socialist, marxist slurs being thrown around. And fox news acting like it was the end of the world and that we should all be afraid of a terrorist attack or someone taking all of our money away.
Obama hadn't even been named the candidate yet when these attacks started. I mean this kind of stuff said about bush didn't get too bad until after he made some mistakes. I feel that Bush had real reasons to be questioned in the press as much as he was.
Maybe Bush made some mistakes, but is there any evidence that he lied? And how about Begala stating that he hope Bush would fail prior to 9/11? I'm pretty sure the Liberals on CNN, MSNBC, etc, started there Bush bashing long before 2000. Bottom line, some things get said on Fox News that you can debate, but it's no worse than what gets said on the rest of the networks, and in most cases, a critic is allowed to speak right after most of these comments are made. On the Liberal netword most inflammatory remarks go uncontested.
Maybe MSNBC should have been leading on the stories that you reference above, so that the truth would have come out! They wouldn't want to actually do research.
Name two Conservatives that get face time on the Liberal Networks that can compare to Ellis Henican, and Juan Williams, who get to regulary dispute the claims you reference. The Socialism/Communism/Marxist/Fascist claims all have some level of validity. I know you won't agree, but they are valid debating topics right now!
Oh, and don't even get me started on the treatment of Sarah Palin. There is no way you can justify that in the same breath you condemn the existence of Fox news. I wish we would remove all personal attacks from media, and especially politics, but we all know that's not going to happen anytime soon. If we agree on that, let's make sure we aren't excusing one brand of attacks as we condemn another. They are all wrong, and sometimes I'm guilty of it, but I try to avoid it, and that doesn't mean it's good.
Sean Hannity's show is his opinion, just like Keith Olbermann's show is his opinion. The problem with MSNBC is that they have proclaimed liberals like Olbermann and Chris Matthews moderating events.
I have never seen O'Reilly and Hannity hosting a State of the Uniion speech or anything like that.
Also, O'Reilly and Hannity have more liberals on their shows in one night then MSNBC has conservatives on their shows in a year. Oh, they have Pat Buchanan as their token conservative. Hannity has liberals on his show every night. They have the chance to argue with him. That's something CNN and MSNBC don't provide.
Also in regards to the "eloquence" of her answer - my guess is that anything less than "I support gay marriage" would not be eloquent. Apparently that's offensive. So I guess the +50% of Californians who also don't support gay marriage are offensive and not eloquent along with your hero, President Messiah - the greatest human in the history of the world!!!
Oh, and her reasons for being against gay marriage are stupid? So because she believes that because of religion it's stupid? Marriage is based in religion, hence why she's against it.
Post a Comment