but (I'm assuming) she doesnt support gay marriage. so its of your opinion, based on that stance, that she should not win. personally, I dont think thats fair.
Well I'll be honest. I think that alone should stop her from winning.
To me it is the same as if she said Women are great, but they shouldn't be allowed to vote, or if she said I'm cool with slavery.
I don't think someone who openly tramples on the Constitution should be awarded some bullshit crown.
I was under the impression that her response made her sound like a complete airhead, and would have lost her the competition regardless of her opinion. Opposite marriage
i didn't say that.
i said to answer the question 'correctly'...nothing about winning or losing the pageant necessarily. however, even for the pageant....as i said....since this miss whatever is to represent 'USA' she should represent the country, and that means representing it's constitution and all. even tho it may not be legal everywhere...yet....it SHOULD be. just like 'seperate but equal' was never right either.
but it only SHOULD be according to you (and others of course). many firmly believe it should NOT be. there isn't a "correct" answer. at least not yet anyway. actually, the correct answer would technically be NO since its not legal for gays to marry.
you are saying she didnt correctly* answer the question and thus should not have won.
point is, i don't think ANYone would win or lose based on one question, alone....it's the whole enchilada. just b/c one judge says it cost her the pageant, doesn't make it so.
but it is so. thats what the JUDGE said. who know, the person who decides who wins
but (I'm assuming) she doesnt support gay marriage. so its of your opinion, based on that stance, that she should not win. personally, I dont think thats fair.
Well I'll be honest. I think that alone should stop her from winning.
To me it is the same as if she said Women are great, but they shouldn't be allowed to vote, or if she said I'm cool with slavery.
I don't think someone who openly tramples on the Constitution should be awarded some bullshit crown.
but women are allowed to vote and slavery is illegal. of course she shouldnt win if she was in favor of those things.
fact is, gay marriage is not legal (yet). she was simply stating she personally believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. like it or not, thats how the law reads.
but (I'm assuming) she doesnt support gay marriage. so its of your opinion, based on that stance, that she should not win. personally, I dont think thats fair.
Well I'll be honest. I think that alone should stop her from winning.
To me it is the same as if she said Women are great, but they shouldn't be allowed to vote, or if she said I'm cool with slavery.
I don't think someone who openly tramples on the Constitution should be awarded some bullshit crown.
wow, i retract my answer....while i was thinking similarly with the constitution idea, and even racially.....but i didn't take it quite all the way there. you did. you're right! it SHOULD cost her the crown. hahahaha, damn a crown........it costs us all a whole lot more to live amongst inequality.
jlew....isn't there more than one judge?
and that's how the law reads in SOME states...and just b/c it may be illegal everywhere else, doesn't make it right. it WAS illegal at one time for women to vote, for black to vote, etc, etc...so yes...if you want to be representative of your country, of it's ideals....that should include the constitution, so legal or not....that should mean, supporting equality for all. obviously, we see it differently, so be it. it's a BS pageant, but i can say i am glad she lost. besides which, according to HER idiotic answer, it IS legal in this country.....she's just against it, no offense. :roll: whatever..........
oh and for the last time, i said she didn't answer ONE question 'correctly' and that it, alone, should not cost her...it's the SUM of her answers. so please get your story straight. it is annoying when people make wrong conclusions about your opinion. altho now, i will say....i DO agree that one answer she cost her, but earlier..i wasn't in our exchange.
but (I'm assuming) she doesnt support gay marriage. so its of your opinion, based on that stance, that she should not win. personally, I dont think thats fair.
Well I'll be honest. I think that alone should stop her from winning.
To me it is the same as if she said Women are great, but they shouldn't be allowed to vote, or if she said I'm cool with slavery.
I don't think someone who openly tramples on the Constitution should be awarded some bullshit crown.
but women are allowed to vote and slavery is illegal. of course she shouldnt win if she was in favor of those things.
fact is, gay marriage is not legal (yet). she was simply stating she personally believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. like it or not, thats how the law reads.
That is fine. But the year before woman were given the right to vote, and the year before Slavery was Abolished, if I was the judge in those years and a woman supported those two opinions at that time, then I would not give her the crown either.
Well I'll be honest. I think that alone should stop her from winning.
To me it is the same as if she said Women are great, but they shouldn't be allowed to vote, or if she said I'm cool with slavery.
I don't think someone who openly tramples on the Constitution should be awarded some bullshit crown.
but women are allowed to vote and slavery is illegal. of course she shouldnt win if she was in favor of those things.
fact is, gay marriage is not legal (yet). she was simply stating she personally believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. like it or not, thats how the law reads.
That is fine. But the year before woman were given the right to vote, and the year before Slavery was Abolished, if I was the judge in those years and a woman supported those two opinions at that time, then I would not give her the crown either.
Some things are bigger than antiquated laws. IMO.
great, and succinct, posts!
really well stated.....far better than me.....and yes, seeing it fully in the big picture, i agree!
ok, lets pretend that question wasnt asked and the other girl lost based on her answer of bailouts. she was asked if companies should get bailouts. lets pretend she said yes. people are very passionate about that issue too and are almost as split like gay marriage debate.. should she have lost because the judge didnt like her opinion on that?
you people only think she should have lost because you happen to disagree with her. hell I do too but she shouldnt lose a based on that one belief.
ok, lets pretend that question wasnt asked and the other girl lost based on her answer of bailouts. she was asked if companies should get bailouts. lets pretend she said yes. people are very passionate about that issue too and are almost as split like gay marriage debate.. should she have lost because the judge didnt like her opinion on that?
you people only think she should have lost because you happen to disagree with her. hell I do too but she shouldnt lose a based on that one belief.
no.
opinion is not a fact. the bailouts are most definitely an 'opinion' topic...whereas imo, gay marriage is not. again, it's a civil rights issue, plain and simple...and there is only one right answer there, and that answer isn't just based on your personal opinion but on the constitution.
oh, and i will point out one more time - she simply gave an idiotic answer, sans her opinion! it was not well-educated, at all! she currently thinks it IS legal in all states...so for that idiocy alone she should lose the crown! :P
ok, lets pretend that question wasnt asked and the other girl lost based on her answer of bailouts. she was asked if companies should get bailouts. lets pretend she said yes. people are very passionate about that issue too and are almost as split like gay marriage debate.. should she have lost because the judge didnt like her opinion on that?
you people only think she should have lost because you happen to disagree with her. hell I do too but she shouldnt lose a based on that one belief.
no.
opinion is not a fact. the bailouts are most definitely an 'opinion' topic...whereas imo, gay marriage is not. again, it's a civil rights issue, plain and simple...and there is only one right answer there, and that answer isn't just based on your personal opinion but on the constitution.
LOL if it were only that simple. apparently there is more then one right answer. take CA for example, they voted against it. to Californians the right answer is NO gay marriage.
oh, and i will point out one more time - she simply gave an idiotic answer, sans her opinion! it was not well-educated, at all! she currently thinks it IS legal in all states...so for that idiocy alone she should lose the crown! :P
I know, but for the sake of argument, lets assume it was intelligent. I'll cut em all a little slack, she was nervous and stumbled a bit. she was asked, arguably, the most controversial topic in front of millions of people. not the easiest thing to do.
LOL if it were only that simple. apparently there is more then one right answer. take CA for example, they voted against it. to Californians the right answer is NO gay marriage.
I know, but for the sake of argument, lets assume it was intelligent. I'll cut em all a little slack, she was nervous and stumbled a bit. she was asked, arguably, the most controversial topic in front of millions of people. not the easiest thing to do.
no.
the californians are wrong too. seriously. every single state that has a ban on gay marriage is wrong. it is against our constitution. just b/c something is legal 'right now' doesn't make it right. see above: women's and black's rights, etc. one's religious and/or personal belief system should never be allowed to interefere with the right of others.....see: seperation of church and state.
and i'm sorry....you're a contestant in a pageant, while i do understand being nervous, you also shouldn't be THAt nervous that you cannot respond in a semi-coherent manner. i mean, really, wtf is 'opposite marriage'........? it was idiotic all the way round, not the least of which, her opinion trumping the ideals of this country....even if right now, those ideals are still not properly represented in all laws.
no.
the californians are wrong too. seriously. every single state that has a ban on gay marriage is wrong. it is against our constitution. just b/c something is legal 'right now' doesn't make it right. see above: women's and black's rights, etc. one's religious and/or personal belief system should never be allowed to interefere with the right of others.....see: seperation of church and state.
then whats the debate about?
the constitution does not say gays have a right to marry. its obviously open to interpretation. I'm not a constitution expert, but I'm willing to bet people can make a very strong case that bailouts are unconstitutional. making my above example relevant.
and i'm sorry....you're a contestant in a pageant, while i do understand being nervous, you also shouldn't be THAt nervous that you cannot respond in a semi-coherent manner. i mean, really, wtf is 'opposite marriage'........? it was idiotic all the way round, not the least of which, her opinion trumping the ideals of this country....even if right now, those ideals are still not properly represented in all laws.
it wasnt idiotic all the way around. she stumbled yes. but again, in this country the ideals you speak of are put forth by the people of this country. and the biggest weapon they have is voting, among others. people have voted it down. and the debate rages on.
no.
the californians are wrong too. seriously. every single state that has a ban on gay marriage is wrong. it is against our constitution. just b/c something is legal 'right now' doesn't make it right. see above: women's and black's rights, etc.
This idea you speak of... It reminds me of... A REPUBLIC Where democracy, aka rule of the majority becomes totally irrelevant even if only one person's rights are being trumped by the majority's vote.
so when gay marriage is legal in all 50 states then what ? Will you be happy ?
This isn't about making me happy. It's about treating my family equally under the law. I'm sure I'll always have a reason to be an asshole.
But it's not even the 50 states I care about as much as federal recognition. That's the rights my family needs to protect ourselves.
ok....correct me if i am wrong.
on one hand, i hear people claim " it is a states decision" to create the laws.
on the other hand, i hear people claim "i want the federal gov't" to create the laws.
i am for a states decision.
live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
so when gay marriage is legal in all 50 states then what ? Will you be happy ?
This isn't about making me happy. It's about treating my family equally under the law. I'm sure I'll always have a reason to be an asshole.
But it's not even the 50 states I care about as much as federal recognition. That's the rights my family needs to protect ourselves.
ok....correct me if i am wrong.
on one hand, i hear people claim " it is a states decision" to create the laws.
on the other hand, i hear people claim "i want the federal gov't" to create the laws.
i am for a states decision.
Well, I suppose when it comes to filing jointly on your FEDERAL income tax, I can see how this is one spot where people want there to be federal law.
But since the income tax is illegal and unconstitutional--
I had a feeling you would say that .....so my point is valid. if the other contestant lost the pageant because she thinks the banks should get bailout money would that be right or wrong? shes allowed to have an opinion right?
can you explain why?
this is a genuine inquiry, b/c i've not heard it expressed as such, nor thought of it as such. not saying you are right or wrong, i have no idea....thus, i ask.
jlew - if this is indeed a fact, i would say yes to you as well....b/c then indeed, it is not a matter of opinion - altho then i too am quite guilty as well. altho i don't think it is as morally as offensive, but vinny might disagree.....;) haha.
bottomline tho, i stand by my assessment - it's a civil rights/constitutional issue, and therefor opinions can be expressed bu the 'right' answetr to the question that must be told is that indeed, ALL cilitizens, including homosexuals, ahve the 'right' to marriage. besides which, her entire answer was extremely ignornant, not simply her pov.
no.
the californians are wrong too. seriously. every single state that has a ban on gay marriage is wrong. it is against our constitution. just b/c something is legal 'right now' doesn't make it right. see above: women's and black's rights, etc. one's religious and/or personal belief system should never be allowed to interefere with the right of others.....see: seperation of church and state.
then whats the debate about?
the constitution does not say gays have a right to marry. its obviously open to interpretation. I'm not a constitution expert, but I'm willing to bet people can make a very strong case that bailouts are unconstitutional. making my above example relevant.
and i'm sorry....you're a contestant in a pageant, while i do understand being nervous, you also shouldn't be THAt nervous that you cannot respond in a semi-coherent manner. i mean, really, wtf is 'opposite marriage'........? it was idiotic all the way round, not the least of which, her opinion trumping the ideals of this country....even if right now, those ideals are still not properly represented in all laws.
it wasnt idiotic all the way around. she stumbled yes. but again, in this country the ideals you speak of are put forth by the people of this country. and the biggest weapon they have is voting, among others. people have voted it down. and the debate rages on.
oh cmon now - it WAs idiotic all the way around!
not her personal pov, her statement!
firstly, she thinks it already is legal, which it is not - except for 4 states. thus, idiotic.
secondly, she refers to 'opposite marriage'.....anyone know what that is? again, idiotic.
i think the first point, along...is more than just a stumble...is IS idiotic.
as to the constitution, "all men are created equal."
also see, civil rights amendment.
if we are all equal, that then insists on equal rights.....pretty simple really.
no.
the californians are wrong too. seriously. every single state that has a ban on gay marriage is wrong. it is against our constitution. just b/c something is legal 'right now' doesn't make it right. see above: women's and black's rights, etc.
This idea you speak of... It reminds me of... A REPUBLIC Where democracy, aka rule of the majority becomes totally irrelevant even if only one person's rights are being trumped by the majority's vote.
I had a feeling you would say that .....so my point is valid. if the other contestant lost the pageant because she thinks the banks should get bailout money would that be right or wrong? shes allowed to have an opinion right?
To be completely honest, I don't even know your point. Haven't read the thread except the post where d2d was talking about people's rights and what not . I just always chime in on any discussion which validates A REPUBLIC, and use it to point out the flaw in "democracy." I used to be big on using that word, just like most people, because it sounds good and even right, until I realized that democracy is worthless, and eventually leads to oligarchy.
Anyway
To answer your question, winners and losers in this pageant should be judged simply on how well they can state their opinion and back it up, whether it's constitutional, or unconstitutional. I mean, unless the judges base their decisions on how well these girls know United States Constitutional law-- it is the "Miss USA" pageant, right? I guess I don't know their standard for judging... I've never watched one of these... with the sound on.
Enough of the smoke and mirrors over the opinions, and the talent portion of the contest... Just give the prize to the hottest broad.
I was under the impression that her response made her sound like a complete airhead, and would have lost her the competition regardless of her opinion. Opposite marriage
but (I'm assuming) she doesnt support gay marriage. so its of your opinion, based on that stance, that she should not win. personally, I dont think thats fair.
Well I'll be honest. I think that alone should stop her from winning.
To me it is the same as if she said Women are great, but they shouldn't be allowed to vote, or if she said I'm cool with slavery.
I don't think someone who openly tramples on the Constitution should be awarded some bullshit crown.
pretty much sums it up for me. the whole bailout issue i think is a LOT more cloudy/opinionated, but maybe that's just me. i did not see/hear any of the other answers, so don't know if they were quite as sad in their delivery or as misinformed as THIS contestant's, but seriously, from a purely incoherent, idiot response...seems worthy of costing her some BS crown, period.
btw - Vinny.....i thought the purpose of our supreme courts was one and the same as to the ideals you attribute to a republic?
Where democracy, aka rule of the majority becomes totally irrelevant even if only one person's rights are being trumped by the majority's vote.
"the hottest broad".............i agree with your assessment.
did anyone actually WATCH this pageant, to have a true opinion to know....SHOULD miss cali have lost, was she not the 'hottest broad'......?
b/c let's face it, talk about antiquated! trying to 'dress up' beauty pageants as anything else beyond beauty....is just BS. embarassing really........you've come a long way, baby...........yea right.... :? seriously, at least keep it *true*....and yea, focus on what is really IS. and yes, spare us of answers that include such terms as 'opposite marriage'...that alones is WAY too much of an embarassment for america.
To be completely honest, I don't even know your point. Haven't read the thread except the post where d2d was talking about people's rights and what not . I just always chime in on any discussion which validates A REPUBLIC, and use it to point out the flaw in "democracy." I used to be big on using that word, just like most people, because it sounds good and even right, until I realized that democracy is worthless, and eventually leads to oligarchy.
Anyway
To answer your question, winners and losers in this pageant should be judged simply on how well they can state their opinion and back it up, whether it's constitutional, or unconstitutional. I mean, unless the judges base their decisions on how well these girls know United States Constitutional law-- it is the "Miss USA" pageant, right? I guess I don't know their standard for judging... I've never watched one of these... with the sound on.
Enough of the smoke and mirrors over the opinions, and the talent portion of the contest... Just give the prize to the hottest broad.
my point is this....Mz Cali lost this pageant because she thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman. apparently an unconstitutional thing. I don't think thats fair. some disagree.
I was trying to apply to those same reasons to the other contestant who was asked about bailouts. should she have lost if she had said the banks SHOULD get bailout money? apparently another unconstitutional thing. I would still say no, she should not have lost based on that answer.
can you explain why?
this is a genuine inquiry, b/c i've not heard it expressed as such, nor thought of it as such. not saying you are right or wrong, i have no idea....thus, i ask.
There is simply no authority granted to the Congress to do this, for one. Some might suggest that the "elastic clause" could allow for them to do this, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, but it's way too much of a stretch! Pun INTENDED! Also, in bailing out banks, they are forcefully creating and aiding a monopoly, stealing the wealth from both healthy competiton of these banks and the people of this country. They are unlawfully seizing property from people when they do this.
I was under the impression that her response made her sound like a complete airhead, and would have lost her the competition regardless of her opinion. Opposite marriage
but (I'm assuming) she doesnt support gay marriage. so its of your opinion, based on that stance, that she should not win. personally, I dont think thats fair.
Well I'll be honest. I think that alone should stop her from winning.
To me it is the same as if she said Women are great, but they shouldn't be allowed to vote, or if she said I'm cool with slavery.
I don't think someone who openly tramples on the Constitution should be awarded some bullshit crown.
pretty much sums it up for me. the whole bailout issue i think is a LOT more cloudy/opinionated, but maybe that's just me. i did not see/hear any of the other answers, so don't know if they were quite as sad in their delivery or as misinformed as THIS contestant's, but seriously, from a purely incoherent, idiot response...seems worthy of costing her some BS crown, period.
btw - Vinny.....i thought the purpose of our supreme courts was one and the same as to the ideals you attribute to a republic?
Where democracy, aka rule of the majority becomes totally irrelevant even if only one person's rights are being trumped by the majority's vote.
That is their function, yes... The courts play a major role in maintaing that the republic remains just that. What I'm saying is that Congress should not even be able to write laws that are unconstitutional in the first place. Maybe I'm confused here?
To be completely honest, I don't even know your point. Haven't read the thread except the post where d2d was talking about people's rights and what not . I just always chime in on any discussion which validates A REPUBLIC, and use it to point out the flaw in "democracy." I used to be big on using that word, just like most people, because it sounds good and even right, until I realized that democracy is worthless, and eventually leads to oligarchy.
Anyway
To answer your question, winners and losers in this pageant should be judged simply on how well they can state their opinion and back it up, whether it's constitutional, or unconstitutional. I mean, unless the judges base their decisions on how well these girls know United States Constitutional law-- it is the "Miss USA" pageant, right? I guess I don't know their standard for judging... I've never watched one of these... with the sound on.
Enough of the smoke and mirrors over the opinions, and the talent portion of the contest... Just give the prize to the hottest broad.
my point is this....Mz Cali lost this pageant because she thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman. apparently an unconstitutional thing. I don't think thats fair. some disagree.
I was trying to apply to those same reasons to the other contestant who was asked about bailouts. should she have lost if she had said the banks SHOULD get bailout money? apparently another unconstitutional thing. I would still say no, she should not have lost based on that answer.
I personally don't think she should have lost based on her answer alone, whether I agree or disagree with whatever she said.
can you explain why?
this is a genuine inquiry, b/c i've not heard it expressed as such, nor thought of it as such. not saying you are right or wrong, i have no idea....thus, i ask.
There is simply no authority granted to the Congress to do this, for one. Some might suggest that the "elastic clause" could allow for them to do this, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, but it's way too much of a stretch! Pun INTENDED! Also, in bailing out banks, they are forcefully creating and aiding a monopoly, stealing the wealth from both healthy competiton of these banks and the people of this country. They are unlawfully seizing property from people when they do this.
hmmm.....never thought about it like that. but i have to ask, how are they aiding a monopoly? they are bailing out numerous banks, not just one...so thus, not the definition of a monopoly? altho sure, they are taking 'our' money, tho one could argue that we elected these people, thus we gave permission.....hahahahaha........
i can see your point, but you also say income taxes are unconstitutional....and i guess you would attribute that again to no clear delineation within the constitution, and that may well be.....but idk if i would go so far as to say either are 'unconstitutional' per se, b/c i don't think the lack of presence of addressing these issues within the constitution necessarily make them 'wrong'...tho they may well be wrong for other reasons.....but i am also not THAt well versed to give a solid opinion.
definite food for thought tho, so i thank you.
who knew i'd actually get some interesting thoughts to ponder in a beauty pageant thread? :P
That is their function, yes... The courts play a major role in maintaing that the republic remains just that. What I'm saying is that Congress should not even be able to write laws that are unconstitutional in the first place. Maybe I'm confused here?
ok yes, thanks. gotcha. and no i don't think you're confused...although at this point, i think i am...... :?
and now the truth comes out:
jlew thought miss cali was the hottest broad and should've won - intelligent answers be damned.
Comments
Well I'll be honest. I think that alone should stop her from winning.
To me it is the same as if she said Women are great, but they shouldn't be allowed to vote, or if she said I'm cool with slavery.
I don't think someone who openly tramples on the Constitution should be awarded some bullshit crown.
but it only SHOULD be according to you (and others of course). many firmly believe it should NOT be. there isn't a "correct" answer. at least not yet anyway. actually, the correct answer would technically be NO since its not legal for gays to marry.
you are saying she didnt correctly* answer the question and thus should not have won.
* = gay marriage should be allowed.
her opinion should not have cost her the crown.
but it is so. thats what the JUDGE said. who know, the person who decides who wins
but women are allowed to vote and slavery is illegal. of course she shouldnt win if she was in favor of those things.
fact is, gay marriage is not legal (yet). she was simply stating she personally believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. like it or not, thats how the law reads.
wow, i retract my answer....while i was thinking similarly with the constitution idea, and even racially.....but i didn't take it quite all the way there. you did. you're right! it SHOULD cost her the crown. hahahaha, damn a crown........it costs us all a whole lot more to live amongst inequality.
jlew....isn't there more than one judge?
and that's how the law reads in SOME states...and just b/c it may be illegal everywhere else, doesn't make it right. it WAS illegal at one time for women to vote, for black to vote, etc, etc...so yes...if you want to be representative of your country, of it's ideals....that should include the constitution, so legal or not....that should mean, supporting equality for all. obviously, we see it differently, so be it. it's a BS pageant, but i can say i am glad she lost. besides which, according to HER idiotic answer, it IS legal in this country.....she's just against it, no offense. :roll: whatever..........
oh and for the last time, i said she didn't answer ONE question 'correctly' and that it, alone, should not cost her...it's the SUM of her answers. so please get your story straight. it is annoying when people make wrong conclusions about your opinion. altho now, i will say....i DO agree that one answer she cost her, but earlier..i wasn't in our exchange.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
That is fine. But the year before woman were given the right to vote, and the year before Slavery was Abolished, if I was the judge in those years and a woman supported those two opinions at that time, then I would not give her the crown either.
Some things are bigger than antiquated laws. IMO.
great, and succinct, posts!
really well stated.....far better than me.....and yes, seeing it fully in the big picture, i agree!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
you people only think she should have lost because you happen to disagree with her. hell I do too but she shouldnt lose a based on that one belief.
no.
opinion is not a fact. the bailouts are most definitely an 'opinion' topic...whereas imo, gay marriage is not. again, it's a civil rights issue, plain and simple...and there is only one right answer there, and that answer isn't just based on your personal opinion but on the constitution.
oh, and i will point out one more time - she simply gave an idiotic answer, sans her opinion! it was not well-educated, at all! she currently thinks it IS legal in all states...so for that idiocy alone she should lose the crown! :P
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
LOL if it were only that simple. apparently there is more then one right answer. take CA for example, they voted against it. to Californians the right answer is NO gay marriage.
I know, but for the sake of argument, lets assume it was intelligent.
no.
the californians are wrong too. seriously. every single state that has a ban on gay marriage is wrong. it is against our constitution. just b/c something is legal 'right now' doesn't make it right. see above: women's and black's rights, etc. one's religious and/or personal belief system should never be allowed to interefere with the right of others.....see: seperation of church and state.
and i'm sorry....you're a contestant in a pageant, while i do understand being nervous, you also shouldn't be THAt nervous that you cannot respond in a semi-coherent manner. i mean, really, wtf is 'opposite marriage'........? it was idiotic all the way round, not the least of which, her opinion trumping the ideals of this country....even if right now, those ideals are still not properly represented in all laws.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
then whats the debate about?
the constitution does not say gays have a right to marry. its obviously open to interpretation. I'm not a constitution expert, but I'm willing to bet people can make a very strong case that bailouts are unconstitutional. making my above example relevant.
it wasnt idiotic all the way around. she stumbled yes. but again, in this country the ideals you speak of are put forth by the people of this country. and the biggest weapon they have is voting, among others. people have voted it down. and the debate rages on.
This idea you speak of... It reminds me of... A REPUBLIC
Democracy is a dirty word. Restore the republic.
on one hand, i hear people claim " it is a states decision" to create the laws.
on the other hand, i hear people claim "i want the federal gov't" to create the laws.
i am for a states decision.
Well, I suppose when it comes to filing jointly on your FEDERAL income tax, I can see how this is one spot where people want there to be federal law.
But since the income tax is illegal and unconstitutional--
Yes.
I had a feeling you would say that
can you explain why?
this is a genuine inquiry, b/c i've not heard it expressed as such, nor thought of it as such. not saying you are right or wrong, i have no idea....thus, i ask.
jlew - if this is indeed a fact, i would say yes to you as well....b/c then indeed, it is not a matter of opinion - altho then i too am quite guilty as well. altho i don't think it is as morally as offensive, but vinny might disagree.....;) haha.
bottomline tho, i stand by my assessment - it's a civil rights/constitutional issue, and therefor opinions can be expressed bu the 'right' answetr to the question that must be told is that indeed, ALL cilitizens, including homosexuals, ahve the 'right' to marriage. besides which, her entire answer was extremely ignornant, not simply her pov.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
oh cmon now - it WAs idiotic all the way around!
not her personal pov, her statement!
firstly, she thinks it already is legal, which it is not - except for 4 states. thus, idiotic.
secondly, she refers to 'opposite marriage'.....anyone know what that is? again, idiotic.
i think the first point, along...is more than just a stumble...is IS idiotic.
as to the constitution, "all men are created equal."
also see, civil rights amendment.
if we are all equal, that then insists on equal rights.....pretty simple really.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
To be completely honest, I don't even know your point. Haven't read the thread except the post where d2d was talking about people's rights and what not
Anyway
To answer your question, winners and losers in this pageant should be judged simply on how well they can state their opinion and back it up, whether it's constitutional, or unconstitutional. I mean, unless the judges base their decisions on how well these girls know United States Constitutional law-- it is the "Miss USA" pageant, right? I guess I don't know their standard for judging... I've never watched one of these... with the sound on.
Enough of the smoke and mirrors over the opinions, and the talent portion of the contest... Just give the prize to the hottest broad.
exactly!
and this...
pretty much sums it up for me. the whole bailout issue i think is a LOT more cloudy/opinionated, but maybe that's just me. i did not see/hear any of the other answers, so don't know if they were quite as sad in their delivery or as misinformed as THIS contestant's, but seriously, from a purely incoherent, idiot response...seems worthy of costing her some BS crown, period.
btw - Vinny.....i thought the purpose of our supreme courts was one and the same as to the ideals you attribute to a republic?
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
did anyone actually WATCH this pageant, to have a true opinion to know....SHOULD miss cali have lost, was she not the 'hottest broad'......?
b/c let's face it, talk about antiquated! trying to 'dress up' beauty pageants as anything else beyond beauty....is just BS. embarassing really........you've come a long way, baby...........yea right.... :? seriously, at least keep it *true*....and yea, focus on what is really IS. and yes, spare us of answers that include such terms as 'opposite marriage'...that alones is WAY too much of an embarassment for america.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
my point is this....Mz Cali lost this pageant because she thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman. apparently an unconstitutional thing. I don't think thats fair. some disagree.
I was trying to apply to those same reasons to the other contestant who was asked about bailouts. should she have lost if she had said the banks SHOULD get bailout money? apparently another unconstitutional thing. I would still say no, she should not have lost based on that answer.
There is simply no authority granted to the Congress to do this, for one. Some might suggest that the "elastic clause" could allow for them to do this, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, but it's way too much of a stretch! Pun INTENDED! Also, in bailing out banks, they are forcefully creating and aiding a monopoly, stealing the wealth from both healthy competiton of these banks and the people of this country. They are unlawfully seizing property from people when they do this.
she was by far the hottest.
That is their function, yes... The courts play a major role in maintaing that the republic remains just that. What I'm saying is that Congress should not even be able to write laws that are unconstitutional in the first place. Maybe I'm confused here?
I personally don't think she should have lost based on her answer alone, whether I agree or disagree with whatever she said.
hmmm.....never thought about it like that. but i have to ask, how are they aiding a monopoly? they are bailing out numerous banks, not just one...so thus, not the definition of a monopoly? altho sure, they are taking 'our' money, tho one could argue that we elected these people, thus we gave permission.....hahahahaha........
i can see your point, but you also say income taxes are unconstitutional....and i guess you would attribute that again to no clear delineation within the constitution, and that may well be.....but idk if i would go so far as to say either are 'unconstitutional' per se, b/c i don't think the lack of presence of addressing these issues within the constitution necessarily make them 'wrong'...tho they may well be wrong for other reasons.....but i am also not THAt well versed to give a solid opinion.
definite food for thought tho, so i thank you.
who knew i'd actually get some interesting thoughts to ponder in a beauty pageant thread? :P
and....
ok yes, thanks. gotcha. and no i don't think you're confused...although at this point, i think i am...... :?
and now the truth comes out:
jlew thought miss cali was the hottest broad and should've won - intelligent answers be damned.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow