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.
again, for the sake of argument, who cares about the way she said her response. she didnt win based on her opinion, not the way she spoke, let it go.
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.
the constitution isnt set in stone, its open for interpretation and debate. and move over, the people have the power with voting power.
that said, I completely agree all men are created equal. but marriage is defined by law, not the constitution.
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 asked earlier, and perhaps i missed your response...but do we KNOW for a FACT she lost b/c of this ONE answer? i know the one judge said the one question cost her (and AGAIN i stress her delivery and content, BEYOND personal pov could well be a factor there).....but was there only ONE judge? i always thought these things had a panel of judges, also that each category each was worth something, etc, etc...so even one question couldn't truly 'cost' someone the crown. and someone else posted donald trump said even w/o this question she would've lost.
and i cannot believe i am discussing beauty pageants so much today.... :?
definite slooowwwww day at work.
but seriously, civil rights issues always fire me up.
"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.
if i read correctly......i am under the impression that both of us think that this format called "pagaent" should be strictly based on beauty.
if so...........i agree. leave out all of the pc bullshit, i doubt any person is watching this highly informative program in order to learn from.
live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
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.
again, for the sake of argument, who cares about the way she said her response. she didnt win based on her opinion, not the way she spoke, let it go.
you first.
it was content and delivery.....both important. and i speak of content such as 'opposite marriage'...and also that it is legal, it's not just the 'way' she said her answer.
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.
the constitution isnt set in stone, its open for interpretation and debate. and move over, the people have the power with voting power.
that said, I completely agree all men are created equal. but marriage is defined by law, not the constitution.
people have the power, and the supreme courts can overturn abuse of that voting power when it is clearly infringing on others' rights.
anyhoo, seriously...your hottie is a moron and lost b/c of it. get over it.
ajedigecko - i honestly think this BS should not even exist. however, there are people who disagree with me, and who am i to infringe on their rights? i'm not...and so it goes.......
i just say, IF they are going to exist, they might as well be HONEST...and be the dog and pony show ...errrrrr beauty showcase...as they truly are, and not try and cover it up with BS.
"the hottest broad".............i agree with your assessment.
she was by far the hottest.
i was talking to my wife and thought it would be interesting to see if she "the hottest broad" would put her morals aside and sign a mult-million dollar deal to pose for the magazine, i mean be interviewed by the magazine that all men read for the articles.
live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
i asked earlier, and perhaps i missed your response...but do we KNOW for a FACT she lost b/c of this ONE answer? i know the one judge said the one question cost her (and AGAIN i stress her delivery and content, BEYOND personal pov could well be a factor there).....but was there only ONE judge? i always thought these things had a panel of judges, also that each category each was worth something, etc, etc...so even one question couldn't truly 'cost' someone the crown. and someone else posted donald trump said even w/o this question she would've lost.
and i cannot believe i am discussing beauty pageants so much today.... :?
definite slooowwwww day at work.
but seriously, civil rights issues always fire me up.
I didnt watch, so I'm not sure. I caught the highlights on blogs and youtube...I can only go by what a judge said
"The way miss California answered her question lost her the crown, without a doubt!" Perez told Access Hollywood after the pageant.
"the hottest broad".............i agree with your assessment.
she was by far the hottest.
i was talking to my wife and thought it would be interesting to see if she "the hottest broad" would put her morals aside and sign a mult-million dollar deal to pose for the magazine, i mean be interviewed by the magazine that all men read for the articles.
ha!
seriously, fuck all these lame-ass pageants, instead of televising this BS...why not just put on more victoria's secret runway shows to fill in whatever timeslots are normally dedicated to these pageants? i mean, at least that's honest what it's all about, no one is embarssed by anything any of the women say, b/c they just smile and strut.......and let's be done with it!
jlew - ok then, thanks. i said as much earlier...just b/c one judge made that comment, doesn't make it true. and again, she could've lost for the idiocy of the OVERALL comment, not merely her personal perspective on the issue. guess we'll just never know for this all important debate. poor miss cali.
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.
As far as the income tax, there have been several Supreme Court cases that have defined "income" as gains from corporate activity, not wages, and not labor. Labor is a fair exchange, your time working for money-- there is no "profit" there-- think about when a corporation gets taxed... They get taxed on their profit, not what they gross in a year, they have all of these expenditures, overhead, etc... Your time laboring is your expenditure-- your time, in an even exchange for money. Now, the business that employs you can profit off of your labor if they mark it up, but there is no profit there for you. The 16th amendment legalized arguably (it wasn't even sufficiently ratified @ 2/3 like it was needed) legalized the income tax. There are several cases that decided that this DID NOT include tax on people's labor, but rather gains from corporate activity. Google "Supreme Court cases ruling income tax unconstitutional." People beat it all the time, but people get screwed by the system all the time as well... Why? The government no longer operates under any code. See why I'm obsessed with the Constitution? It's just a standard. A standard WE NEED TO ABIDE BY! IT'S ONLY FAIR! Else, you end up with totalitarianism, and rule by force. In filing a 1040, you also waive your 5th amendment rights. You are forced to potentially incriminate yourself. Unconstitutional.
the IRS operates above the law, and coerces local courts to over-rule the Supreme Court. It's quite the cluster fuck, actually. Look it up.
Back to the monopoly and the re-distribution of wealth... It is now a government monopoly over these banks that technically can't ever fail, since they are officially on the government teat. How fair is this to banks that do not receive government money. Even though they are multiple companies, with multiple DBAs, are they REALLY that anymore?
jlew - ok then, thanks. i said as much earlier...just b/c one judge made that comment, doesn't make it true. and again, she could've lost for the idiocy of the OVERALL comment, not merely her personal perspective on the issue. guess we'll just never know for this all important debate. poor miss cali.
well if anyone knows, its probably him ...and its unlikely the way she said it had anything to do with it. I saw the entire Q&A period and they were all nervous and stumbling.
well without taxes, i would be without a job...i work in accounting. of course, i work with corporate/partnership taxes, so i guess i'd be safe if they did away with individual income tax, and benefit to boot...so yea, win-win! hahaha. seriously tho, rightly or wrongly, i don't see it changing........
seriously, thanks for the explaination. i see what you are saying. what the solution to all 'that' is...i have no idea......... :?
jlew - *sighs*
again, that sounds like an off the cuff opinion to me, NOT fact. how can he KNOW what every judge based their judgements on? and, again, it's NOT the 'way' she said...it's WHAT she said, even if you take away the personal pov, her comments - not the delivery - were idiotic! stumbling is not the problem, sounding like a complete moron IS! sheesh! :P can't you spank it to her without the crown, or hey...just imagine it.......;)
jlew - *sighs*
again, that sounds like an off the cuff opinion to me, NOT fact. how can he KNOW what every judge based their judgements on? and, again, it's NOT the 'way' she said...it's WHAT she said, even if you take away the personal pov, her comments - not the delivery - were idiotic! stumbling is not the problem, sounding like a complete moron IS! sheesh! :P can't you spank it to her without the crown, or hey...just imagine it.......;)
by "way"....I mean the way she said it...the misspoken words, stuttering, etc. she gave a controversial answer to a controversial (gay) judge. in the manner of which she said doesnt matter much. and I dont know why you insist that has anything to do with her not winning. UM HELLO, she said she believes marriage should be between and man and a woman to a GAY judge. that trumps any tongue twisters she may have had.
and excuse me but yes you win, its a cuff opinion I suppose.... but one judge said she didnt win because of the opinion she gave. I may be crazy and jumping to insane conclusions....but I'm going out on a limb anyway and say that is in fact why she lost. :roll:
but one judge said she didnt win because of the opinion she gave. I may be crazy and jumping to insane conclusions....but I'm going out on a limb anyway and say that is in fact why she lost. :roll:
so if she had given the answer perez was looking for you would have been ok with him voting for her?
OK.. she didnt' lose because she doesn't support gay marriage equality.
she lost POINTS because she gave a very ham-first answer that not only didn't answer the question but also wasn't a "walk the line" one which is what the judges were looking for. They don't WANT a title holder who's willing to weigh in on touchy topics.
They don't forget Anita Bryant even if some of your do.
Yes.. States Rights are all well and good, but it's the FEDERAL level rights that the gay community needs so badly. Without the federal level rights and protections, I could lose my house and our family college fund if Carlo dies and I'm left with a huge tax bill and no pension benefits. He could be deported because he's not a citizen.
If we were a straight couple, these wouldn't be concerns and he could get citizenship much easier.. which is what he wants.
America, flawed as it may be at times.. is our home.
but one judge said she didnt win because of the opinion she gave. I may be crazy and jumping to insane conclusions....but I'm going out on a limb anyway and say that is in fact why she lost. :roll:
so if she had given the answer perez was looking for you would have been ok with him voting for her?
OK.. she didnt' lose because she doesn't support gay marriage equality.
she lost POINTS because she gave a very ham-first answer that not only didn't answer the question but also wasn't a "walk the line" one which is what the judges were looking for. They don't WANT a title holder who's willing to weigh in on touchy topics.
They don't forget Anita Bryant even if some of your do.
HUH? by that logic, she would have lost if she said was 100% for gay marriage.
well without taxes, i would be without a job...i work in accounting. of course, i work with corporate/partnership taxes, so i guess i'd be safe if they did away with individual income tax, and benefit to boot...so yea, win-win! hahaha. seriously tho, rightly or wrongly, i don't see it changing........
seriously, thanks for the explaination. i see what you are saying. what the solution to all 'that' is...i have no idea......... :?
The first step is to take your statement, 'i don't see it changing.......' and change it to 'i see it changing!'
The second is to realize that power. Everyone one of us on this board is subject to being fucked by the black and white of the law everyday. Guess what the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND says about all of that? It says that its is ALL BULLSHIT, and the only people subjectable to real restraint by the law is our federal government. It comes down to realizing that the Constitution was put in place to reign in their power-- not limit us. Push for candidates who actually support these ideas. Think about the abomination that is the war in Iraq... It was never DECLARED, we should have never been there. Congress can't just give up it's power to declare war to the president-- where in the document does it say they have that ability? It was written to give them specific duties, not ever-expanding duties that continually turn into laws that rape us of our earnings and our freedom.
Another buzz word to fixing any of our problems out there is "education." I agree with education, and it is a major element in THE solution... But guess what? People always equate "education" with throwing MONEY at a problem, and actually implement it that way. There are so many FREE resources out there to use to educate, to stay informed, to realizing YOUR power as an individual in a world where only a handful of people with a printing press are trying to take it from you! In fact, throwing money into 'education' not only won't help, it actually adds to the problem!
Proof? I know there are a few people around here have been hating on the tea parties, and for some good reasons. But what did they cost? In many cases, next to nothing. 2 weeks ago, Ron Paul's bill to Audit the Fed, a bill that had ABSOLUTELY NO LOVE in the last session of Congress (0 co-sponsors), has had 55 co-sponsors up until pre-tea party last week. As of yesterday, 88! This weekend, there are rallies in 39 cities across the U.S. outside of all of the Federal Reserve Buildings, to raise awareness of this bank that operates outside of the laws of this country. How many co-sponsors will the bill have after that? At what cost? People's TIME, patience, and dilligence ONLY.
All I'm pushing for here is a standard. A real standard by which everyone can be judged justly-- it was written a couple of hundred years ago with universal recognition of our right to govern ourselves, mostly at a state and local level. The more people that dedicate themselves to this cause, the freer we will be.
but one judge said she didnt win because of the opinion she gave. I may be crazy and jumping to insane conclusions....but I'm going out on a limb anyway and say that is in fact why she lost. :roll:
so if she had given the answer perez was looking for you would have been ok with him voting for her?
what's up j!!
what up norm! not sure I know what you mean?
you're saying that she lost because perez hilton didn't like her answer, no?
HUH? by that logic, she would have lost if she said was 100% for gay marriage.
She probably would have.
Judges want those "Oh Chuck, I want World Peace" answers. They don't want a title holder that's going to rile up controversy. At all. They want someone who's going to be unoffensive to everyone.
you're saying that she lost because perez hilton didn't like her answer, no?
yes. that came from Perez himself.
so if she was in favor of gay marriage and perez voted for her because of that would you have a problem?
i guess my point is, if jimmy dean asked her if she liked bacon and she said she didn't because she was a muslim and didn't eat it and jimmy voted against her would that have wrong?
you're saying that she lost because perez hilton didn't like her answer, no?
yes. that came from Perez himself.
Donald Trump has said she wouldn't have one no matter what her answer was. She didnt' really do that well in other parts of the pargeant and that she was first runner up was a shock to many people.
Perez Hilton was one of many judges and I doubt had enough sway with just ONE score among many different ones. The points weren't that close.
HUH? by that logic, she would have lost if she said was 100% for gay marriage.
She probably would have.
Judges want those "Oh Chuck, I want World Peace" answers. They don't want a title holder that's going to rile up controversy. At all. They want someone who's going to be unoffensive to everyone.
ok, I see what you're saying but I kinda doubt it. I think she would have won. but its just a guess.
i guess my point is, if jimmy dean asked her if she liked bacon and she said she didn't because she was a muslim and didn't eat it and jimmy voted against her would that have wrong?
well without taxes, i would be without a job...i work in accounting. of course, i work with corporate/partnership taxes, so i guess i'd be safe if they did away with individual income tax, and benefit to boot...so yea, win-win! hahaha. seriously tho, rightly or wrongly, i don't see it changing........
seriously, thanks for the explaination. i see what you are saying. what the solution to all 'that' is...i have no idea......... :?
The first step is to take your statement, 'i don't see it changing.......' and change it to 'i see it changing!'
The second is to realize that power. Everyone one of us on this board is subject to being fucked by the black and white of the law everyday. Guess what the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND says about all of that? It says that its is ALL BULLSHIT, and the only people subjectable to real restraint by the law is our federal government. It comes down to realizing that the Constitution was put in place to reign in their power-- not limit us. Push for candidates who actually support these ideas. Think about the abomination that is the war in Iraq... It was never DECLARED, we should have never been there. Congress can't just give up it's power to declare war to the president-- where in the document does it say they have that ability? It was written to give them specific duties, not ever-expanding duties that continually turn into laws that rape us of our earnings and our freedom.
Another buzz word to fixing any of our problems out there is "education." I agree with education, and it is a major element in THE solution... But guess what? People always equate "education" with throwing MONEY at a problem, and actually implement it that way. There are so many FREE resources out there to use to educate, to stay informed, to realizing YOUR power as an individual in a world where only a handful of people with a printing press are trying to take it from you! In fact, throwing money into 'education' not only won't help, it actually adds to the problem!
Proof? I know there are a few people around here have been hating on the tea parties, and for some good reasons. But what did they cost? In many cases, next to nothing. 2 weeks ago, Ron Paul's bill to Audit the Fed, a bill that had ABSOLUTELY NO LOVE in the last session of Congress (0 co-sponsors), has had 55 co-sponsors up until pre-tea party last week. As of yesterday, 88! This weekend, there are rallies in 39 cities across the U.S. outside of all of the Federal Reserve Buildings, to raise awareness of this bank that operates outside of the laws of this country. How many co-sponsors will the bill have after that? At what cost? People's TIME, patience, and dilligence ONLY.
All I'm pushing for here is a standard. A real standard by which everyone can be judged justly-- it was written a couple of hundred years ago with universal recognition of our right to govern ourselves, mostly at a state and local level. The more people that dedicate themselves to this cause, the freer we will be.
now you're getting far too deep for a beauty pageant thread.
seriously, i hear ya....but i am also high on the excitement of the 'tweet' announcement over on the porch. yes, i too can be easily distracted at times. \
and for the record on the thread topic...i think she lost b/c she gave a nim-wit answer, not simply b/c she personally is anti-gay marriage.
you're saying that she lost because perez hilton didn't like her answer, no?
yes. that came from Perez himself.
Donald Trump has said she wouldn't have one no matter what her answer was. She didnt' really do that well in other parts of the pargeant and that she was first runner up was a shock to many people.
Perez Hilton was one of many judges and I doubt had enough sway with just ONE score among many different ones. The points weren't that close.
thank you!
i've said the same a few times over, to no avail.
i think jlew is too distracted by her other 'assets' that he can only see foul play......;)
you're saying that she lost because perez hilton didn't like her answer, no?
yes. that came from Perez himself.
Donald Trump has said she wouldn't have one no matter what her answer was. She didnt' really do that well in other parts of the pargeant and that she was first runner up was a shock to many people.
Perez Hilton was one of many judges and I doubt had enough sway with just ONE score among many different ones. The points weren't that close.
eh, I think Donald is just giving a PC answer. how do you have such inside info anyway? lol
anyway good debate. my bottom line..I'm for gay marriage. I want gay people to have the same rights I do as a straight man.
ALL things aside, I do not think its fair for Mz Cali to lose this contest based on her personal beliefs. thats all I was getting at. ok I'm out.
Comments
again, for the sake of argument, who cares about the way she said her response. she didnt win based on her opinion, not the way she spoke, let it go.
the constitution isnt set in stone, its open for interpretation and debate. and move over, the people have the power with voting power.
that said, I completely agree all men are created equal. but marriage is defined by law, not the constitution.
:oops:
i asked earlier, and perhaps i missed your response...but do we KNOW for a FACT she lost b/c of this ONE answer? i know the one judge said the one question cost her (and AGAIN i stress her delivery and content, BEYOND personal pov could well be a factor there).....but was there only ONE judge? i always thought these things had a panel of judges, also that each category each was worth something, etc, etc...so even one question couldn't truly 'cost' someone the crown. and someone else posted donald trump said even w/o this question she would've lost.
and i cannot believe i am discussing beauty pageants so much today.... :?
definite slooowwwww day at work.
but seriously, civil rights issues always fire me up.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
if so...........i agree. leave out all of the pc bullshit, i doubt any person is watching this highly informative program in order to learn from.
you first.
it was content and delivery.....both important. and i speak of content such as 'opposite marriage'...and also that it is legal, it's not just the 'way' she said her answer.
people have the power, and the supreme courts can overturn abuse of that voting power when it is clearly infringing on others' rights.
anyhoo, seriously...your hottie is a moron and lost b/c of it. get over it.
ajedigecko - i honestly think this BS should not even exist. however, there are people who disagree with me, and who am i to infringe on their rights?
i just say, IF they are going to exist, they might as well be HONEST...and be the dog and pony show ...errrrrr beauty showcase...as they truly are, and not try and cover it up with BS.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I didnt watch, so I'm not sure. I caught the highlights on blogs and youtube...I can only go by what a judge said
"The way miss California answered her question lost her the crown, without a doubt!" Perez told Access Hollywood after the pageant.
sounds pretty convincing to me.
ha!
seriously, fuck all these lame-ass pageants, instead of televising this BS...why not just put on more victoria's secret runway shows to fill in whatever timeslots are normally dedicated to these pageants? i mean, at least that's honest what it's all about, no one is embarssed by anything any of the women say, b/c they just smile and strut.......and let's be done with it!
jlew - ok then, thanks. i said as much earlier...just b/c one judge made that comment, doesn't make it true. and again, she could've lost for the idiocy of the OVERALL comment, not merely her personal perspective on the issue. guess we'll just never know for this all important debate. poor miss cali.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
As far as the income tax, there have been several Supreme Court cases that have defined "income" as gains from corporate activity, not wages, and not labor. Labor is a fair exchange, your time working for money-- there is no "profit" there-- think about when a corporation gets taxed... They get taxed on their profit, not what they gross in a year, they have all of these expenditures, overhead, etc... Your time laboring is your expenditure-- your time, in an even exchange for money. Now, the business that employs you can profit off of your labor if they mark it up, but there is no profit there for you. The 16th amendment legalized arguably (it wasn't even sufficiently ratified @ 2/3 like it was needed) legalized the income tax. There are several cases that decided that this DID NOT include tax on people's labor, but rather gains from corporate activity. Google "Supreme Court cases ruling income tax unconstitutional." People beat it all the time, but people get screwed by the system all the time as well... Why? The government no longer operates under any code. See why I'm obsessed with the Constitution? It's just a standard. A standard WE NEED TO ABIDE BY! IT'S ONLY FAIR! Else, you end up with totalitarianism, and rule by force. In filing a 1040, you also waive your 5th amendment rights. You are forced to potentially incriminate yourself. Unconstitutional.
the IRS operates above the law, and coerces local courts to over-rule the Supreme Court. It's quite the cluster fuck, actually. Look it up.
Back to the monopoly and the re-distribution of wealth... It is now a government monopoly over these banks that technically can't ever fail, since they are officially on the government teat. How fair is this to banks that do not receive government money. Even though they are multiple companies, with multiple DBAs, are they REALLY that anymore?
well if anyone knows, its probably him
seriously, thanks for the explaination. i see what you are saying. what the solution to all 'that' is...i have no idea......... :?
jlew - *sighs*
again, that sounds like an off the cuff opinion to me, NOT fact. how can he KNOW what every judge based their judgements on? and, again, it's NOT the 'way' she said...it's WHAT she said, even if you take away the personal pov, her comments - not the delivery - were idiotic! stumbling is not the problem, sounding like a complete moron IS! sheesh! :P can't you spank it to her without the crown, or hey...just imagine it.......;)
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=97275
can't believe i missed it up until now....arguing over miss cali's idiocy!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
by "way"....I mean the way she said it...the misspoken words, stuttering, etc. she gave a controversial answer to a controversial (gay) judge. in the manner of which she said doesnt matter much. and I dont know why you insist that has anything to do with her not winning. UM HELLO, she said she believes marriage should be between and man and a woman to a GAY judge. that trumps any tongue twisters she may have had.
and excuse me but yes you win, its a cuff opinion I suppose.... but one judge said she didnt win because of the opinion she gave. I may be crazy and jumping to insane conclusions....but I'm going out on a limb anyway and say that is in fact why she lost. :roll:
so if she had given the answer perez was looking for you would have been ok with him voting for her?
what's up j!!
she lost POINTS because she gave a very ham-first answer that not only didn't answer the question but also wasn't a "walk the line" one which is what the judges were looking for. They don't WANT a title holder who's willing to weigh in on touchy topics.
They don't forget Anita Bryant even if some of your do.
Yes.. States Rights are all well and good, but it's the FEDERAL level rights that the gay community needs so badly. Without the federal level rights and protections, I could lose my house and our family college fund if Carlo dies and I'm left with a huge tax bill and no pension benefits. He could be deported because he's not a citizen.
If we were a straight couple, these wouldn't be concerns and he could get citizenship much easier.. which is what he wants.
America, flawed as it may be at times.. is our home.
Except states don't have the authority to grant many of the rights and protections that we need. Most of them, really.
what up norm! not sure I know what you mean?
HUH? by that logic, she would have lost if she said was 100% for gay marriage.
The first step is to take your statement, 'i don't see it changing.......' and change it to 'i see it changing!'
The second is to realize that power. Everyone one of us on this board is subject to being fucked by the black and white of the law everyday. Guess what the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND says about all of that? It says that its is ALL BULLSHIT, and the only people subjectable to real restraint by the law is our federal government. It comes down to realizing that the Constitution was put in place to reign in their power-- not limit us. Push for candidates who actually support these ideas. Think about the abomination that is the war in Iraq... It was never DECLARED, we should have never been there. Congress can't just give up it's power to declare war to the president-- where in the document does it say they have that ability? It was written to give them specific duties, not ever-expanding duties that continually turn into laws that rape us of our earnings and our freedom.
Another buzz word to fixing any of our problems out there is "education." I agree with education, and it is a major element in THE solution... But guess what? People always equate "education" with throwing MONEY at a problem, and actually implement it that way. There are so many FREE resources out there to use to educate, to stay informed, to realizing YOUR power as an individual in a world where only a handful of people with a printing press are trying to take it from you! In fact, throwing money into 'education' not only won't help, it actually adds to the problem!
Proof? I know there are a few people around here have been hating on the tea parties, and for some good reasons. But what did they cost? In many cases, next to nothing. 2 weeks ago, Ron Paul's bill to Audit the Fed, a bill that had ABSOLUTELY NO LOVE in the last session of Congress (0 co-sponsors), has had 55 co-sponsors up until pre-tea party last week. As of yesterday, 88! This weekend, there are rallies in 39 cities across the U.S. outside of all of the Federal Reserve Buildings, to raise awareness of this bank that operates outside of the laws of this country. How many co-sponsors will the bill have after that? At what cost? People's TIME, patience, and dilligence ONLY.
All I'm pushing for here is a standard. A real standard by which everyone can be judged justly-- it was written a couple of hundred years ago with universal recognition of our right to govern ourselves, mostly at a state and local level. The more people that dedicate themselves to this cause, the freer we will be.
you're saying that she lost because perez hilton didn't like her answer, no?
yes. that came from Perez himself.
She probably would have.
Judges want those "Oh Chuck, I want World Peace" answers. They don't want a title holder that's going to rile up controversy. At all. They want someone who's going to be unoffensive to everyone.
so if she was in favor of gay marriage and perez voted for her because of that would you have a problem?
i guess my point is, if jimmy dean asked her if she liked bacon and she said she didn't because she was a muslim and didn't eat it and jimmy voted against her would that have wrong?
Donald Trump has said she wouldn't have one no matter what her answer was. She didnt' really do that well in other parts of the pargeant and that she was first runner up was a shock to many people.
Perez Hilton was one of many judges and I doubt had enough sway with just ONE score among many different ones. The points weren't that close.
ok, I see what you're saying but I kinda doubt it. I think she would have won. but its just a guess.
personally, no because I'm in favor of gay marriage. but I would recognize the issue if the anti-gay marriage people made an issue of it.
yes
now you're getting far too deep for a beauty pageant thread.
seriously, i hear ya....but i am also high on the excitement of the 'tweet' announcement over on the porch. yes, i too can be easily distracted at times.
and for the record on the thread topic...i think she lost b/c she gave a nim-wit answer, not simply b/c she personally is anti-gay marriage.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
thank you!
i've said the same a few times over, to no avail.
i think jlew is too distracted by her other 'assets' that he can only see foul play......;)
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
eh, I think Donald is just giving a PC answer. how do you have such inside info anyway? lol
anyway good debate. my bottom line..I'm for gay marriage. I want gay people to have the same rights I do as a straight man.
ALL things aside, I do not think its fair for Mz Cali to lose this contest based on her personal beliefs. thats all I was getting at. ok I'm out.