Should Ms Cali have lost?

norm

jlew24asu wrote:

norm wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

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?

jlew24asu

norm wrote:

you're saying that she lost because perez hilton didn't like her answer, no?

yes. that came from Perez himself.

Prince Of Dorkness

jlew24asu wrote:

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.

norm

jlew24asu wrote:

norm wrote:

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?

Prince Of Dorkness

jlew24asu wrote:

norm wrote:

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.

jlew24asu

Jasunmark wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

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.

jlew24asu

norm wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

norm wrote:

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?

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.

norm wrote:

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?

yes

decides2dream

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

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.

decides2dream

Jasunmark wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

norm wrote:

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......;)

jlew24asu

Jasunmark wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

norm wrote:

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.

decides2dream

jlew24asu wrote:

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.

and many disagree, and not just donald trump...don't think she lost this contest b/c of her personal beliefs.

all the rest, we can agree....and THAT's the important stuff....so all good!
workday is almost over, it's going to be a GORGEOUS weekend...we've got pj news monday....it's ALL GOOD!

justam

I've been thinking about this idea since yesterday.

I've been thinking we must be backward as a society if we're just now realizing that it's unfair to exclude certain adults from marriage like this. What's been going on? Was this all due to homophobia in the first place? Religious fear of same sex pairs?

How were these people excluded from the right to marry and bond proudly/openly in the first place?! :shock:

Prince Of Dorkness

justam wrote:

How were these people excluded from the right to marry and bond proudly/openly in the first place?! :shock:

My understanding is that for all the blathering on about how "marriage is a religious institution sanctioned by God" that goes on, it was really just fathers selling their daughters once they had reached child bearing age. It was all about money and property acquisition. Not about love or God or anything.



The good news is that the tables really have turned. Although there's people who don't really "like" the gay community or even gay people much.. they still think we should have the same rights.

And let's take another look at Prop 8 in California. We've been told it was the "black" vote that killed it but what it really was was generational. The biggest pro-Prop8 group was "above 65" not "black." Yes... the black community had a higher than average "yes" vote but the voting block that really did us in was the senior vote.

Not a nice thing to say but in 10 years.. that vote is going to turn around. The younger generation doesn't care.

justam

Jasunmark wrote:

justam wrote:

How were these people excluded from the right to marry and bond proudly/openly in the first place?! :shock:

My understanding is that for all the blathering on about how "marriage is a religious institution sanctioned by God" that goes on, it was really just fathers selling their daughters once they had reached child bearing age. It was all about money and property acquisition. Not about love or God or anything.



The good news is that the tables really have turned. Although there's people who don't really "like" the gay community or even gay people much.. they still think we should have the same rights.

And let's take another look at Prop 8 in California. We've been told it was the "black" vote that killed it but what it really was was generational. The biggest pro-Prop8 group was "above 65" not "black." Yes... the black community had a higher than average "yes" vote but the voting block that really did us in was the senior vote.

Not a nice thing to say but in 10 years.. that vote is going to turn around. The younger generation doesn't care.

I think it's older people too. This idea will probably just take some time to sink in.
Equality is taking a while to be truly born...slavery had to go first, then women had to be pulled up, now minorities and homosexuals have to get out into the light as equals too...

Maybe this should be the century to examine what's still hiding in the area of discrimination in general? There are certainly pockets left to be turned inside out!!

Anon

So much for free speech. This is dangerous territory.

decides2dream

JB811 wrote:

So much for free speech. This is dangerous territory.

these comments interest me.
how was her rights of free speech infringed upon exactly? :?
she can, and did, say exactly what she wanted.
the fact that said comments had consequences, well, most of the time, they do. even the most innocuous comments usually have some 'result.' she was basically on a lame-ass job interview.....the judges, her interviewers, were not impressed with her answers...thus she didn't get the job. however, her rights to free speech, 100% intact. even here....your rights of free speech, intact. you have the right to be here, to visit and post, and to follow guidelines you agreed to upon joining this privately hosted forum. if one doesn't do so, or doesn't like it...they don't have to join, or they can post elsewhere. once again, freedom of speech intact. sometimes i think people are confused about just exactly what the rights of free speech really are about and what they encompass.

jlew24asu

decides2dream wrote:

JB811 wrote:

So much for free speech. This is dangerous territory.

these comments interest me.
how was her rights of free speech infringed upon exactly? :?
she can, and did, say exactly what she wanted.
the fact that said comments had consequences, well, most of the time, they do. even the most innocuous comments usually have some 'result.' she was basically on a lame-ass job interview.....the judges, her interviewers, were not impressed with her answers...thus she didn't get the job. however, her rights to free speech, 100% intact. even here....your rights of free speech, intact. you have the right to be here, to visit and post, and to follow guidelines you agreed to upon joining this privately hosted forum. if one doesn't do so, or doesn't like it...they don't have to join, or they can post elsewhere. once again, freedom of speech intact. sometimes i think people are confused about just exactly what the rights of free speech really are about and what they encompass.

thats an interesting way to look at...as a "job interview". you're right, it basically is. and her freedom of speech was not taken away. she had every right to say what she said. what she said had consequences, but she is still free to say whatever she wants.

decides2dream

jlew24asu wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

JB811 wrote:

So much for free speech. This is dangerous territory.

these comments interest me.
how was her rights of free speech infringed upon exactly? :?
she can, and did, say exactly what she wanted.
the fact that said comments had consequences, well, most of the time, they do. even the most innocuous comments usually have some 'result.' she was basically on a lame-ass job interview.....the judges, her interviewers, were not impressed with her answers...thus she didn't get the job. however, her rights to free speech, 100% intact. even here....your rights of free speech, intact. you have the right to be here, to visit and post, and to follow guidelines you agreed to upon joining this privately hosted forum. if one doesn't do so, or doesn't like it...they don't have to join, or they can post elsewhere. once again, freedom of speech intact. sometimes i think people are confused about just exactly what the rights of free speech really are about and what they encompass.

thats an interesting way to look at...as a "job interview". you're right, it basically is. and her freedom of speech was not taken away. she had every right to say what she said. what she said had consequences, but she is still free to say whatever she wants.

wow...we're on a roll now, is that actually 2, maybe even 3, things we've managed to agree on lately?

jlew24asu

decides2dream wrote:

wow...we're on a roll now, is that actually 2, maybe even 3, things we've managed to agree on lately?

so how do we pay for UHC? lol jk.

xoxo