Muzzling Miss California
by Chris ArledgeThe same-sex marriage controversy that hijacked the recent Miss USA pageant-and our televisions and radios every day since-has now claimed another victim: Miss California co-director Shanna Moakler. With Donald Trump having decided to let Carrie Prejean keep her crown, there is apparently not room enough for both beauty queens, and Moakler has chosen to resign out of principle, “to be a role model for [her] children.”
What, exactly, is the principle that Moakler must resign to protect? It likely has nothing to do with the scandal over Prejean’s topless photos, since Moakler has shown far more of herself in Playboy. No, Moakler’s concern is Prejean’s insistence on pressing a political agenda: “In the entire history of Miss USA, no reigning titleholder has so readily committed her face and voice to a more divisive or polarizing issue.”
Carrie Prejean with Shanna Moakler
Funny – I don’t recall Prejean injecting the issue of same-sex marriage into Miss USA; the blame for that falls in the lap of celebrity judge and gay activist Perez Hilton, a man best known for decorating celebrity photographs with bodily fluids and infantile commentary. Prejean did not cause this conflagration. It must be clear to everybody-even Moakler-that she would have preferred to avoid the question entirely.
It is not Prejean’s fault that she became a spokesperson on same-sex marriage. But Moakler isn’t upset that Prejean is speaking out on the topic. Not really. Moakler herself has taken a very vocal position in favor of same-sex marriage. Recently, she even posed for an advertisement with two other beauty queens, all three with mouths taped shut, presumably to make the point that somebody-it isn’t entirely clear who-is muzzling them on the subject of same-sex marriage.
Moakler’s advertisement is ironic, even if she will never understand that. The idea that gay-rights activists are somehow being muzzled from speaking their minds is beyond absurd. Hilton-the other major player in this drama-has certainly been able to speak his. He intentionally injected this issue into the pageant and, having prompted an answer he didn’t like, published a profanity-laced tirade trashing Prejean. Yet Hilton’s post-pageant invective-delivered with all of the class and grace we’ve come to expect from Hilton-did not cause Moakler to resign. Moakler’s children can apparently handle mom’s association with people who speak about young women in such a degrading fashion.
What they cannot handle, it seems, is Moakler’s association with a young woman who had the temerity-the gall!-to answer a question she did not want to answer, on an issue she did not want to address, in a way consistent with the overwhelming opinion of the American people. Had Prejean simply lied-had she simply given Moakler, Hilton, and the rest of the gay-rights lobby the answer they demanded-she might be Miss USA today.
And that, of course, is exactly what Moakler and Hilton want. They have not been muzzled, and there is no threat that they will be. It is they who are looking to muzzle us, us being anybody who does not agree with their desire to impose same-sex marriage on a skeptical public. Those who disagree must be punished. Prejean has been. But with Trump letting Prejean keep her Miss California title, Prejean’s public humiliation will not be fully complete in Moakler’s eyes, nor in the eyes of the other activists who simply want to shut down the debate and declare themselves the winners.
Moakler has resigned from the Miss California organization. I hope the people of California can somehow manage to survive without her.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
128 Comments
Amen. Being a role model for her children? In addition to posing in Playboy, how about how she acted on her reality show "The Barkleys"?
Funny – I don’t recall Prejean injecting the issue of same-sex marriage into Miss USA
Oh?
http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0L...
I'll you what I asked James Hudnall here yesterday: Who's "muzzling" Prejean? How has she been "muzzled"?
Has any government official tried to silence her?
No.
Has Prejean been sent to jail, or a gulag, or a concentration camp?
No.
Has she been forced to leave California or the United States?
No.
Has she lost her title as Miss California?
No.
Far as I can tell, Prejean is doing okay, I'm sure she'll get a gig as a pundit with some right wing evangelical group and hit the college republican lecture circuit. More than the average pageant contestant can ever hope for!
So, where's the oppression of free speech?
Now, if you're really interested government officials trying muzzle free speech & thought, here's an example of that:
"…they're reminders to all Americans that they NEED TO WATCH WHAT THEY SAY, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that…"
-Ari Fleischer(speaking for the Bush administration) talking about Bill Maher.
Thus, no muzzling has occurred.
Remember in westerns when the bad guy and good guy would square off in a this-town-ain't-big-enough-for-the-two-of-us duel? I don't remember one of them slinking off and saying "Screw you guys I'm going home."
I thought it was intolerant of people to not accept dissenting view points. She can't accept that another visible person in her organization differs from her view so she left. It is her right, but it speaks volumes about her.
I wonder if she will leave the state to escape the opression of differing viewpoints.
"Had Prejean simply lied-had she simply given Moakler, Hilton, and the rest of the gay-rights lobby the answer they demanded-she might be Miss USA today."
I don't think so. I think this was a set up to work either way. If she lied they could have just as easily outed her as a liar along with the semi-nude photos and breast implants as they are outing her as a evil Christian homophobe. They had to have known what her answer would be. I still don't understand why this was even a question at a beauty pageant. What ever happened to educating and feeding starving children and World Peace??
And who won the pageant? Has anyone heard from her?? What is she doing these days?
Mario what's his name injected it. A link to an add long after the debate began does not constitute "injecting", it is a response to weeks of brutal attacks by hate-filled gay activists.
After decades of Hollywood's "gays = good" propaganda, Perez has certainly mucked it up with his portrayal of a foul-mouth nastiness…
I suppose context is meaningless to you. Go back to the original context of Fleisher's statement – this was no more a warning than a similar statement that the clown Robert Gibbs made the other day.
Well said, Chris. Ms. Moakler's posture of outrage over her former friend's stance – which, by the way, is the same stance as most Americans and even the President – is beyond ludicrous.
To the left, hypocrisy only counts when it's done by conservatives. . . even when the conservative isn't being hypocritical.
But none of those things happened to Bill Maher either. Is Bill Maher is some gulag? Has he been forced to "leave the country"? Has his livelihood been adversely effected? No. No. No. Advertisers has and have the right to spend their money where they choose. They thought it was not the time and pulled their money.
The issue is really the vitriol used against Ms Prejean. If you want honest debate, you cannot scream obscenities and invectives. I do not believe the left wants honest debate, they want lockstep.
It's ironic that you don't see a vast public attack on this woman, attempts to embarass her publically, to deny her a crown, and to take away what she has won as not oppression. . . yet you trolls whine like little babies when one of your precious posts get deleted.
No, Maher wasn't sent to a gulag, I never said he was.
Fleischer was a government official, a spokesperson for the Bush Administration. Moakler and Hilton are not.
StuckinMass, please post the Gibbs quote you refer too.
And neither of you guys addressed my questions about the alleged "muzzling" of Prejean.
Where's the proof that her First Amendment Rights have been oppressed, or that she's burn hurt financially by Perez Hilton's question?
How the eff does resigning a position in protest = muzzling Miss CA? Oh, poor, poor Ms. Prejean. She's got all sorts of publicity and name recognition for doing nothing particularly interesting. Now that Ms. Moakler has resigned, everything is ruined for Pregean. All washed up. Ruined her life, now that she's muzzled. You squawk about "opposite marriage" and "protecting sanctity," but as soon as somebody has the balls to disagree with you, you can't help but whining about the poor, unfortunate, oppressed muzzled right. Boo hoo. In fact, if things really work this way, maybe I'll quit my job in protest of this column. Would that "muzzle" you? It might be worth it.
It is a pity that so many celebrity women like Moakler feel the need to don the burkha of political correctness.
I wonder where NOW is? Do they consider Perez Hilton more of a woman than Miss CA??
No you are right… There is no State Sactioned action to "muzzle" her or anyone with similar sentimates… However, society as a whole is just as effective and "muzzling" groups of people by calling them names and "hating" on people when their opinion does not align with the more vocal portions of society…
I happen to agree with Miss Prejean to a point (and maybe fully, but I don't know her full opinion on the matter), but because of my opinion based on my life experiences, observations and point of view I am called a homophobe, a bigot, a hypocrite and all other manners of names that can be slung at me… thus forcing me to surpress my opinion.. even though I am not any of those names to which I have been called (and no one could ever REALLY know because I never voice my whole opinion on the matter) because of having an opinion that can neither be right nor wrong….
You need to look past what the Government can do and see what Society can do to see the "muzzling" of people.
It's not about muzzling anyone, its not about shutting anyone up, its not about silencing anyone. It's about attempting to publicly destroy some one's reputation, humiliating them to the point, they run away in tears.
It's the modern liberal's favorite weapon. Anyone who attended your average American junior high school should recognize it.
Nobody ever suggested that her free speech was being limited only that there is a concerted effort to denigrate her views to such a degree that no one would dare speak his mind again concerning this issue.
Your hyperbole is obvious, juvenile, and embarrassing.
They're busy helping Obama plan his new attacks on Hillary and Palin.
Yeah, it's bullying on a grand, public scale.
"It's the modern liberal's favorite weapon. Anyone who attended your average American junior high school should recognize it."
Yep. Because the modern liberal's mental age is about fourteen. Most liberal politics can be explained by delayed adolescence.
Sensitive tempermant, distant father, coddling mother and you’re on your way to making a homosexual. While there are plenty of people who develop disorders due to circumstances beyond their control they are not asking society to pretend their defect is normal. If you have a problem with drinking (which is also biological and environmental) you either handle it or you don’t but noone thinks it’s a desirable way to be.
I lived in that world for 20 years and there are plenty of kind talented and professional people but the obnoxious overt sexuality is everywhere and they are trying to graft that pathology on the larger culture. Sex is less intimate than a handshake and while there are occasional couples who are together longer than two years they are invariably in an sexually open relationship.
You are not going to find more sensually gratifying sex than what homosexual men engage in. It is quite intoxicating but at the end of the day it is empty, unhealthy and dangerous.
Don't forget the Dixie Chicks. If I hear one more time about how the poor Dixie Chicks were persecuted, I'll spew.
In other words, Mr. Arledge believes that anyone speaking against conservatism is trying to muzzle them, thereby inferring that any anti-conservative speech violates the first amendment. Am I correct in this analysis?
There are good and proper opinions and there are wrong opinions. This is the basis of the thought police. The sooner you recognize this and get in line the happier the collective will be.
NOW is also making my posts vanish — unless it's still Lawhawk.
Some of mine keep going into the ether too…..
NOW should change their name to NEVER as in they NEVER do the right thing……
No Anti-fascist (how Ironic) you are not. What he is saying is that calling people names and trying to sidestep the issue by destroying someone's reputation instead of having an honest discussion of an issue is muzzling free speech. Not that I think you understand that even after its been said a dozen times. After all, liberals are immature middle school adolescence who never grew up. And yes, Alfalfa, I do get the irony of my own words. Since I don't believe liberals want a real discussion, I'm not going to waste my time trying.
AndrewPrice wrote:
"It's ironic that you don't see a vast public attack on this woman, attempts to embarass her publically, to deny her a crown, and to take away what she has won as not oppression. . . yet you trolls whine like little babies when one of your precious posts get deleted."
She hasn't been denied her crown. I don't care if my posts get deleted or not, knock yourself out and report me.
k8blujay wrote:
"I happen to agree with Miss Prejean to a point (and maybe fully, but I don't know her full opinion on the matter), but because of my opinion based on my life experiences, observations and point of view I am called a homophobe, a bigot, a hypocrite and all other manners of names that can be slung at me… thus forcing me to surpress my opinion.. "
No one is forcing you to be silent but you yourself. I've been physically attacked by right wing thugs and arrested in the past for expressing myself, it never stopped me. Prejean has been criticized, not oppressed, and I don't see that she's been forced into silence. Sounds like k8blujay needs to grow a spine.
Whois_JohnGalt wrote:
"Nobody ever suggested that her free speech was being limited only that there is a concerted effort to denigrate her views to such a degree that no one would dare speak his mind again concerning this issue."
Prejean got a job with an anti-gay marriage organization, I don't think she will have any trouble speaking her mind.
"Muzzling"(Arledge's term) implies an attempt to limit free speech/thought.
Free speech doesn't mean "speech without consequences". If you say something your friends don't agree with, they may give you the cold shoulder. If you're a public figure, you may see itunes sales or box office returns dry up. Disagreement and criticism do not equal "muzzling".
No, your analysis is incorrect. In fact utterly clueless.
But of course we already knew that.
Go back to your mudpies.
"No, Maher wasn't sent to a gulag, I never said he was."
"Now, if you're really interested government officials trying muzzle free speech & thought, here's an example of that…"
That is EXACTLY what you were trying to say. So do you actually read what you write or what? I'm guessing "or what".
Trying to have Ms. Prejean's crown taken away for speaking her truth is not "trying to muzzle" her? By the way, if she were to have lost her crown, she would have also lost a lot of scholarship money. So yes, her livelihood might have been effected too.
Funny, I was going to say NOW has become THEN to me…
Shanna Moakler is a phony who supports phony marriages.
What do you know of my spine? The fact still remains that if you do not agree with Homosexuality or the Gay "Community" you are still labeled a bigot and a homophobe. And treated like you are a hateful person…
Hell, I'm not even saying that these actions are all exclusive to one side or the other because it does happen from both sides… it does not excuse the matter however…. You want to call me spineless then fine…. But you will never know for sure now will you?
You see, the difference Anti, is that we will not call you names. We will just disagree with your skewed anti-logic and politely request our favorite pie.
I'd quote Garth but it is cliche.
Al I ask is that you aim well
Ahem* The Dixie Chicks were persecuted.
I just wanted to make someone vomit, it's not personal.
you are just as correct as the reporter saying a tea party protest is anti CNN
I'm actually looking forward to the next idiotic comment from a dimwitted celebrity so we can leave this topic behind. I'm sure I won't have to wait too long.
Yep – whatg happened to the "I will work for world peace" answers?
"Funny – I don’t recall Prejean injecting the issue of same-sex marriage into Miss USA; the blame for that falls in the lap of celebrity judge and gay activist Perez Hilton, "
Isn't that tebagee Perez Hilton?
Now that is clever. . . unlike NOW, which is NEVER clever, not even THEN.
Nice work folks! +1's all around.
"I've been physically attacked by right wing thugs and arrested in the past for expressing myself, it never stopped me."
No one gets arrested for expressing themselves in this country, where were you? Russia?
I call BS on you….
fair enough attempted muzzling feel better sugar britches??? xoxoxo
You mean "imply." "To infer" means to deduce or correctly guess.
As usual, your head is up your posterior.
And Paul_D…would you please address the issues the article brings up?
You sound like someone who used to immerse themselves in the world of drugs, sobered up and now thinks of themselves as the biggest anti-drug crusader who knows better than anyone else.
Your experience in "that world" was your experience, based on whatever misconceived notions you developed about what love and relationships are. I'm not part of "that world," yet I still identify as gay. I don't let group think and actions stand in the way of who I am and what I want. You apparently do. Sad.
That's the way the left rolls….
Wow…this is one asinine comment. How is everything ruined for Prejean since Moakler resigned? What? When a person is attacked and people are trying to take you "down" you are, in effect, being muzzled. BUT, she hasn't let them do it! There's the rub with the left: "Usually this works so well, what the hell is going on? We usually get our way when it comes to PC….waaah…oh, the hate…waah."
Granted, it is an assumption on the author's part. But one that is not farfetched.
Moakler has been more offended and has spoken out — very publicly — against Miss Prejean's stand on gay marriage. Soon after the pageant officials leaked info regarding their having paid for Miss Prejean's breast augmentation. Then the photos from her modeling shoots were leaked.
Moakler has yet to speak out on Perez Hilton's infantile snits. Times when he said a few vile things, amongst which were; He called Miss Prejean a "Stupid B*tch!" And he later implied that he would rather have called her a word that rhymes with runt and starts with the letter c.
Vince – always appreciate your well reasoned arguments and your much more centrist approach to the comments on this site.
Moakler has indeed aligned herself with Hilton. She's sent PH press releases, updates, confirmation on information before it leaks on the news. What's more is that Hilton's coverage of Moakler has been steady well before her decision to step down: when she posed with duct-tape over her mouth for that PSA, when she shot print and television spots for the "I Believe" diversity campaign, it has always leaked on Perez first.
This isn't just disagreeing with Prejean; it's an obvious alignment with the bombastic Hilton and his expression.
Hilton has been very vocal in saying that Prejean would have won if not for her answer. I don't know the details but Hilton was a judge and he said he gave her no points for that answer and if he had she would have won– according to him. He has also said that if she gave a more PC answer, along the lines of "I think it should be a states rights issue …." he would have given her enough points to win. So, if we're to believe a judge in the competition, that question really did cost her the crown. But like you said, she's no worse off for it. I don't know the name of the actual winner.
Apple? Pie? With vanilla ice cream?
No apple pie? I demand apple pie!
What's really comical to me is that Moakler really isn't a "somebody" and has no real claim to fame beyond the pageant and who she was married to. I don't believe she is considered to be particularly talented or a "name." So I'm not really sure what she hopes to accomplish here. She'll get a little attention for a little while, but once it blows over she's back to being a demi-celebrity only now she won't have anything to hitch her wagon to, unless she thinks she's going to become some sort of high-profile activist– which is highly unlikely. The way I see it, she just screwed herself out of the only decent job she's ever likely to have.
Yes, I was arrested for expressing myself in this country, not Russia. I was able to fight the charges with help from the National Lawyers Guild.
Hank_Scorpio wrote:
"No one gets arrested for expressing themselves in this country"
In the words of Michael Corleone, now who's being naive?
Remember how Mussolini and Hitler politicized everything in their citizens' private lives "for the good of the country"? Everything that people said or thought had to pass approval according to state morality.
When we mention the word "irony" to you, this is one of the reasons why.
I believe you're referring to Mario Armando Narcissisto.
Robert Gibbs: "I…think that it's tremendously important that for people who rant on cable television to be responsible and understand what it is they're talking about"
Personally, I think it is a harmless statement, as was Fleischer's. I'm not the one who took a statement out of context, however – you were. You made Fleischer sound like some mob heavy, and in context he was not saying what you would imply. Try sticking to the whole truth.
Why does Perez Hilton have any cultural influence in the first place? The guy made his living talking about other people's lives. It's like an art critic who becomes more popular than the art. There's no substantial foundation.
Someone should ask Mrs. Moakler why no one cares about gay marriage in other Western countries, or even in this country when Clinton was president. It's a cooked-up activist issue that's pressed by people who still romanticize 60's activism.
Yeah right, how exactly did you "express" yourself?
Funny that you should quote a criminal too.
Thank you for repeating the new lefty red herring mantra: "There was no censorship. The government didn't stop her from talking. Nobody is muzzling her." Wake up. There is a massive MSM attempt to silence or marginalize anybody who disagrees with the lefty agenda, and gay marriage is one big cause du jour. Considering the kind of crap your write, I have a feeling that nobody beat you up because of what you said. Much more likely they just could not stand one more minute of a foul mouth punk like you daring them to punch you out. You want the crap kicked out of you? Go to South Central LA or Harlem or the south side of Chicago and have a little rally against affirmative action. That will get you killed.
The National Lawyers Guild has been the legal front for the Communist Party USA for seventy five years. You did not get arrested for expressing your views. You got arrested for doing something against the law like unlawful assembly, property damage, trespassing or some other commie tactic. At least now we know what your political affiliation is. Quit lying, you reeking pile of crap. Wooly headed judges have been dismissing criminal trespass, property destruction and unlawful assembly charges for a long as anybody can remember. You did not need the commie lawyers union. A simple public defender could have done the same thing. Hank Scorpio was right, you lying sack.
SSSSSPPPPPPPPPEW!
ah, quite cleansing. thank you.
"Go to South Central LA or Harlem or the south side of Chicago and have a little rally against affirmative action."
Or park your car in oh-so-tolerant Berkeley or Santa Barbara with a McCain or Nobama sticker on it and see what happens to it.
"There is a massive MSM attempt to silence or marginalize anybody who disagrees with the lefty agend"
Would this be the same MSM that books Cheney, Buchanan and McCain seemingly every day? Yeah, 'cause they're a bunch of leftists.
Hank_Scorpio wrote:
"Funny that you should quote a criminal too. "
Yes, a fictional criminal played by and actor in a movie. But Hank Scorpio probably doesn't know the difference between movies & reality.
But I digress, please, for the umpteenth time, someone show me how criticism of Prejean equals oppression of her and/or her right of self-expression. I've always said the best way to respond to Free Speech you don't like is with more Free Speech. Sounds like you guys want to censor Moakler , Hilton and the NLG. Why do you want to muzzle those you disagree with?
All I know is I now know her name and have no clue about the name of the person that actually won miss USA. God does work in mysterious ways. And everyone that did not know what kind of idiotic self-serving perverted intolerant creeps Perez Hilton and his gay friends are now knows. Justice served.
When did you stop molesting children? see I can do it too.
A coordinated effort to destroy a person's public persona is not opression? I thought you guys disliked the politics of personal destruction? Your side practically perfected it during Clinton administration.
Dear Shanna,
Bye. And good riddance.
PS: I hear Code Pink and ACORN are hiring…
Here's what I KNOW Hilton has said: He stated that Prejean didn't have enough points to win and however he scored her on the question would not have allowed her to win (how'd she get 1st runnerup? Were the other girls THAT bad?). He said all that. As to his scoring being the difference in Prejean winning or losing, I haven't heard him say that.
Hilton didn't understand how he was supposed to score the Q&A. It's not based on the answer, it's supposed to be based on giving a clear, confident, and composed answer. Prejean did that and got a zero from Hilton for her effort.
No, it's not oppression it's Free Speech. Just the Swift Boating of Kerry was free speech, or did you consider that "oppression" as well?
You breitbots are more fun than the puma blogs, and twice as crazy.
Vince, your posts are almost always thoughtful and heartfelt. I disagree with you on gay marriage, yet I hold no ill will toward you whatsoever. If everyone in support of gay marriage were reasonable as you, this discussion and much of the mutual vituperation going on in the public forum would not be necessary. You are capable of advocating gay marriage without accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a H8er or a bigot. But look around you, Vince. You are a rare exception. There is a concerted effort in the MSM, the entertainment industry and the leftist victim agitators to shout down and silence the opposition. I believe that the viciousness of the gay marriage movement has recently produced more opposition to the concept than existed in the past. Call every conscientious opponent of gay marriage a H8er, a homophobe, a bigot, and the Perez Hilton litany, and you have not just failed to change the opponent's mind, you've created an activist opponent who will work against you. Some will react with hate where they were formerly simply opponents willing to understand your agenda, and accept it as the law if it became the majority opinion. People such as you need to tell the radical activists that they are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Prejean disagreed. Hilton and Moakler attacked. There's a big difference between those two approaches.
With Missy Moakler, I would prefer reins and a bridle. Of course I would ride bareback! Getty up, horsey! I like it cowboy style! Then we could trot over and crap on PeePee Hilton. I think it would be sorta like payback. PeePee might like it though….
The bulk of the gay community shows no tolerance for others, so they should not be expecting much tolerance for them. And why should we tolerate their perversions in the first place? They are a disease on society and would be better served keeping their dirty laundry in the dirty laundry basket. Out of sight, out of mind.
Interesting. I wonder if he changed his story. I heard him say, right after the whole thing got rolling, that it was HIS scoring that cost her the crown. He may have simply been trying to over-state his importance in the whole thing and was forced to back-peddle later.
wow, look at those smiles. they sure seem happy to meet each other.
Anti- You are not correct in your analysis.
No one ever mentioned the first amendment (or even implied that Moakler's resignation had anything do to with limiting constitutional free speech). The OP was simply pointing out that Moakler wasn't resigning for the reasons she stated. Moakler's quote about Prejean injecting politics into the Miss USA pageant was patently false, and was flat out moronic given the irony that Moakler was herself injecting politics into the pageant.
The fact that Perez Hilton was the one who initiated political discussion into Miss USA and has been completely classless when confronting an opposing point of view has been completely lost on Ms. Moakler.
you just made my point. I thought the left was supposed to hate this technique.
You remind me of this guy I know who can never argue the point. He changes the direction of the discussion when it's looking like he's losing and finally the point has been entirely lost to where he proclaims himself to be the winner…when he hasn't really won. Everyone knows he's lost but they're tired of dealing with him. "I can do this all day," he once said without a single one of his points able to stand up to the light of day. Yeah, you and he are exactly alike.
Is this how you argue with your mother?
I'm surprised no one has posted this link http://deceiver.com/2009/05/14/shanna-moakler-par... to show exactly how Shanna is a role model to her kids.
I like the cake picture/story, I wonder if she shares those feelings about her ex with their children.
skanks got ethics too, ya know sez Moakler.
"Or you're back with anarchy. Right back inna jungle. On account of
the breakdown of ethics. That's why ethics is important. It's the grease makes us get along,
what separates us from the animals, beasts a burden, beasts a prey. Ethics."
Carrie faced the sleazy leftist horde and won, cool!
No, you breitbots are keep changing the subject. I keep bringing this discussion back to one simple fact:
Prejean has not been censored or oppressed. She's been criticized by people who disagree with her. If she can't stand the heat, etc.
"I've been physically attacked by right wing thugs and arrested in the past for expressing myself"
Sorry, I simply don't believe you. I believe that you see yourself as a victim of "right-wing" oppression and violence. And I believe that that victimhood is an integral part of your self-identity. But in reality, the thugs and bullies and screamers and physically aggressive "protestors"–not to mention bombers and political murderers–of at least the past thirty years have been on the left. You can always find your odd little groups of sad boys who join the neo-Nazis. But they pale (no pun intended) in comparision to Mao's Red Army, Baader-Meinhof, Brigate Rosse, 17 November, the IRA, the JRA, FARC, Shining Path, Direct Action, the Weathermen, Black Panthers, etc.
I'm going to take issue with what you wrote.
Gays have and continue to make many contributions to society.
Most gays are quiet and are not flamboyant in the least.
Tolerance is exactly what we need to give everyone. I have to tolerate people's choice of clothing. I have to tolerate other people's bad habits. I have to tolerate my annoying boss. I don't have to like it. And i dont have to agree with it.
Tolerance is not acceptance. Tolerance is not agreement.
Tolerance is merely putting up with it. Ms. Moakler seemingly can not tolerate Prejean's viewpoint, or the Donald's decision. I find it silly that she chose to quit based upon the views of this years winner, but she is well within her rights.
I didn't know who she was untill a couple of days ago, and will probably forget about her by next week.
That is tolerance.
If you tolerate an annoying something for long enough it usually goes away.
So in the name of critizing someone and disagree with them it's ok to call them an ugly b**ch, telling them to Shut the (insert profane word here) Up and have a hissy fit when they aren't publically humiliatied in the way they wanted?
To me that sounds like a way to intemidate and oppress someones opinions… It doesn't sound very tolerant at all. And ironically THIS is how SOCIETY oppresses peoples opinions.
Role model to young women and her kids? Really? Let's go down the list of the amazing "role model" behavior of Ms. Moakler:
-Infamous "Star F***er" who hooks up with famous, rich men aka: sugardaddies (Billy Idol, Oscar De La Hoya, Dennis Quaid, Travis Barker). And that's only the ones we know of. I'm actually surprised that she hasn't hooked up with the king of sugardaddies Trump. She also sued (and settled out of court) Oscar De La Hoya for millions (great way of showing all those young women-and her kids-how to be a successful, hard-working, independent woman!).
-Shows the world her goods in Playboy spreads (I'm sure her kids will love to see their friends tease them about it when they get to junior high).
-Gets drunk as hell at Hollywood "Hot spots" and gets into public fights with women because they're with her EX.
-Leaves messages on her "twitter" account laughing at other celebutards like the train wreck Lindsay Lohan.
-Looks like a lazy skank on her reality show that's no longer on air.
-Her EX publicly "outs" her as a "lazy" and "horrible mother."
Yeah, I think Miss California has nothing to worry about as far as being a role model to young women and her future children.
Do republicans really want to build up another pageant contestant into a political figure? Seeing as Palin didn't help out much in the last election?
For the record, I have no use for Moakler either, at least we can all agree about that.
"It is not Prejean’s fault that she became a spokesperson on same-sex marriage."
Given that y'all have the fairytale already written on this I can't imagine little things like facts and language will count at this point, but…
Yes, it IS her fault she "became a spokesperson," because simply answering a question does not constitute becoming a spokesperson for anything. She "became a spokesperson" when she subsequently signed up AS a spokesperson for this political group she's now with – so, yes, that part IS her choice and thus her "fault."
(continued)
(continued)
I'm wondering what kind of legs this story still has. Do they have someone playing her on SNL yet? Cuz that'll be fun. Otherwise, her future prospects… what, exactly? Pretty or not, her problem with homosexuals probably rules out any future modeling or acting work. Her "character" is basically destined to be part of the comic relief about a decade from now when they make the "gay marriage battle in California" movie – a plumb role for whoever 2025's equivalent of Anna Faris is, at least.
I believe Carrie Prejean will have a bright future once all this baloney is behind her.
Let me get this straight. Moakler's idea of how to oppose intolerance is to be – intolerant.
Okay. Thanks. I just wanted to get that straight. (Pun intended.)
Not guilty.
Not guilty.
I'm with you on the fickleness of some of the people on the site. I can't figure them out very often either. I have given up on the thumb up or down. Scores don't appear to have moved for a couple of months.
questions that appear rehtorical don't get points. try some mispellings or poor punctuation that tends to help. exclamation points are right out,
Paul_D likes "boys", Carrie is "yucky and has coodies", the gay agenda is the most important thing to hell with facts, truth, biology or morality.
Perez Hilton made the statement She is not Miss America because of the answer she gave. Then he added She is a stupid bitch." If she had won, I would have run up on stage and ripped the crown off her head Considering that he is a judge, it would seem that he used what power was given him to show that her speech would not be allowed if he had his way. This would therefore influence others opposed to redefining marriage into being muzzled if they wished to suceed as beauty contestants. Shannon Moakler reinforced this position by her actions. NO she wasn't jailed in a gualg, but like Joe the Plumber, a liberal attack machine was employed against her for speaking her opinion,
That's because you can't be a hypocrite if you don't have any morals/ethics/standards to compromise. In a morally/ethically relativist world there are can be no hypocrites.
Moakler might be wise to not pose with Prejean again. Standing next to Prejean makes her look like a troll with no fashion sense. As for the comment that she actually appeared in Playboy, I have to assume it was before the accident.
Certainly if Hilton hadn't asked the question most of us would not have the first clue who Prejean is… no matter who won the contest.
Come to think of it… I had no idea who Perez Hilton was before this either.
That's sort of true….
But it's easy to see how one led to another, isn't it? She had choices to either step back or to step forward, to either back down or to stand boldly.
She could have said, "Oops, sorry, my bad" and slunk away… refused interviews. I'm sure there are quite a few people who wish that she did.
I can't quite see that it's her "fault" that she made a different choice, even if it was a choice that she made. In the end she didn't create the situation she found herself in.
She was sucker punched, pure and simple. What are the odds that the contestant from a state that had recently shot down gay marriage would be getting a question from the only in-your-face gay activist on the panel of judges? There's no way this happened by accident or chance.
No hypocrisy in a Playboy Playmate being held up by the left as the righteous sacrificial lamb while Miss California is pilloried for a few breast shots. In fact, in one article I read Moakler's being a Playmate wasn't even mentioned, while Prejean's every breast-baring photo was posted. I have no problem at all with women posing nude, it's just the hypocritical double-standard that tics me off.
Moakler's nudes are a non-issue because she is a leftist, while Prejean's are an issue because she said something leftists don't like. This is utterly transparent to anyone with any deductive reasoning ability whatsoever, but leftism seems to cause mental retardation in that and other cognitive ability areas.
You could say the same things about those beauty queens who posed with tape over their mouths, acting as if they're being muzzled for speaking out in favor of gay marriage. But a lefty twerp like you wouldn't mention anything like that, would you?
This is simply a case of one side not liking what the other side says. I agree that she's not being 'muzzled' but she is being attacked for something she should not be attacked for.
She almost lost her title because of Mario Lavandeira's (Perez Hilton) question. If she had answered that question the way he had wanted her to, then the pictures would have never surfaced, and her title wouldn't have been in jeopardy…hell, she might have even been Miss USA by now if she had given them what they wanted.
We must implement reasoning and argumentation as a tool in society for children.
But she was "bullied". And people don't "like" being "bullied".
great Ari Fleischer quote by the way. what a dick.
Society should denigrate (interesting word by the way) whatever and whomever Society sees fit. Its called morality.
She doesn't have a problem with homosexuals, you moron. She simply believes in traditional marriage – that doesn't mean she hates gays. A person such as her can work alongside gays, but the reason she won't be working in the fashion industry or the entertainment industry is that the gays in those industries probably think like you do – jump to conclusions and automatically assume she's a hatemongerer.
I love those Dixie Chicks. They are so awesome.
"However, society as a whole is just as effective and "muzzling" groups of people by calling them names" no, its not as effective as a government muzzle. We don't really have a government muzzle here – you can see Charles Manson from prison on 60 minutes – but if we did you simply wouldn't hear from that person. Meanwhile, what is true, is that I've heard about 10x amount of hoopla from people complaining about people complaing about Prejean than I ever originally heard people complaining about Prejean.
So who is really trying to muzzle whom here? It seems to me that the much much much much larger voice is the voice trying to squash those who were criticizing Prejean!
So who is really trying to muzzle whom here? It seems to me that the much much much much larger voice is the voice trying to squash those who were criticizing Prejean!
at the end of the day, what is more important is the chick is a dumb b*tch and who cares.
just kidding! i love hanging out at Breitbart. Now I'll go click on some sponsor links…
Muzzling Miss California
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/chris-arledge/2009/0...
Muzzling Miss California
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/chris-arledge/2009/0...
"She doesn't have a problem with homosexuals, you moron. She simply believes in traditional marriage – that doesn't mean she hates gays."
I didn't say she "hated" anyone, and I wouldn't – I don't know the woman, after all. I said she has a PROBLEM with them, which she does: A problem with them getting married.
"A person such as her can work alongside gays, but the reason she won't be working in the fashion industry or the entertainment industry is that the gays in those industries probably think like you do"
They don't have to THINK anything: They KNOW she believes that their relationships (and, by INSEPERABLE extention, they themselves) are of a lesser calibre or "sinful" since she insists on couching her views in Biblical anachronism. How do you expect them to feel? How would you feel working alongside someone who is on record saying that they think this way of you?
"I can't quite see that it's her "fault" that she made a different choice, even if it was a choice that she made. In the end she didn't create the situation she found herself in."
Any sympathy I might've had evaporated when she hooked up with the "gathering storm" clowns at the National Organization for Marriage, which skates as close to the edge of an outright hate group as any of the "marriage" organizations out there.
I honestly wonder how I'll explain this era to my grandchildren, when they go to school and learn about it. Will they look at me like I'm making this up, like I did when MY grandparents and schoolteachers told me about "whites only" bathrooms? I remember my younger sister sitting slackjawed in front of the TV during some movie about women's suffrage, unable to comprehend that it was true.
Paul, Miss California made that video after she was attacked not before. It was a response. Your timelines are a little mixed up.
No one is saying Prejean is being muzzled by Moakler's resignation. Reread the article.
Why should StuckinMass have to do that. His refereing to a quote is no more disingenious than you posting half a quote from Fleisher without giving any indication of what Maher said.
And so what if Fleisher is a "government" official. If Maher says something stupid he's not allowed to express his concern because he works for the government. Nonsense.
But hey how about this. What if the Bush Administration had started a personal vendatta against Bill Maher making daily press conferences to call him a dumb b* and that they wished they'd use the C* word. Then had daily discussion panels on C-Span to question if he was really a man and accuse him of having plastic surgery. Then hired some PI's to research until someone found a naked photo of him at the shower in his college dorm taken by a drunken former buddy of his and then published that for the nation to see.
Fleisher must have done all that huh. …….. Oh Wait ……………………
Exactly how does beleiving that marraige should be between two people of the opposite sex have anything to do with Biblical anachronism or being "sinful". Those are strained inferences that quite frankly are ridiculous. Did you listen to Ms Prejean's answer.
The States have the right to choose between same sex marraiges or the (its) opposite but for me a marraige should be between a man and a woman. Actually she did not state they could not marry.
The point of marriage is for society to have a way to mark who a child's biological father and mother are. Without marriage it is possible half siblings might produce offspring and never know it. It is about procreation and not love which is why until the 18th century most marraiges were arranged. To ignore this basic definition is obtuse.
It's about attempting to publicly destroy some one's reputation, humiliating them to the point, they run away in tears.
Bingo.
Or what if George Bush and Karl Rove had singled out Bill Maher as a menace to society as Our Dear Leader and, that man who is more Rovian than Karl Rove could ever be – Rahm Emanuel did with Rush Limbaugh?
Hmm… or maybe people on Prejean's side is trying to get those to disagree with her to do so WITHOUT calling names… No where in her speech did she say anything that could be deemed derogatory…. unless you are one of the intolerant hypocrites that think everything she said was derogatory…. but yet all of the intolerant hypocrites where calling her all manners of bad names simply because she does not agree with a group of people… Maybe some of us just what decency in the disagreements.. I know I do… I am tired of the name calling from the so called "tolerant" left. But I don't see some people to understand this.
You know you are right- its the name calling. This has nothing to do with a competing frames of morality, or a culture war… simply name calling. Because, saying <whatever Perez & Co> said to Prejean, is "name calling". And that is what is over the line.
Describing (without "name calling") what is different about your morality versus theirs – that's okay. That's fair. But no name calling.
So when, for example, some one explains that they don't want to hear about what Perez stands for, or has to say, or especially when someone says: "Do what you want in your life- But don't expose my children to it!"… That's NOT offensive. That's a stated/described moral position – that's fair game. But "name calling" out? Right?
Well, sorry, maybe I don't want MY CHILDREN to be explosed to some scantly clad, um, young lady…who is scene on websites without wearing a shirt. Now, am I going to be accused of "NAME CALLING" if I explain to MY CHILDREN that someone like Prejean is what we call "A SLUT?"
…or does that violate the politically correct rules of the right? e.g. do you find what I said offensive just now?
is it just me or is it a bit perverse that the author of this article used the term muzzle in the context of our sexy protagonist?
You must be logged in to post a comment.