Yes he is an idiot. I think he tries to see what an obnoxious twit he can be.
Carrie Prejean meltdown on Larry King
- Thread starter pool_hustler
- Start date
I understand that you've seemed to have conceded on some of what you state here in a subsequent post but just on principle I have to address some of the absurdity you've claim in this post.....
First of all, Larry King is about the softest interview you can book next to "Ophrah"....Trying to lay King out to be some set up artist is like trying to call Canada a threat to world piece.
He asked her why did settle not what did she settle on. Those are two different questions. She could have replied with any number of things that likely wouldn't have violated the terms of the settlement. I don't fault her per se for her response because she many not be legally literate enough to know what may or may not violate those terms. But to then act as if she's been attacked was about as dumb as putting Palin and Bachmann in the same sentence with the word "brilliant" or trying to claim GOPer hacks don't attack Demos on par with Demo hacks. Just plain stupid or ignorant of her.
The woman (as opposed to "lady", again two different things) appears to lie at the drop of a hat for whatever the reason of convenience. Why should we expect the truth from her about any claim she makes to any prearranged agreement???
Larry King did as he has with EVERY guest he has on his show who comes there to hock a book...he asks them questions about whatever circumstance that has brought to the point of their book. Prejean is ONLY in the media with a book about the circumstances she tries to not talk about now. What was King supposes to interview her about.....her favorite pie recipes????
Prejean is a gorgeous woman...she should try and market her future off of that...not politics IMO. If she wants to continue to play politics she should either get an armored suit or grow thicker skin.
Hilton's a complete tool.
But for those who have either forgotten or don't know, Prejean picked the question at random out of a bowl. She could just as easily have picked a different question and one of the other contestants would have gotten Hilton's question. So it's not like Hilton set her up.
But all that's beside the point. Prejean's problem isn't her stance on gay marriage, it's her lack of character and integrity. It's her blatant double standard when it comes to honoring contractual stipulations (yes when it serves her, no when it doesn't). It's her shameless pimping of her moronic book, often via so-called liberal media outlets, all the while decrying liberals and liberal media for suppressing her right to speak. Most of all it's her pathological lying, and her complete failure to take responsibility for it.
How anybody can hold this phony, lying, manipulator up as a model of anything admirable or respectable is completely beyond me. Maybe some people haven't dealt with a professional victim on a personal level before. For those of us who have, Miss Prejean's act is readily identifiable and painfully familiar.
It's simple: I don't tell her what to think and believe, and she doesn't tell me.
And nobody watches Larry King.
And nobody watches Larry King.
I don't disagree with much of what you say but I do find it hard to believe she picked the question at random. Maybe the questioner but from what I recall it was the Hilton who asked the question.
Moreover, I can't imagine there would be anything to those pageants that isn't staged. Prop 8 in California, Hilton, Prejean (Miss California) and that question coming together for the perfect storm? Possible but more likely staged.
No one ever explains what the fuck someone like Hilton was doing being involved in an event like this in the first place. That's even more reason to believe it was staged because all this little shit does is stir shit.
All I can report is what I saw. Prejean picked a slip of paper out of a bowl that had other slips in it. The paper either had the question on it or the name of the judge who wrote the question (or both). The slip was then passed to the MC who then prompted Hilton to ask the question out loud being as he was the judge who composed that particular question. All the other questions were handled using the same method.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
minor correction: It was actually a folded card she picked out of the bowl, not a slip of paper.
minor correction: It was actually a folded card she picked out of the bowl, not a slip of paper.
Just my :2 cents:
1. Miss California is a private organization, not owned by the the government. Miss Cali had the freedom of speech to state whatever her opinion was, but the MC organization had the freedom to tell her to f-off if they didn't like it. Nevertheless, her answer was not what ultimately caused the lost of her crown, but her violation of contract rules.
1. She admitted 95% of the audience was gay, and that she had a battle between Satan and God going on in her head. But as the good girl she is, she chose to listen to God who vehemently has an agenda against gay marriage.
Now, common sense please. Going on to an organization where there are so many gays working as staff etc., and especially when she claims 95% of the audience was gay, and saying you are against their marriage equality....you are obviously going to lose. It's a no-brainer.
Try going on to a casting with Tyra Banks for ANTM, and say you are all for segragation, and let me see how far you make it.:1orglaugh
The only reason there is so much debate is, because unfortunately, way too many Americans think this kind of discrimination is acceptable. And because imbecile Perez Hilton gave ammunition to them by calling this woman all sorts of names, like a mischievous little kid who got his feelings hurt.
1. Miss California is a private organization, not owned by the the government. Miss Cali had the freedom of speech to state whatever her opinion was, but the MC organization had the freedom to tell her to f-off if they didn't like it. Nevertheless, her answer was not what ultimately caused the lost of her crown, but her violation of contract rules.
1. She admitted 95% of the audience was gay, and that she had a battle between Satan and God going on in her head. But as the good girl she is, she chose to listen to God who vehemently has an agenda against gay marriage.
Now, common sense please. Going on to an organization where there are so many gays working as staff etc., and especially when she claims 95% of the audience was gay, and saying you are against their marriage equality....you are obviously going to lose. It's a no-brainer.
Try going on to a casting with Tyra Banks for ANTM, and say you are all for segragation, and let me see how far you make it.:1orglaugh
The only reason there is so much debate is, because unfortunately, way too many Americans think this kind of discrimination is acceptable. And because imbecile Perez Hilton gave ammunition to them by calling this woman all sorts of names, like a mischievous little kid who got his feelings hurt.
Just my :2 cents:
1. Miss California is a private organization, not owned by the the government. Miss Cali had the freedom of speech to state whatever her opinion was, but the MC organization had the freedom to tell her to f-off if they didn't like it. Nevertheless, her answer was not what ultimately caused the lost of her crown, but her violation of contract rules.
1. She admitted 95% of the audience was gay, and that she had a battle between Satan and God going on in her head. But as the good girl she is, she chose to listen to God who vehemently has an agenda against gay marriage.
Now, common sense please. Going on to an organization where there are so many gays working as staff etc., and especially when she claims 95% of the audience was gay, and saying you are against their marriage equality....you are obviously going to lose. It's a no-brainer.
Try going on to a casting with Tyra Banks for ANTM, and say you are all for segragation, and let me see how far you make it.:1orglaugh
The only reason there is so much debate is, because unfortunately, way too many Americans think this kind of discrimination is acceptable. And because imbecile Perez Hilton gave ammunition to them by calling this woman all sorts of names, like a mischievous little kid who got his feelings hurt.
The question wasn't asked in good faith. If asked in good faith any truthful answer should have been acceptable...Apparently the question was asked in order to elicit only one acceptable opinion and any other answer than that would have left the inquisitor offended.
I don't think you should ask for the opinion of others unless you are prepared to accept the truth about how they feel.
What if the question ask for her opinion on plural marriages (polygamy) and she stated a similar sentiment in opposition to it??
Point being a person can be for a traditional marriage arrangement but not against gays or Mormons, etc.
While the Miss California organization doesn't have to accept her as their representative if her views are not in keeping with what they stand for. But she isn't the only one in this who is coming off a little "intolerant" of competing views.
I just think she should stick to the reason why we even care to have her on our televisions...her drop dead gorgeous looks. Maybe she can even go from a wannabe puritan to porn....She probably wouldn't be choosing to do any lesbo scenes though.:o
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
^^^ I agree. Considering that not all gay people are in favor of gay mariage, I think that's a VERY important point. That's why I see this as a red herring. Had it not been for her lies on the application, I think the MC (Miss USA) organization would have had one hell of a time giving her the boot. I think Trump would have continued to stand behind her, and let's face it... he calls the shots. And he initially did stand behind her, until she "went rogue" and wouldn't cooperate with the staff (read her emails that have been posted online). Everyone on this board who has a job knows (or should know) that if you are employed, by contract or otherwise, and you make an issue of almost everything that your employer asks you to do, you will get fired. If you have some unpopular social or political views, you'll probably just be fired that much faster.
So I go back to what I've said several times: the target on her back was because she expressed what I assume was a sincere political view (which was not necessarily bigoted). But she was brought down by a fraud that she created. And even now, Trump is saying that he might let her come on Celebrity Apprentice next year. Why? Because she, like her hero, Sarah Palin, gets headlines and attention. I think that's why Trump would have let her continue as Miss California... had she not been such a bitch to deal with daily and had she not lied about having made racy videos and photos. Remember, Trump loves controversy. But he doesn't usually let someone make a fool of him - and she was.
Usually MILF Man when an interviewee starts attacking the interviewer and removes their mic and ear piece then starts ignoring the interviewer..."meltdown" wouldnt' be an inappropriate description of their behavior.:2 cents:
Facetious
Moderated
Whenever ya call me, I'll be there
Whenever ya want me, I'll be around
:spin: :spin: :spin:
The whole damn "issue" is so disproportionate it's embarrassing as an American how people here get so consumed.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Well yeah, but there is a thread here that has over 10,000 replies. It's title: Who made you cum today?
'Nuff said?
I am not defending Perez Hilton at all. I think the way he handled it was so inapproriate that it actually made it worse for so many people that desperately want this to happen soon.
In such a scenario, no group is being discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation. And please don't bring up paedophilia or bestiality like so many want to compare it to, as obviously there is not consent and is more like rape. But then again, adolescents are allowed to marry adults any age of the opposite sex in some states in this country, and that is part of "tradition."
Sorry, but that is BS, "no offense" like Miss Cali said.
You can't possibly witness how gays and lesbians are affected by this policy and be supportive of it, unless you have an underlying prejudice against homosexuality, whether it is for religious or "moral" purposes.
And just remember that many of the same arguments that are used today against same-sex marriage were used in the past against interracial marriage. But of course, it is more fashionable to be against gays than it is to be against interracial couples this days. And I'm sure that if she would of answer a question pertaining interracial marriage in a negative way because in her tradition, and "her country," that was unnaceptable, you would be the first to call her a "racist." So why the double standard?
You had be surprised, I know some girls that have been brainwashed with the idea that "two girls together is beautiful," but discriminate against gay men because for them is "disgusting." Therefore, it wouldn't surprise me if she had participated in lesbian videos as well, just don't wanna marry one.:1orglaugh
And yeah she is very beautiful, but hopefully that doesn't make her comments any more wiser for society at large. Remember Brigitte Bardot?
This woman is just as hypocritical as most, so I don't see the big deal, but she is not a victim anymore IMO.:2 cents:
You may be on to something there.The whole thing is just so inconseqential it's funny.
1.Miss Universe and these pageants are inconsequential.
2. Carrie Prejean and her fellow contestants and their opinions likewise lol.
A pox on all their houses,her,Trump,Miss Universe pageant etc.
They all matter little.
Who watches such crap anyway? Now maybe if she did porn it would be something to watch but that remains to be seen.But I still wouldn't care what she had to say on most issues.
You're right. Their religious practice is being discriminated against.:2 cents:
Sorry, but that is BS, "no offense" like Miss Cali said.
You can't possibly witness how gays and lesbians are affected by this policy and be supportive of it, unless you have an underlying prejudice against homosexuality, whether it is for religious or "moral" purposes.
And just remember that many of the same arguments that are used today against same-sex marriage were used in the past against interracial marriage. But of course, it is more fashionable to be against gays than it is to be against interracial couples this days. And I'm sure that if she would of answer a question pertaining interracial marriage in a negative way because in her tradition, and "her country," that was unnaceptable, you would be the first to call her a "racist." So why the double standard?
Now who's the one presuming someone has a underlying prejudice??:1orglaugh I just gave you an example of how a person could support a traditional marriage to the exclusion of other arrangements beyond a same sex one and the position not be anti gay. Her position may or may not be anti-gay but her statement under the circumstances is not determinative. And how on earth are you going to presume I have a "double standard" by assuming what you think my position on an issue would be???
Regarding interracial marriage had that been the question...lets summarize briefly; It is legal for Americans to marry in a one man, one woman arrangement. If you happen to support that arrangement unless it involves two people of different races..then that position by definition is racist. Now that doesn't portend racial bigotry per se, which is another step. But identifying something as racist doesn't mean the person is a racist bigot. Consistently so, just because a person doesn't support the idea of same sex marriage doesn't necessarily portend they are anti gay or not supporting plural marriages meaning they are anti-Mormons or anyone else who practices polygamy.
As far as the public reaction....she would have been skewered by the PC crowd for making public a position against interracial marriage much the same way she's been skewered for a position against same sex marriage. She didn't do herself any favors by buffooning up her response but she would have been attacked by the usual activists and defended by the usual defenders as she is now.
How are they brainwashed???
If not being in favor of gay marriage makes one a bigot, then how and why can some gay people not be in favor of gay marriage?
I didn't want to mention that but the response to this ought to be "enlightening".
its not morally right
Similar threads
- Locked
