"I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody there. But that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be" - Carrie PrejeanGay is such a nice word, or it used to be... In true Orwellian fashion, it has been seized by the sad in the Homosexual community who wanted the right to be free in America.
A beautiful young (dare I say, once thought to be normal) American woman expresses the radical notion that marriage is between a man and woman and best left that way.
That impure, non-gay thought , offended a normally gay but now sad beauty queen judge, who is surely at a minimum a queen judge. Miss Prejean loses, because the once aberrant, but now mainstream queen, was visibly shaken, by the thought of marriage being a state sanctioned union between a man and a woman.
Still got hope?
_________________
Miss USA stirs controversy
The Internet was buzzing Monday about a Miss USA controversy.
Detroit Free Press
First runner-up Carrie Prejean (Miss California) was asked about legalizing same-sex marriage from judge Perez Hilton, the Internet blogger behind perezhilton.com.
"I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody there. But that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be," Prejean said during Sunday night's live telecast.
Hilton was visibly upset, and there was a mixed reaction from the live audience. Prejean ultimately came up short, losing the title to Miss North Carolina, Kristen Dalton.
On Monday, Keith Lewis, the executive director for Miss California USA/Teen USA, said he was saddened by Prejean's response.
This is the visibly upset judge, Perez Hilton, who was offended.
The whirled - turned upside down.
ReplyDeleteGiven his reputation, I was wondering why Mr. Hilton would be a judge in beauty contest. The saddened response of the California Miss USA Executive Director answers that question.
What's next? Queens in the beauty pageant?
Three thousand souls, murdered in their offices, gagged by smoke, burned by flames, crushed by debris, terrorized in planes as young woman had their throats slit.
ReplyDeleteGood men move to stop it happening again.
They demand answers, fast.
They don't get them. All of them.
They quit playng games.
They do what any man should do. Kick and scare the shit out of the perps and get the answers they need to protect the lefties amongst us.
The left is seized by anger because the perps had cold wet water flushed up their nose.
Next time kill them.
Speaking of offended fairies, here is Andrew Sullivan:
ReplyDelete"Today I continued to grapple with the torture fallout. Fox News and the Cheney right (sadly joined by moderates Buckley and Peggy) continued to diminish it, but McCain at least used the T-word. We got a glimpse at Mormon porn, Philips TV put out a blockbuster ad, Conor proposed some great budget cuts as Glenn Reynolds postured, we celebrated 4/20 with laser-shooting nipples, a heart-wrenching email shared the simple but profound comforts pot can provide, and Cheney seemed to offer an opening for a Truth Commission."
"...a truth Commission."?????
ReplyDeleteThis could get ugly...
I went to bed a right wing extremist, and woke up a racist. What will tomorrow bring?
ReplyDeleteIt will get ugly. The structural reforms to keep the left in control is well under way. www
ReplyDeleteThere wasn't any racist talk at the Tea Party I attended. It was all economic, taxes, spending, bailouts, no to socialism, that kind of thing.
ReplyDeleteWhen the protests come along over giving citizenship to the illegals, the charge of racism will be made then too.
It's an easy charge to make, out of the PC tool kit. Can be used around to fit the occasion, as needed. Particularily having a black President. Easy charge to make, if one is against some policy of the President it's because one is racist.
Tomorrow you shall be Honorary, Unknown Member at Large of the Ladies' Book Club, Third World Division.
ReplyDeleteIt's a clever and benign cover (no pun) for your political sinfulness.
I've been forwarded a list of thought-provoking questions. That is, I assume they're thought provoking, as I haven't yet opened the attachment.
ReplyDeleteThen they can't be all that provoking since you are still in an un-provoked state. perhaps that will change.
ReplyDeleteShould you refuse this assignment, bob, I can't guarantee you won't end up avoiding the hairy eyeball of Napolitano and Co.
ReplyDeleteCorrection: I can't guarantee that you WILL.
ReplyDeleteOf course they're thought-provoking! I would never have agreed in advance to a commitment to any activity that is less in all ways than stimulating and absorbing.
ReplyDeleteOf course there will be a Truth Commission, you all still do not want to listen to the calm voice of understanding that I provide.
ReplyDeleteThe light of truth and justice will not be dimmed, misdirected, perhaps, but take stock in the fact that the light will shine.
You are right, duece, there is little outrage about folks taking US technology and selling it. No sense waiting for it to come to a head
ReplyDeletewww.strategypage.com...
May 28, 2008: American intelligence officials have confirmed what has long been suspected, that the new Chinese J-10 fighter was built using Israeli technology. Russian engineers also admitted that the J-10 had such technology. The J10 looks something like the American F-16, and weighs about the same (19 tons). Like the F-16 the J10 has only one engine. It's no accident that the J10 resembles the F-16, because Israel apparently sold them technology for their Lavi jet fighter. Israel had abandoned the Lavi project, because of the high cost and availability of cheaper alternatives (buying F-16s and F-15s from the United States.) But the Lavi was meant to be a super F-16, and incorporated a lot of design ideas from the F-16 (which the Israelis were very familiar with, as they used them, and had developed new components for them.) The Chinese denied any Israeli contribution, but Russian engineers say that China had one of the Lavi prototypes.
There are the REAL allies, China & Israel. as mat boldly told US, back un the day.
Well, after his election there were calls, here at the EB, to abort black babies.
ReplyDeleteSeemed a tad racist, to me.
Along with being a bit over the top, emotionally.
Miss USA is a private concern, not part of the Government. If the Hollywoodistas do not want to uphold traditional US values, but would rater promote "Change", good for them.
ReplyDeleteI did not watch the show.
Not my cup of tea, as it were.
If you did watch it, and are offended, write to their advertisers, start a boycott of their products.
If you did not watch the show, they do not really care what you thought of it, as you are not one of their target marketed customers.
Miss USA is part of the Trump Organization, I do believe.
ReplyDeleteBoycott his hotels and casinos.
But then again, we already do.
Here's an interesting case--
ReplyDeleteCourt To Decide If Prosecutors Can Be Sued
Ms Hilton is Jealous....
ReplyDeleteMs Hilton is not a "homosexual" he is a troll, a true woman hating (i hate to use the word) FAG....
There are gay Americans and Ms Hilton MAY be gay, by "it" is a sub human piece of crap...
The left wing media of this country is offended by the fact that we waterboarded KSM 150 times in a month...
ReplyDeleteIf it was me? I would have chopped his fingers off.. then started the real torture....
Wake up America....
Mass murdering TERRORISTS do not have Geneva Convention rights....
Why I Care About Obama Eligibility Issue
ReplyDeleteWith the entire so-called “mainstream press” ridiculing those millions of Americans who still ask questions about Barack Obama’s yet-unproven constitutional eligibility to serve as president, you might wonder why WorldNetDaily and Whistleblower persist, virtually alone in the major media, to cover this issue.
Personally, I’m interested in it for two simple reasons.
First: Barack Obama is hiding something. About that statement, there can be no dispute. Despite dozens of lawsuits, with plaintiffs including a former presidential candidate, a former deputy attorney general, many legislators, active-duty U.S. military and other serious people, Obama simply refuses to release his original, long-form birth certificate. That’s the one that could actually prove he was born in Hawaii. What is posted on Obama’s “Fight the Smears” website as well as FactCheck.org is the abbreviated short-form “certification of live birth” that could have been issued for a child born overseas, and thus does not prove he was born in Hawaii. What is so difficult about this to understand?
As I said, he’s hiding something. I want to know what it is. And I want the world to know what it is.
Ask yourself: Why would Obama have a team of high-priced lawyers fighting to stop his Occidental College records from being released? If I were elected president, don’t you think my college records would be made public? Similarly, he has lawyers fighting all the eligibility lawsuits, many of which are simply demanding proof — which Obama could easily provide — of the specifics of his birth time and place, something the U.S. Constitution unequivocally and unapologetically demands of presidential candidates.
Mr Stevens had toe power and depth to defend his honor from over zealous prosecutors. The Common folk do hard time when the Prosecutors cheat the System.
ReplyDeleteThey should be sued, those ex-Prosecutors should lose most all their whirldly possessions.
Truth and Justice sometines do prevail.
wi"o", Hawaii does not retain an original long form birth certicate.
ReplyDeleteAll of their records were digitilized. There ARE NO paper records to be seen.
The State of Hawaii's agents have already testified that the record that was made public holds all the information in the file and is an accurate representation of that file.
Learn it, Live it, Love it.
Like most issues there are probably some good arguments on both sides as to whether or not prosecutors ought to be liable to be sued.
ReplyDeleteSure would make them toe the line, on the other hand some guilty might go free in marginal cases.
-----
If Obama is hiding something, and it does seem like he might be, he's a great target for blackmail. Talk about a security risk.
So Bobal,
ReplyDeleteHave you managed to bone up on your US history yet? In particular Utah? Here a quick google search simply typing in Utah History reveals:
"1847
In July 1847 the Mormon pioneers began entering the Salt Lake Valley. After years of persecution in the Midwest they realized the advantages of self-government, but the land they had come to belonged to Mexico.
1848
Victorious in the Mexican War, the United States set the terms of peace. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848, ceded a vast territory claimed by Mexico to the United States, including the land settled by the Mormons. LDS leaders began to plan their first statehood attempt."
http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/statehood_and_the_progressive_era/struggleforstatehoodchronology.html
Can I expect another tirade of name-calling now?
So, 2164th, it appears that your view of the US is one where torture is institutionalized - a valid technique of investigation. Do you feel that the fact that 911 occurred also legitimizes the Federal Government to conduct warrant less fishing expeditions of any and all communications? Just another valid technique of investigation?
ReplyDeleteDR: wi"o", Hawaii does not retain an original long form birth certicate.
ReplyDeleteAll of their records were digitilized. There ARE NO paper records to be seen.
The State of Hawaii's agents have already testified that the record that was made public holds all the information in the file and is an accurate representation of that file.
Learn it, Live it, Love it.
I learned that Obama's family MAY have that original...
I learned that Obama has sealed off many of his personal records that could shed light to this matter..
I learned that the issue is not resolved and someday maybe...
In the meantime, BHO is the President of the USA, I accept that....
But I will, will all legal means, attempt to help impeach, impede or block the usurper that now sits in the Office of the President of the United States.
I see a fraud.....
You can follow him, but as a REAL citizen of the USA I have the DUTY to demand transparency from the government, one small point being the qualifications of the President....
The courts ARE revisiting these issues and don't think that the issued is settled, it aint...
"So, 2164th, it appears that your view of the US is one where torture is institutionalized - a valid technique of investigation. Do you feel that the fact that 911 occurred also legitimizes the Federal Government to conduct warrant less fishing expeditions of any and all communications? Just another valid technique of investigation?"
ReplyDeleteWhy are you so trapped in the childish application of logic and precedent? You are not alone. I happened to be in Latin America during 911. I heard some credible rumors that nuclear weapons were hidden in some US ports. For some time legitimate questions were asked about the intention of the enemy.
I would not have brought anyone back to torture. I would personally have approved interrogating them in a shipping container and if satisfied with the answers release them or shoot them.
That is what you do in war. That is what survivors and winners do. It is the wimps, whiners, draft dodgers, shirkers, cowards and losers that question good men, who make tough decisions in difficult times.
When the time passes, the same response would be unnecessary and unacceptable. I would hope to have the wisdom to recognize when that line of time has passed. I'll leave the second guessing to academic foolishness because I have no choice.
Allow me the pleasure of my contempts. Spare me the childish admonitions.
What are you saying there 2164th - that, no, you don't support institutional torture but that any person in the heat of battle who chooses to torture is a "Good Man"?
ReplyDeleteDo you really stand by this paragraph of yours:
"That is what you do in war. That is what survivors and winners do. It is the wimps, whiners, draft dodgers, shirkers, cowards and losers that question good men, who make tough decisions in difficult times."
In times of war any act is justified as long as you win. Stalin musta been a real good man in your books.
I guess you could argue that making the tough decision NOT to torture despite the natural fear and lust for revenge one feels when under stress but, somehow, I don't think that is what you are saying. You are saying 911 was bad therefore we can torture.
ReplyDeletetrust me Ash, if you ever really have to eat a shit sandwich, you will.
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that you're both debating a moot point.
ReplyDeleteTorture is against the law. No one can approve it. We don't torture.
Levin is a joke.
ReplyDeleteI presume then, trish, that you would approve the prosecution of any member of the US forces that did torture and/or abetted torture?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely.
ReplyDeleteWell, as the recent press coverage indicates, those memos released suggest that torture occurred and the culpability extends far up the chain of command. I guess the argument revolves around whether those acts constitute torture. A general consensus seems to have formed which considers waterboarding as torture. I would imagine many would think that sleep deprivation and stress positions also constitute torture. It will be interesting to learn what the courts think constitute torture.
ReplyDeleteReally if you have good information that there is a nuclear bomb but you don't know where it is, and this guy does, aren't we past legalities at that point, into situational ethics as it's called?
ReplyDeleteExtreme cases may make bad precedent, or whatever, but really, we're talking about a million or so dead.
Think of the children!
Granted such a case may not come along often(hopefully and thankfully) but in this day and age it's not unthinkable.
And hasn't Obama backed up on some of his campaign rhetoric?
I'd be willing to bet in the next few years there will be snooping on 'right wing extremists', 'single issue voters' and 'racists'. The stage seems to be set.
I think the country has more to fear from this group than the last.
Levin is not a joke.
ReplyDeleteThere!
Actually haven't read the book, so I shouldn't be saying.
S'okay, bob. I'll wing it.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of books.
ReplyDeleteSomebody is really trolling. Must be the moon.
ReplyDelete"It would be interesting to see what the courts would say about torture."Considering the way they twisted the Geneva Convention, the courts have become less and less interesting when it comes to the Overseas Contingency Operation.
ReplyDeletewhit:
ReplyDelete"Article 3 has been called a "Convention in miniature." It is the only article of the Geneva Conventions that applies in non-international conflicts.[1] It describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war. Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of GCIII."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
The only thing I'm disappointed in is that the motherfucker isn't dead, yet.
ReplyDeleteOnly a total idiot wouldn't put a little water up a mass-murderer's nose to save Millions.
The Founding Fathers were incredible lawmakers. So were the early Greeks; but later generations screwed that pooch, too.
ReplyDeleteThe Greeks retained a myth that their best days were always behind them. A fall from grace story that would end up being lived and passed down.
ReplyDeleteWe've been struggling with that same myth since before the founding fathers.
In their imagination, they lived in a perpetual twilight.
ReplyDeleteOnly a total idiot wouldn't put a little water up a mass-murderer's nose to save Millions.You said it better than I did, Rufus.
ReplyDelete----
The human race does have a "was good, now heap shit" outlook, it's found everywhere. I don't know why this is, things couldn't have always been better in the past, yet people generally think of it that way. Maybe it's the task of getting up in the morning and facing the day, and forgetting those struggles of the past. You'd think a society that didn't have this outlook so much would have an advantage over the others, but that may not be clear either.
If you know that the best days are always behind you, doesn't seem to leave much to be disappointed in.
ReplyDeleteIf you know tomorrow is going to be worse than today, you don't expect much.
ReplyDeleteNot all people are that way though. I've know some that have the ability to always look on the bright side. Really a blessing to be around.
ReplyDeleteOh, I know him.
ReplyDeleteole Rufus always looks on the bright side - at least financial's anyway.
ReplyDelete"
ANALYSIS
A skeptic's guide to Goldman Sachs
As Goldman Sachs goes, so goes Wall Street. So when the world's mightiest investment bank divulged a surprise first-quarter profit of $1.8-billion (U.S.) - and said it wanted to pay back the $10-billion it received from Washington in the bank bailout - it helped spark a rally in financial shares (which ended with a splat yesterday). How stellar are Goldman's numbers, really? Derek DeCloet takes a closer look"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090421.RDECLOET21ART1938/TPStory/?query=derek+decloet
The foinding principle of Western Justice, bob, is Blackstones'.
ReplyDeleteIn criminal law, Blackstone's formulation is the principle:
"better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",
expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.
Are we goin' to have to destroy Western Civilization to save it?
So if any agent of the State denies a person his Natural and legal rights, that agent should be penalized. Imprisoned, really, but financial destitution would surfice.
ReplyDeleteIf the prosecutors can turn around and get sued personally they'd be awfully careful bringing a case. Every time they lost they'd be in jeopardy. The defendent would have been found not guilty. They might not bring anything other that an open and shut case. Maybe this would be good, it's hard to see just how it would work out. There would be more guilty running free, and fewer innocent convicted, it would seem.
ReplyDeleteAnd probably fewer people wanting to go into the prosecuting line too. They might choose to be defense lawyers, sue the prosecutors.
Should a defense lawyer be sued for putting on a phoney defense?
That happens a lot too.
Only Divine Justice sees all.
Sure would make them toe the line, on the other hand some guilty might go free in marginal cases.----
ReplyDeleteAs they should, if the state following the rules cannot prove guilt without resorting to illegal procedures itself.
trish said...
ReplyDeleteLevin is a joke.
--------
Many disagree and might even say you're the joke. Just sayin'.
In this context.
ReplyDeleteWithin what context?
ReplyDeleteHe's the Joe Pecsi of conservatism.
ReplyDeleteHe's the Joe Pecsi of conservatism.----
ReplyDeleteSmarmy, but cute.
Sure to garner approval at the book club, I expect.
Are Any Of These Signs Racist?They've got Obama as Hitler, but what do they expect after 8 years of calling Bush Bushitler?
ReplyDelete"Obama supports abortion, sodomy, socialism and the New World Order--but so did Clinton(D) and Bush(R)"
That covers the waterfront.
"...a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character."That's the twist. Neither the Taliban nor al Qaeda were signatories and this most certainly is an international conflict. The court had to ignore the law in order to hear the case in the first place. On a few other items lately, they have also chosen to ignore the constitution instead referring to international norms.
ReplyDeleteI'm not interested in their bravo sierra.
No, Linear. He really is the Joe Pecsi of conservatism.
ReplyDelete