Miss California is fired

Post by **Leisher** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:30 am

Article.

I saw her comments on gay marriage, and while I disagree with her, it irritates me that her comments created a shit storm. Instead of bashing this girl, they should have given her a medal for actually answering a question with a real opinion instead of like a mindless drone reciting a practiced speech or rambling on like a moron (what was the name of that girl who recently did that?).

I only posted this story because while I was getting dressed this morning, the wife had the Today show on and they were interviewing the new Miss California and some director from the pageant. It was so blatantly obvious that this guy was lying his ass off about why they fired the other girl. Anyone who can read body language could see right through him.

I have zero doubt she was fired for her opinion, and while I don't give a fuck about these pageants, it sucks that this is another victory for censorship.

Also, Matt Lauer was kind of a jackass about it. He wrapped up the interview by saying: "So there you have it, the firing of Miss California had nothing to do with her opinion on gay marriage." That's really unbiased there Matt!

Post by **TPRJones** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:38 am

Yeah, while I think she's an ingnorant slut, I will speak out to protect her right to have ignorant slut opinions and express them when asked about them. This firing is bull. The whiny activists who insisted on it should be ashamed of themselves. No doubt they also whine about the importance of freedom of speach all the time, the hypocritical little shits.

Edited By TPRJones on 1244731138

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:43 am

On one hand, it's a fucking beauty pageant -- talking may as well get removed from the equation. & yeah, she got railroaded out of that position because of her views on marriage. The topless photos they "found" came out well after her initial verbal assertions. But when you've just won what's essentially a massive popularity contest, you can't be too surprised if you say something unpopular & there's backlash. Fucking hell, especially something anti-gay marriage in California. May as well go to China & talk shyte about communism.

Post by **GORDON** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:19 am

Honestly, I'm not sure if I agree with the chick, or not. I think the issue boils down to, and I hate to say it... what is the optimal "family structure." Ask a single, childless woman in NYC if there is any difference between a M/M/child family structure and a M/F/child family structure, and she will say there's no difference. Put the same woman in a situation where she's trying to adopt, make everything equal in the relationships between her and her husband, and a competing M/M couple, and her tune will absolutely and immediately change to the idea that a child is MUCH better off with a female mother, male father.

I personally don't feel anything about this argument is "obvious" one way or another.

Personally, I don't think the government should be recognizing ANY marriages... again... unless there is some intrinsic benefit to encouraging M/F family structures.

At any rate, I hope she sues the shit out of the pageant for discrimination.

Post by **TPRJones** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:27 pm

Well, if you are going by practicality - especially in relation to taking care of children - then polygamy is the only form that makes sense in the modern world. Being a single parent is tough, but just two parents isn't much better. With four or more you can have enough income to take care of everything and still have someone staying home with the kids.

Plus, the death of a parent can easily destroy a family when it's 50% of the parents involved. With more parents there's more redundancy and more support for the kids.

Edited By TPRJones on 1244737719

Post by **GORDON** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:44 pm

TPRJones wrote:Well, if you are going by practicality - especially in relation to taking care of children - then polygamy is the only form that makes sense in the modern world. Being a single parent is tough, but just two parents isn't much better. With four or more you can have enough income to take care of everything and still have someone staying home with the kids.

Plus, the death of a parent can easily destroy a family when it's 50% of the parents involved. With more parents there's more redundancy and more support for the kids.

Ah yes, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Hehe.

I dunno. Maybe. As long as I'm the only dude in the marriage, that is.

Post by **TPRJones** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 1:45 pm

GORDON wrote:As long as I'm the only dude in the marriage, that is.

That sounds like a lot of work, to me. I'd rather have some co-husbands to satisfy the wives when I'd rather be playing WoW.

Post by **GORDON** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 1:46 pm

Bisexual wives so they can satisfy each other when I am otherwise busy.

Never let another man rub your rhubarb.

Edited By GORDON on 1244742424

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:26 pm

Marriage is bad enough when it's just one person you're enslaved to. More than one just multiplies the pain. I never understood why anyone would voluntarily elect to've more than one wife. Hell, one's enough of a stretch.

Post by **Vince** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:53 pm

All the ironies of this were mind boggling. She was slammed for not representing ALL of Calirnia. Well I'd say you have to blame the fucktard that asked the question since yes and no were the two possible responses. And since Califonia had JUST passed Prop 8 I'd say she represented more of her state than had she answered in the negative.

If anyone should be barred from any dealing with Miss USA it's the divisive prick that asked the question.

We should be tolerant of different life-styles, but apparently not different opinions. The left champions diversity in everything except thought.

I was pretty much in the "don't really care" camp until they showed themselves to be fucking Nazis in their efforts to destroy this woman. Now I'm against them because their pricks.