The Victorious Opposition

Having just seen these “racy” photos, I must say that I am under impressed.

Somebody should tell these bozo’s that Prejean’s opinion on this matter is the exact same as that of their leader, hopefully no pictures of him and his saggy man boobs are forthcoming.

The ugliness of the militant gay community does more harm for their cause then good. Carrie never demeaned them, said they were wrong, called them names, or even tried to convert them, she only gave her opinion with the requite “no offense intended”, but the vicious hateful gay hustlers can’t continence diversity and have no tolerance for those not in lock step with their beliefs. Two steps forward, one step back.

UPDATED.

Two steps forward, one step back.

Much like the black community, the onus is on the peaceful gay community to decide if Perez Hilton is the voice of their movement. If they won’t shut him up, and condemn his actions, they’ll surely have their asses in a sling come voting time.

It’s funny how certain types of leftists suddenly get all Victorian when it comes to others’ sexuality.  The notion that this is hypocritical due to her religious beliefs doesn’t even wash—Song of Songs is one of the most sensual, sexualized poems in the entire western canon, and it’s considered a sacred text for Christians.  Anyone whose read some of the poetry of the Puritans sees the same earthy, sensual language.  The notion that Christians consider sexuality to be “icky” is a stereotype, and not a very informed one at that.

This is really little more than the work of a petty, bitter, nasty human being whose intellectual development stunted after the eighth-grade.  Rather than engage the argument of same-sex marraige on a logical level, Hilton resorts to tricks that people tend to grow out of by the time they hit adulthood.

For me, the question of whether same-sex marraige is a little more complex than “yes” or “no” (I’d prefer to see “marraiges” performed in churches and conducted according to the conscience of the congregation, while confining the legal issues relevant to the state by allowing full partnerships to be contracted as civil unions), but ultimately, the gay community should not be allowing people like Perez Hilton to be asserting themselves as the voice of the gay community, lest his general fatuousness leads to further prejudice and stereotyping of gays.

Then again, the Democrats picked Howard Dean as their main spokesman and look where that got them, so I may be completely wrong as to how this will play out in the long run.

It’s funny how certain types of leftists suddenly get all Victorian when it comes to others’ sexuality.

They’re not getting Victorian; they’re point out hypocrisy. Like this, which is stupid and funny at the same time:

Of course, Princess Prejean has a right to her religious convictions and no one should ever lose a beauty contest over speaking those beliefs in earnest. Miss California also has the right to do whatever she chooses within the privacy of her own bra, but she doesn’t have the right to redefine traditional breasts for the rest of us.

For many thousands of years, across every culture and continent, women have known traditional or “natural” breasts to be those that God—or nature—gave them. To think otherwise flies in the face of millennia of human history and spiritual doctrine. Prejean’s Bible repeatedly reminds us we are made in God’s perfect image while warning us against exchanging the “natural” use of our bodies for those deemed “unnatural.” And, while one could argue the rights to privacy and personal freedom are inherent in our nation’s founding democratic principles and that every American has a right to his/her own life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, organizations like NOM—for whom she’s now a spokesperson—Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council repeatedly admonish us that life in America would be better if theology and biblical doctrine were the primary determinant of civil law and personal liberties.

With someone else footing the bill, Prejean made a choice to defy her God’s perfect design and creation of her and to rebel against the intended and “natural” purpose of her mammaries: namely, the nursing of babies rather than the visual attraction sufficient enough to win a vanity contest. Moreover, if her teeth aren’t capped, I’m betting they were braced; and I’d also put money down on the fact that Prejean, like all of us, has at some point performed other “unnatural” acts with her organs like chewing gum, wearing eye-glasses, enjoying a Diet Coke or two or… well you get the idea.

So, Carrie, you may find full civil equality for all Americans to be “unnatural” and not “Biblically correct,” but, frankly, neither are your Jugs4Jesus and your Caps4Christ. “No Offense!”

And while I reject Perez Hilton’s stupidity (both for making this an issue in a completely vacuous forum like a beauty pageant, and for his response afterwards), she’s made herself a viable public target for turning her fifteen minutes of fame into a crusade (fake breast and all, which I commented on long before the illuminati picked up on it), and becoming the tool of the “National Organization for Marriage” idiots.

What hypocrisy?  Should we also condemn contestants for taking advantage of modern dentistry?  Laser eye surgery?  If it’s allowed by the pageant, what about it? 

This whole menatlity that the leftwingers have is just one of, “AH HA!  Our brilliant investigation has revealed that a beauty pageant contestant posed for naughty pictures and got breast implants!  This is the greatest coup of the century! Duuuuuh!” 

Wow!  Great job, guys!

And quit blaming the victim (whoa, never thought I would say that to dwex).  When she became the epicenter of a little homo jihad, she had every right to use that notoriety against them.  This whole situation was created by a gay activist who wanted to make a point on national television and I’m glad she’s turning the tables and exposing their own intolerance for different viewpoints. 

What the fuck do you care that she got breast implants (with the support of the pageant) or posed for some racy pictures?  You sure as hell wouldn’t care if it were anyone else; it’s just that you don’t like what she said and only think she should take the abuse and disappear. 

Well, to hell with that.  When gay liberal activists decide to quit making a scene while publicly villifying everyone who doesn’t support their causes, I’ll get a little more sympathy for them.  In the meantime, I just see someone being bullied into shutting up by people who claim to be the most sensitive and open-minded among us.

They’re not getting Victorian; they’re point out hypocrisy. Like this, which is stupid and funny at the same time:

Hogwash—of course they are getting Victorian.  It’s a criticsm based on the leftist perjorative that anyone who is Christian is by nature a prude who hates or is afraid of sex.  As I pointed out above, even the biblical scriptures don’t condemn sex or sexuality, and in fact embrace it.

Prejean didn’t become a “viable public target” until Perez Hilton decided to slam her for her religious beliefs.  Now a bunch of leftists whose familiarity with actual Christian scripture is superficial at best is trying to use it to bash her for her religious beliefs.  Notice that Prejean hasn’t said anything hateful towards Hilton, who has called her both a “bitch” and a “cunt”, nor to any of her critics.

You appear to be knee-jerking your criticism for Prejean not for the way she has conducted herself, nor for the actual substance of her beliefs, but because you seem to believe anyone of a Christian faith who doesn’t think gay marraige is okay while not being shy about their sexuality is a hypocritical bigot.  If that assessment of your views is accurate, then you don’t seem to have a complete understanding of how Christians have approached issues of personal sexuality, the examples of which I cited above.  Regardless, it’s irrelevant, because sexuality and the way one presents their body is logically only a tangent to the question of gay marraige itself. 

I can come up with much better arguments against the prohibition of gay marraige, and unlike Hilton or the idiot you cited at HuffPo, I don’t have to use ad hominem irrelevancies like Carrie Prejean’s bust size to do it.  If the gay marraige advocates getting attention in the media right now can’t come up with anything better to criticize her stance than to use slurs and arguments about her body, then they have no one to blame but themselves if their position isn’t taken seriously.

she’s made herself a viable public target

B S

Perez Hilton’s the one who made her a target, with all sorts of other leftist groups taking potshots as well.

dwex, you (seemingly) unwittingly reinforce the point relating to Palin and other popular conservative women.

Also, what ever happened to the idea that women should be able to do what they want with their bodies?  Oh yeah, I guess that right only exists if one subscribes to leftist ideology.

Oh yeah, I guess that right only exists if one subscribes to leftist ideology.

BINGO!

Also, what ever happened to the idea that women should be able to do what they want with their bodies?  Oh yeah, I guess that right only exists if one subscribes to leftist ideology.

Not that the irony isn’t noted, but as I pointed out earlier, the question of what she does with her body isn’t really relevant to the issue of whether gay marraige should be legalized or not.  That’s what people seem to be missing in this flap over her bust size or the pictures.

Abraham Lincoln did this once in a court case during his time as a lawyer.  He did the arguments, cross-examinations, etc., then in making his closing argument, he said (and I’m paraphrasing from memory), “Gentlemen of the jury, you have heard several arguments by so-and-so on the merits of the case.  But if you happened to notice, Mr. So-and-So has had a mustard stain on his tie during this whole trial and never bothered to clean it.”  Unfortunately, the tactic worked, and Lincoln won the case because the jury thought that someone who didn’t notice a spot on their tie didn’t get the argument correct. 

The best way to counter the nonsense that Hilton is propogating is to redirect back to the original issue and ask, “In what way do you believe Carrie Prejean’s argument is incorrect?”  If it comes down to questions of religion, there’s not much that can be said, because for Christians, the Bible isn’t ambiguous about homosexual relationships.  At that point, it becomes an issue of whether that belief is as still as valid as avoiding certain kinds of animals to eat or what a woman should do when she has her period; or whether it’s an issue that is still applicable to today’s society.

There’s better ways to engage this argument, and Hilton and his supporters are completely failing to make any kind of logical or intellectual case for their position.

Of course, Princess Prejean has a right to her religious convictions and no one should ever lose a beauty contest over speaking those beliefs in earnest.

Nice deflection, and totally contrary to the facts. Hilton has admitted publicly numerous times that he voted against Prejean strictly on this one answer, and who knows how diligently he filibustered the other judges who did not have the spine to risk being labeled a homophobe by voting their conscience. Prejean was going to San Diego Christian College, it was obvious to all the judges including Hilton that she was a Christian and most Christians have a traditional view of marriage, it should be blatantly clear that this was an execution, and I already posted that weak cheese question the winner got.

And bringing up breast implants, the left really are exposing their own idiocy.

So, taking this same line to its natural progression, its hypocritical for Projean to comb her hair, shave her legs, or wear makeup because it is not natural.

The vicious attacks and ad hominems from a certain segment of the gay community is keeping Projean relevant (and shooting themselves in the foot in the process, not anything she is doing.

B S

Perez Hilton’s the one who made her a target, with all sorts of other leftist groups taking potshots as well.

Regardless of how she got there, the fact that she’s using her 15 minutes of fame to get all political based on what happened at a beauty pageant absolutely makes her a target. The entire idea of beauty pageants as a platform has always been ridiculous. But I find it interesting that the “shut up and sing” folk would be standing up for this irrelevant person’s right to get all political when what she should really be doing is “stand still, look pretty”.

dwex, you (seemingly) unwittingly reinforce the point relating to Palin and other popular conservative women.

Whatever. She’s using her celebrity to become a star in a forum, and is being completely used by the right wing in the process. That’s not the same thing as someone who routinely speaks on policy speaking on policy.

I’m finding it odd that people would expect feminists to stick up for beauty queens, regardless. The entire purpose of beauty pageants is anti-feminist on its face.

Getting breast implants to win a beauty contest is not feminist. Yes, she can do whatever she wants with her body. Doing it to win a contest based on how she looks doesn’t make her Gloria Steinem.

TBH, this entire thing is completely overblown on both sides. Perez Hilton was an idiot, as I said from the start. She’s an idiot for letter herself get used by organizations like NOM. Left-wingers are stupid for perpetuating her 15 minutes of fame.

But I find it interesting that the “shut up and sing” folk would be standing up for this irrelevant person’s right to get all political when what she should really be doing is “stand still, look pretty”.

That’s beyond retarded, dwex.  She was asked a politically-charged question by an agenda-driven judge in the course of a contest that she was obligated to answer.  She answered the question honestly with her own opinion.  The next thing that happened is that the judge who asked the question to begin with and asked for her opinion went onto his website and called her a “bitch” for doing so.  It was only after that she became an advocate.

How is anyone but Perez Hilton the villain here?  Unless you’re so committed to his cause beyond all dementia that you think teenage girls who give their honest opinion in response to direct questions deserve to be defamed and should just shut their bitch mouths and take the consequences. 

The ghey extremists like Hilton created this whole monster.  They own it.  But when you start sharing in their attitude that you can just call people hypocrites by defining the word in order to discredit them and shut up all debate, you’re playing the worst kind of politics.

when what she should really be doing is “stand still, look pretty”.

dwex, did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?  This is completely ridiculous!  Do you know anything about pageants beyond the popular view of them as beauty contests?

Whatever. She’s using her celebrity to become a star in a forum, and is being completely used by the right wing in the process. That’s not the same thing as someone who routinely speaks on policy speaking on policy.

Totally weak, and I expect better from you.  She lost a competition that she spent many months and dollars preparing for all because some prick chose to hang her for her personal beliefs.  You can’t blame her for fighting back, and standing up for those beliefs by becoming more engaged in and speaking out on behalf of the issue. 

Whether the right wing jumps on her bandwagon is their business, but this woman is doing the exact kind of platform advocacy that all pageant participants do—it’s just a little more high-profile and a little more controversial.

TBH, this entire thing is completely overblown on both sides.

More weak equivocation.

This thing is not overblown, because it’s a perfect case-in-point of the hypocrisy of the gay rights movement.

I’m finding it odd that people would expect feminists to stick up for beauty queens, regardless.

We don’t.  It’s to demonstrate their own hypocrisy, while we are on the topic.  The feminist organizations don’t really stand for anything but abortion and jilling-off to shirtless pictures of Obama.

She’s an idiot for letter herself get used by organizations like NOM.

No, she isn’t.  She got turned into a culture war lightning rod by Hilton and others and is using it to advance a cause she obviously believes in.  What, is she not allowed to work for a nonprofit now?

dwex, did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?  This is completely ridiculous!  Do you know anything about pageants beyond the popular view of them as beauty contests?

I know what people pretend that they are, in trying to justify them in politically-correct times. I think it’s a complete crock. Is this news? I said as much when this story broke the first time.

You can’t blame her for fighting back, and standing up for those beliefs by becoming more engaged in and speaking out on behalf of the issue.

Whether the right wing jumps on her bandwagon is their business, but this woman is doing the exact kind of platform advocacy that all pageant participants do—it’s just a little more high-profile and a little more controversial. 

She’s gone well beyond fighting back and standing up for her beliefs, which I never had any issue with. I didn’t have any issue with her response in the first place.

But now she’s making commercials for NOM. They’re using her celebrity for their deceptive advertising. So yeah, I’m gonna call that out.

But now she’s making commercials for NOM. They’re using her celebrity for their deceptive advertising. So yeah, I’m gonna call that out.

Then attack her positions, instead of aligning yourself with the fucking morons who think it matters that she had her boobies made bigger.

This thing is not overblown, because it’s a perfect case-in-point of the hypocrisy of the gay rights movement.

Have you paid any attention to what actually goes on in the “protection of marriage” movement? It’s complete hypocritical BS - because it isn’t even about “protection of marriage”, it’s about anti gay marriage, but they won’t come right out and say it.

So yeah, this entire thing is completely blown out of proportion on both sides.

I know what people pretend that they are, in trying to justify them in politically-correct times.

Oh man, I wouldn’t want to be there if you said this to the friends of mine who do pageants.  You really have no idea what you’re talking about.

What, is she not allowed to work for a nonprofit now?

Of course she is. But that’s what puts her in the spotlight now. Yes, Perez Hilton started it. He shouldn’t have, but he did. And she stood up for herself, which is fine. But bootstrapping off of that to become a face of a movement puts her out there. She’s not teflon just because Perez Hilton was an idiot.

Oh man, I wouldn’t want to be there if you said this to the friends of mine who do pageants. You really have no idea what you’re talking about.

Yeah, I always love to hear people rationalize how contests based on parading around in bathing suits & evening gowns, maybe doing a talent show, and answering some question, which induces people to go through surgical “body modification” in order to win, is about something other than physical appearance.

Yes, some women do it to pay for college & such-like. So what? They’re still dressing themselves up to be on display to win something based on how they look.

I’ve had that conversation before. I don’t buy it.

(And yes, I think the same of the testosterone-fest male “body building” competitions, or whatever the politically-correct phrase for them is).

Of course she is. But that’s what puts her in the spotlight now.

Okay dwex, I don’t think anyone is arguing that she shouldn’t be “in the spotlight”, since it’s obvious that’s where she wants to be.  What we’re concerned about is not that she’s being criticized, which is to be expected of any public figure.  Rather, we’re concerned about how she’s being criticized.

In other words: she needs to shut up and crawl under a rock somewhere, right?

What you don’t get is that this isn’t a matter of a difference of opinion.  The extreme Left isn’t just going to settle for opposing her.  They are going to do everything they can to ruin her and discourage others like her from publicly speaking out in favor of anything they oppose.  The fact that they’ve brought out the breast implants and the old photoshoot is proof that they’re digging.

This is what they do.  Ask Sarah Palin.  I wish Obama was getting 1/10th the scrutiny that she is now.

So what? They’re still dressing themselves up to be on display to win something based on how they look.

Stop now dwex, because the hole you’re digging keeps going deeper.  This statement just further reinforces that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Rather, we’re concerned about how she’s being criticized.

And how is it different from “shut up and sing”, zoomzoom?

Note that I’m not defending it; I think it’s insanely stupid. But I find it completely hypocritical for the “shut up and sing” crowd to get all self-righteous now without seeing that it’s the same thing.

Edit: And Thrill’s last response just proves my point.

I’m finding it odd that people would expect feminists to stick up for beauty queens, regardless.

Marginalizing a woman because of her looks has pretty much been goal number one since feminists have existed, much along the same lines as condemning:

“She is a woman, what can she know?”

“She is a ditsy blonde, you know the rest”

“Attractive women can only move up the corporate ladder by sleeping around”

“She has big boobs, she doesn’t need to be smart”

Yes, they should be standing up in condemning these attitudes, regardless of ideology.

Left-wingers are stupid for perpetuating her 15 minutes of fame.

Yep, she should not be making headlines, and yet…......

And how is it different from “shut up and sing”, zoomzoom?

To use the classic example:

The Dixie Chicks decided to use a few minutes during a concert in which they were expected to perform music to instead insult the President while in a foreign country.  They pissed off their own fans by doing so.  They did it gratuitously and spontaneously.

“Shut up and sing” generally refers to artists who harangue their audiences who paid to see
a performance with political diatribes.  So in this case, the real “shut up and sing” moment was Hilton’s, not Miss Thoughtcrime’s.  She was only answering a direct question.

So in this case, the real “shut up and sing” moment was Hilton’s, not Miss Thoughtcrime’s.  She was only answering a direct question.

Sorry, I already went over that.

The “shut up and sing” moment is making herself a spokesperson for NOM & suchlike.

And how is it different from “shut up and sing”, zoomzoom?

Deflection, but I’ll bite.

The Dixie Chicks espoused an opinion that had nothing to do with their performance or role as musicians, in a foreign country. 

Ms. Prejean’s opinion was given after being asked a question during her competition.  Her subsequent advocacy is also appropriate, considering that platform is an integral part of the well-rounded women pageants are designed to support.

Apple, meet orange.

dwex, platform is an INTEGRAL PART of pageants.  Advocacy is what pageant queens DO, so “shut up and sing” is entirely inappropriate in this situation.

See, in the case of “shut up and sing”, you just don’t go see their shows if they’re going to waste your money by spouting off.  In the liberal’s version, you dig up whatever you can to discredit that person and/or make shit up if you have to.

Yeah, zoom.  I guess she should have shut up about the work she was doing for Special Olympics earlier.  Stupid retards.  Right, dwex?

dwex, platform is an INTEGRAL PART of pageants.  Advocacy is what pageant queens DO, so “shut up and sing” is entirely inappropriate in this situation.

She’s representing the Miss USA organization in her work for NOM? Do you think that if she had won, if Perez Hilton hadn’t been an idiot, etc, she’d be using her Miss USA platform to do commercials for NOM? Of course not. Their advocacy is handled through the organization. How many Miss Americas or Miss USAs actually speak out on controversial topics?

I’m sure there are other pageants she could have done that would have helped her with this particular platform.

But don’t try to tell me that what she’s doing is part of her beauty-queen advocacy plan as 1st runner up for Miss USA.

I think things are gonna get very interesting if Miss USA wins the Miss Universe, because then Carrie Prejean becomes Miss USA (it’s happened before - see Shanna Moakler, for example).

*sigh*

dwex, your ignorance about pageants isn’t helping your arguments.  Let me see if I can help.

Contrary to whatever you think they’re really about, pageants are about developing well-rounded women—that mix of beauty, brains and heart that we see in the best women we know.  Contestants establish a platform as part of the latter, and will often speak and volunteer on behalf of whatever cause they select.  The idea is that a well-rounded woman is committed to advocating for causes she believes in.

In the course of this pageant, this young woman’s dreams were dashed by a slimy putz of a judge (who in the world thought Hilton would make a good judge anyways?) for simply stating her personal beliefs.  This cause (defense of traditional marriage) was no longer an abstraction, it became personal, with Ms. Prejean experiencing hatred and intolerance of her closely held beliefs.

As an upstanding, well-rounded young woman, Ms. Prejean saw an opportunity to really make a difference on an issue she has personal familiarity with.  At this point, it has little to do with acting in any official capacity for Miss USA—it’s her personal calling, and we should commend her for standing up for something she believes in and was personally impacted by.

......and the flurry of comments that distracted me from work ends.

(Edit by dwex - moved Mrs. Thrill’s comment to her name)

Yes, some women do it to pay for college & such-like. So what? They’re still dressing themselves up to be on display to win something based on how they look.

Right now what disgusts me most is the attitude that women cannot alter their bodies in a way that pleases themselves most!  I am appalled at your attitude dwex of a woman who wants to make herself pretty.  Who cares if she has implants?  I have seen amazing and beautiful women completely wrecked because they had small boobs.  Men wouldn’t look at them and found them to be less then sexy.  Once they got the implants, their confidence SOARED and they loved themselves.  And if all it took was some silicon and $6,000, so be it.

It is a woman’s right to wear make-up, shave her legs, put on a tight skirt, and flaunt whatever she’s got.  Feminism in its present form is one of the greatest mistakes that women everywhere have to overcome now.  If a woman is anything but an aspiring CEO, she is lazy.  If she wants to have children and raise them with good Christian, Jewish, or Islamic beliefs, she’s a moron.

But then the other shoe drops, if she has big boobs and blonde hair she is an idiot.  I encounter this on a DAILY BASIS.  I am continuously treated as being someone perceived as stupid, just because I have a large chest and blonde hair.  And you have NO idea how hard that makes your existence.

People like Perez Hilton - a woman hating male, only create more of this stereotype by lambasting a blonde haired, medium boobed woman, who was trying to do something she loved.  I look up to her for sticking to her guns.  I don’t agree with her arguments against gay marriage, but I look to her as a woman who sticks to her ideals.  She has been thrown into a nightmare of publicity, defamed publically, and is keeping her head on straight.  Good for you Miss California.  That’s class.

And how dare you judge her for having fake breasts.  Do you know why she has fake breasts?  Could it have been some sort of deformity she wished to fix?  And if not, who cares?  Does it make her less a Christian for wanting to improve the body that God gave her?  She is a beautiful woman, yes too skinny, but that’s our culture - for bad.  Oh and by the way, just because she has implants doesn’t mean she can’t breastfeed her child!

Feminism should be about the right of a woman to be who she wants to be - the CEO, the mom, the Pornstar.  For my true sisters, I am proud that you are who you want to be.  So get the tattoos, breast implants, laser eye surgery.  Or wear those Birkenstocks and have hairy armpits.  Just be proud you are a WOMAN!

Right now what disgusts me most is the attitude that women cannot alter their bodies in a way that pleases themselves most!  I am appalled at your attitude dwex of a woman who wants to make herself pretty.

I never said that. They can do whatever they want.

Doing it to win a beauty contest, and then having people defend it as really about furthering some platform, however, is disingenuous at best.

And how dare you judge her for having fake breasts.

Because I don’t like the bolt-on-boob look, and she was parading around on stage specifically to have her appearance judged.

Could it have been some sort of deformity she wished to fix?

No, it could not. They were done a couple months ago, on the expense account of the Miss California organization.

I don’t know why the left went on this particular tirade about her fake boobs. But where were all of you when Mann Coulter and Laura Ingraham were going after Meghan McCain about her weight when she called out Coulter on her politics a month or two back? Oh wait - it’s a left wing thing…

and the shark has been jumped.

You mean based on the fact that he insulted Ann Coulter by claiming that she is a man after scolding Coulter and Ingraham for engaging in ad hominems?

Or was it because he used a video that clearly took Ingraham out of context?

Or was it because he used a video that clearly took Ingraham out of context?

It clearly did not take her out of context, which you would know if you actually paid any attention to what went on. McCain called out Coulter in a blog post, they got into some back & forth, and Ingraham jumped into it by attempting to ridicule McCain including satire about her weight.

But clearly that can’t be what actually happened, because this is just a left-wing phenomenon, right?

Please. Get over yourselves.

No, that’s definitely not the way I heard it. 

And you’re stonewalling on the unnecessary insult you made against Coulter.

No, that’s definitely not the way I heard it. 

Go look up some of the reports and YouTube videos, particularly of her & O’Reilly trying to defend it. Talk about rationalizing. I just linked the short one that had the actual commentary from the radio broadcast.

And you’re stonewalling on the unnecessary insult you made against Coulter.

Stonewalling? It didn’t need any commentary. Is it news that I despise Coulter? This is no different than your ‘Barack “random-insulting-middle-name” Obama’ thing.

Oh!  YouTube videos!  Well, that’s pretty defining.

Even so, you are completely screwing the point:

Coulter, Ingraham, me, etc will certainly make fun of other people.  However, there is a huge difference between satirizing another political figure (and Meghan McCain certainly is) and attempting to intimidate and destroy the career of someone.  This isn’t even Stewart/Colbert-style mockery.  They want to damage her and have since Hilton blurted out his comment and it’s remarkably consistent with the bully tactics shown against the Mormons.

Miss Thoughtcrime’s critics don’t want to have laughs at her expense.  They want to shut her up and they’ll dredge up whatever they can on her so that she will no longer be able to function as an advocate.  That’s what this was all about and you seem to be incapable of seeing it.  Hate Coulter all you like, but she doesn’t have the ability to ruin anyone to the degree that Prejean’s new enemies can and will.

dwex, I wonder if you realize how unusual your behavior has been on this post.  It is not like you at all.  You’ve resorted to many of the common tactics we despise here on this blog:

You’ve blamed the victim, saying:

she’s made herself a viable public target

In a particularly insulting way, you’ve created a straw man:

But I find it interesting that the “shut up and sing” folk would be standing up for this irrelevant person’s right to get all political when what she should really be doing is “stand still, look pretty”.

You seemingly admitted your position is weak when you resorted to the old “spread the blame” tactic:

TBH, this entire thing is completely overblown on both sides.

Like a typical weak-minded liberal, you use a right-wing bogeyman in a classic guilt-by-association:

But now she’s making commercials for NOM.

You display a stunning degree of ignorance, preferring to revel in an old stereotype:

So what? They’re still dressing themselves up to be on display to win something based on how they look.

This one’s a classic—you whine “well they did it too” with a poor analogy.  Dude, my 9 year old sister does that:

But where were all of you when Mann Coulter and Laura Ingraham were going after Meghan McCain about her weight when she called out Coulter on her politics a month or two back?

And last, but not least, you simply resort to insults:

Please. Get over yourselves.

dwex, part of what I really like about is that you make sharp, but reasonable arguments.  That dwex is nowhere to be found on this post.  I wonder if your personal stake in the issue is clouding your judgement and ability to reason.

I think he just doesn’t understand that what is being done to this woman is exactly the same as the vicious intimidation visited on the Mormons late last year.  When you only see gays as victims, it must be hard to see that they and their media allies can victimize others as well.

Another racy photo surfaced of that unabashed gay marriage opponent.

but this one obviously did not have the boob job (too bad).

This is one of those perfect storms that places the frontlines of liberal groupthink at odds with itself. When the gay community attacks women, it’s almost like when something like a “peaceful” Obama supporting crowd attacks their opponents.

I think Prejean needs an account at WOW. Otherwise dwex will perpetually side with Perez Hilton, even though he seemingly doesn’t like him p to the point that he’s a monumental asshole.

At least he threw a Miss America pageant over something dwex thinks is right. That makes the inadequacies all the better.

I don’t know why the left went on this particular tirade about her fake boobs.

As I explained earlier, the left has created a perjorative stereotype of Christianity that is easy for them to mock.  Rather than engage the question of gay marriage on a logical, intellectual level and explain WHY gay marraiges should be allowed, they fell into shark mode because they honestly believe that Christians suppress all feelings of sexuality and that sex is considered immoral in Christian philosophy.  That sentiment is certainly not shared by Christians, as demonstrated by a blatantly sexualized book in their own sacred canon, but the stereotype allows them to attack Prejean from this angle of irrelevancy.

dwex, you know as well as I do that this is not an age where questions of political policy are engaged on a level that is in any way reasonable.  It’s an age where mockery and scorn carry the day, and it will probably stay that way for a while as long as society is catering to the echo boomers that are currently driving the media markets.  The Democrats elevating Howard Dean to the head of the DNC was no accident—he has the same juvenile attitude about his opponents that your average college student has about anybody they see as abnormal, and that is the mindset this country is engaging with right now.  What is happening to Prejean is just another symptom of that intellectual rot.

This whole thing is beyond retarded.

Having done a quick google search (and this hasn’t been on the news over here, apart from a couple of comedy programmes) I can’t actually find any justification she gives for her beliefs. Did she ever say that she’s against gay marriage because the bible says it’s wrong and everything in the bible should be obeyed? Because if she did, then she’s fair game for being a hypocrite (although it is clutching at straws somewhat).

My advice to the gay marriage movement : Get this woman on a talk show with someone who can intelligently debate the gay marriage issue, and you’ll no doubt rip her to shreds. (I may be making assumptions here, but I’m guessing she doesn’t have a PhD.) If the other side is making a beauty queen the spokesperson of their argument, then you really should be laughing.

Prejean is not actually a “spokesperson”

“A number of media sources have described Carrie Prejean as a spokesperson for the National Organization for Marriage.

As we made clear at our press conference yesterday: Carrie appeared with NOM as a private citizen; she does not work for the National Organization for Marriage. She is a spokesperson for her own views, as anyone watching her can tell.