>>> Let me get this straight. The lady in question has a perfect right to >>> express her opinions, of course. But people who do not agree with her >>> personal opinion are Brown-Shirts for expressing the opinion she's full of >>> shit?
If only they stopped at just saying her opinion was wrong... Instead, they then take action in seeking to publicly destroy her... It is this action which is similar to Hitler's Brown Shirts... Your winking of this consists of denying they took ACTIONS to publicly destroy her... So please, atleast get my POV right instead of twisting it to involve it in plausible denial... It is this type of straw man that you are doing that so many with no arguments do to cover-up their own inconveniently exposed cover-ups... On May 8, 1:33 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > jgg, > > Let me get this straight. The lady in question has a perfect right to > express her opinions, of course. > But people who do not agree with her personal opinion are Brown-Shirts > for expressing the opinion she's full of shit? > Aren't BOTH protected under the First Ammendment? > > So far as "destroying" the lady. The only thing I've seen reported > that might damage her "profession" as a beauty contest contestant > would be the breast augumentation surgery, and even then ONLY if it > violates some pagent rule. Anyone offer to answer that question as of > yet? > So far as the nude photo issue goes, that's entirely subjective. MIGHT > hurt her in some contest judges minds, MIGHT not. Guess she should > have thought of that. > > Anyway, either one of these "issues" untrue? > Much ado and bullshit over nothing by BOTH sides. > > On May 8, 12:06 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > If only they went after her for rule infractions... They went after > > her for expressing a non pro gay marriage answer AS YOU WELL KNOW... > > The same position as Obama... The purpose was to penalize her for > > "FREE SPEECH" that was contrary to their POV... And that Hollywood > > is why your friends you are seeking to cover-up for ARE Brown- > > shirts... > > > On May 8, 11:04 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > jgg, > > > > Jesus Christ man, you want to get your panties all in a wad over a few > > > people criticizing the actions (destroying) some woman that won a > > > beauty contest be my guest. > > > I did not DEFEND jackshit. I asked it the allegations were true and if > > > doing such things violated the rules of the contest. > > > > On May 8, 9:13 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Well Hollywood, THEY ARE... And it is clear to all without an > > > > ideological POV to defend blindly... > > > > > On May 8, 10:10 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > jgg, > > > > > > There you go with the hysterics, "they are trying to DESTROY her!!!!!" > > > > > Your starting to bore me. > > > > > > On May 8, 9:01 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Here Hollywood is the comment which I agree with... It is > > > > > > Ideological > > > > > > bigotry which you seek to excuse away here... I note you ignore > > > > > > the > > > > > > plain fact I did not ALL folks on the Left are seeking to personally > > > > > > destroy Miss California, but it is clear SOME are.... That you > > > > > > refuse to condemn those folks is telling... > > > > > > >http://deceiver.com/2009/05/08/hey-lets-destroy-carrie-prejean-for-ag... > > > > > > > >>> As you watch the Carrie Prejean brouhaha unfold, you might be > > > > > > >>> saying to yourself, “Hold on a second, Self. Doesn’t this young > > > > > > >>> lady have the same opinion about gay marriage as President > > > > > > >>> Obama? Why is a beauty pageant contestant getting raked over > > > > > > >>> the coals for this, being called every name in the book and > > > > > > >>> having her private life strewn all over the media landscape, > > > > > > >>> but they’re giving the leader of the free world a pass? Doesn’t > > > > > > >>> he have a little more power and influence over the issue than > > > > > > >>> she does?” > > > > > > > If that is indeed that you’re thinking, you’re not alone. ABC’s Jake > > > > > > Tapper asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about it the > > > > > > other day: > > > > > > > TAPPER: Does the president or the White House have a reaction to > > > > > > the governor of Maine signing a same-sex marriage bill? > > > > > > > GIBBS: No, I think the president’s position on same-sex marriage > > > > > > is — has been talked about and discussed. > > > > > > > TAPPER: He opposes same-sex marriage? > > > > > > > GIBBS: He supports civil unions. > > > > > > > TAPPER: Does that mean that he’s going to say or do anything > > > > > > against what the citizens of Maine did — did today? > > > > > > > GIBBS: Not that I’m aware of. I think the president believes > > > > > > this > > > > > > is an issue that’s best addressed by the states. > > > > > > > If this is substantively different than what Prejean said, somebody > > > > > > please explain it to me. “We live in a land where you can choose > > > > > > same- > > > > > > sex marriage or opposite[-sex] marriage,” she noted, before > > > > > > revealing > > > > > > that she disagreed with the same-sex variety. For which she is an > > > > > > evil, gay-hating demon. Whereas Obama thinks the states should be > > > > > > able > > > > > > to choose as they see fit, but personally he believes that marriage > > > > > > should be between a man and a woman. For which he is a friend to > > > > > > gays > > > > > > everywhere, and indeed to all of humanity. > > > > > > > Why isn’t Obama getting called out? U.S. News & World Report’s > > > > > > Robert > > > > > > Schlesinger thinks he knows: > > > > > > > The answer lies in tone and nuance. > > > > > > > It is true that Obama’s position is that marriage is “between a > > > > > > man and a woman” and that he is “not in favor of gay marriage.” That > > > > > > said, he articulately advocates for the rights of gay couples on > > > > > > things like hospital visitation. See here, for example, starting at > > > > > > about 1:06: “When I sit down and read scripture and I think how > > > > > > would > > > > > > Jesus feel about somebody not being able to visit someone they love > > > > > > when they’re sick, I conclude that that is something that’s > > > > > > important.” > > > > > > > Has Carrie Prejean stated any opposition to hospital visitation > > > > > > rights > > > > > > for gay couples? Is she against civil unions? Or are we just > > > > > > assuming > > > > > > so, since she’s all right-wingy and stuff? Well, the important thing > > > > > > to remember is that Prejean is bad for giving her honest, direct > > > > > > opinion when asked for it, whereas Obama is good because he’s > > > > > > “nuanced” (AKA vague and diversionary). Makes sense. Why would gay > > > > > > folks want straight answers? > > > > > > > Although acccording to the New York Times, some gay-rights activists > > > > > > are getting impatient with him: > > > > > > > Social issues like same-sex marriage bring together deeply held > > > > > > principles and flashpoint politics, and many gay activists, aware > > > > > > that > > > > > > Mr. Obama is also dealing with enormous challenges at home and > > > > > > overseas, have counseled patience. > > > > > > > But some are unsettled by what they see as the president’s > > > > > > cautious approach. Many are still seething over his choice of the > > > > > > Rev. > > > > > > Rick Warren, the evangelical pastor who opposes same-sex marriage, > > > > > > to > > > > > > deliver the invocation at his inaugural, and remain suspicious of > > > > > > Mr. > > > > > > Obama’s commitment to their cause. > > > > > > > In the words of David Mixner, a writer, gay activists are > > > > > > beginning to wonder, “How much longer do we give him the benefit of > > > > > > the doubt?” > > > > > > > At least they’re not calling him a “dumb bitch” yet. > > > > > > > But hey, you don’t really care about any of that, right? You’re > > > > > > looking for some of those topless shots of America’s most prominent > > > > > > opponent of gay marriage. And you’re in luck. Wooooo! Nothin’ gay > > > > > > about that, people. > > > > > > > On May 7, 5:00 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > jgg, > > > > > > > > You presume to know WHY a given person(s) takes a given action. > > > > > > > If you > > > > > > > will note, I talk about the actions taken themselves and do not > > > > > > > judge > > > > > > > what motivated those actions. > > > > > > > > I pointed out what action(s) was taken and question your comparing > > > > > > > that action the Hitler's Brown-Shirts. > > > > > > > i ask questions such as was the woman FORCED to have surgery and > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > she knowing broke rules in having said surgery. > > > > > > > > On May 7, 3:19 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Some say Obama won the Presidential Beauty Contest by PR > > > > > > > > slickery... > > > > > > > > Yes Hollywood there is alot of similarity,,, > > > > > > > > > And please Hollywood do not make straw men here... I said > > > > > > > > > >>> your position here is in effect winking at the Hitler > > > > > > > > >>> Brown-Shirt tactics when done by the Left... > > > > > > > > > and that is quite different than > > > > > > > > > >>> pointing out some young woman broke the rules of some > > > > > > > > >>> beauty contest is comparable to what Hitler's Brown-Shirts > > > > > > > > >>> did > > > > > > > > > The problem is that many of the LW nuts go quite further than > > > > > > > > "just > > > > > > > > pointing out"... They are on a defined purpose to discredit, > > > > > > > > disbase, and demonize a young woman who in effect repeat Obama's > > > > > > > > position on Gay marriage... Unwilling and unable to trash > > > > > > > > Obama, they > > > > > > > > seek out suitable victims for their Brown Shirt tactics... > > > > > > > > And you > > > > > > > > are seeking to defend these hateful and bigoted LW activists... > > > > > > > > Not > > > > > > > > unlike what ordinary Germans did when the Brown Shirts did their > > > > > > > > trashing... > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 6:04 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > jgg, > > > > > > > > > > Once again, the nastiest thing you can say about a liberal is > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > they are acting like conservative Republicans. > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I see no comparison between the POTUS and some young > > > > > > > > > woman that > > > > > > > > > won some beauty contest. > > > > > > > > > > Riiiight, pointing out some young woman broke the rules of > > > > > > > > > some beauty > > > > > > > > > contest is comparable to what Hitler's Brown-Shirts did. Why, > > > > > > > > > that's a > > > > > > > > > perfectly reasonable position. :-) > > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 3:33 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hollywood, you just don't get it... The issue is > > > > > > > > > > deliberate character > > > > > > > > > > assassination for political gain EVEN when the individual > > > > > > > > > > is not a > > > > > > > > > > political figure... > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
