jgg, Covered that issue in the 2nd portion of my post you are answering. Why not address that as well? C'mon now, don't cherry-pick, You know that portion of my post addresses what your talking about.
You don't know what the word 'defend" means? Tell me what actions I've "defended". On May 8, 12:52 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
