One thing about Beauty Pageants is that if you do or say something that displeases the judges, you get marked down.
Because “blowjob tournament” was just a little too straightforward.
Deleted. I didn’t know what ‘fearful’ meant when I wrote my post.
Aw, now I’ll be wondering all day.
Poor Carrie Prejean, being punished by having millions of people knowing who she is and being fluffed by the right like Ron Jeremy on the 10th hour of a porn-shoot, as opposed to being one of the faceless pair of tits walking around in a bikini and high-heels for wank fodder like the rest of the contestants were.
Will the injustice never end?
I was gonna say, what the hell kind of switcheroo is this? The original thread asked “Why are Libs fearful” and LP answered all of the reasons why libs are mistrusted and feared.
I thought ‘fearful’ only meant ‘scared’. But then I thought twice and looked it up. Turns out it also means ‘to cause fear’.
Only with a ‘Miss Congeniality’ exploding crown. 
What position did he state?
More precisely, the exaggerated number suggests that stuff was being made up out of whole cloth, while the actual number makes it more plausible that the charges legitimately arose out of Palin’s record.
Well:
I absolutely disagree with this statement. The answer to this question depends completely on the context in which it was asked. She wasn’t “punished,” within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment, for example, since that deals with penal sanctions. But it’s absolutely fair to say, for example, that a government contractor was punished for his late submission of a proposal by losing the contract award, or that the voters punished a Boston city council candidate for not being a Red Sox fan.
Yes, it is and honest and fair point. As I hinted before, though, I don’t believe the critical, key point was that there were a hundred. If this had been a dialog, and he had been ranting about the injustice of the hundred complaints, and you had responded by saying, “Actually, there were only fifteen,” I do not believe his response would have been, “Oh, well then, fifteen is fine; no one can gripe about a mere fifteen!”
So let’s agree that you have definitively and completely debunked the assertion that there were hundreds of complaints, and established that there were fifteen. And let’s pretend that lonesome polecat then says, “My point is: fifteen frivolous ethics complaints is fifteen too many!”
Indeed. However, while “hundreds” of ethics complaints almost certainly includes frivolity and harassment, a mere 15 cannot be assumed to contain any frivolous complaints, let alone a preponderance of same. That is, the reduction of the number by an order of magnitude greatly changes what we can deduce about the content of the complaints.
My recollection is that Ms. Prejean came in second in the competition. I think had she been disqualified, I could see the case that she suffered some sort of punishment – but that didn’t happen.
I just don’t see placing second as some kind of punishment. Was Riddick Bowe punished for being a bad puncher in the 1988 Olympics, what with his having suffered the indignity of being awarded a silver medal?
But the larger point to Lonesome Polecat’s rant is that there is no doubt an equally long list of despicable behaviors by conservatives which explains why the American people should hate them. I’m sure people can trot out a long list of hypocracy, intolerance, racism, stupidity, violence, douchebaggery, and poor taste in clothing, all laid at the feet of conservatives. But who fuckin’ cares?
But in that case, it could be argued, lonesome polecat’s statement loses its force:
If she was only punished in the sense of being marked down for violating one pageant judge’s sense of propriety, then she was not punished in any sense beyond all of the other losers that day. Taking the event as indicative of an oppressive culture of rampant leftist dogma – particularly when the judge in question is known primarily for his advocacy of homosexual issues – is terribly extreme. But clearly it is that extreme sense of “punish” that he must have meant for this event to merit inclusion in his list.
Nitpick. Williams was fired for giving his opinion period, and for doing so even after being repeatedly reprimanded for it. It is NPR’s policy that their newsmen should avoid the appearance of bias by giving their opinion as commentators. Williams repeatedly violated this principle and finally made a comment that might reflect badly on NPR, so at long last was fired. It was really the straw the broke the camel’s back.
The above should be noted by anyone who wishes to use the actions of NPR as evidence of (a high level of) bias. On this blog post from back in February 2009, the NPR ombudsman defends Williams’s presence on Fox while noting that some of his statements there (particularly his comparison of Michelle Obama and Stokely Carmichael) do not reflect well on NPR. This was not a one-time incident in which a momentary lapse of political correctness caused the socialists at NPR to have a fit and tear Williams’s throat out – he had to see something like this coming eventually.
After which he gets shot down because (as I noted above), the assertion that the complaints numbered in the “hundreds” is the one and only fact offered in evidence of the claim that any, much less all, of them were in fact frivolous.
And you can be sure his bank account was sporting a chubby at the coming invevitables.
-Joe
And let’s pretend that right after that he says: “And a hundred frivolous ethics complaints against Barack Obama are not enough!”
Fair point. Although I suppose another valid inference from “hundreds,” might be, “Look at how corrupt she was, generating hundreds of ethical complaints!”
In any event, I absolutely agree that it’s for the proponent of the claim to show at least a pattern of frivolity, if not a 100% analysis of each complaint.