There were fifty-one women competing in the 2009 Miss USA pageant. Kristen Dalton was named Miss USA 2009.
Out of curiousity, where all fifty of the other women punished? Or was it just Carrie Prejean who was punished by not winning?
If all fifty non-winning women were punished, what was it they did that caused them to be punished? Did they all express views that liberals object to?
Prejean came in second place. Does that mean she was being punished less than the other forty-nine women who didn’t win?
Prejean qualified for the Miss USA pageant by having been named Miss California 2009. Was the Miss California pageant punishing the women who didn’t win that pageant?
Why should we frame it your way instead of mine? :rolleyes:
As for your way, she was given a difficult question, arguably more charged than the other contestants, but so what? She had her chance and answered poorly. Too bad, so sad. With the benefit of hindsight we now know that poor Carrie should have smiled sweetly and answered, “Why, that’s a contentious political issue that it is inappropriate for this type of contest, Mr. Judge. Do you have a more appropriate question for me?” That would’ve been charming.
(Of course, with the benefit of hindsight Governor Dukakis should have said with outrage in his voice, “What kind of stupid question is that, asking me what I’d do if my beloved wife was raped and murdered? How do you think I’d react, you asshole!” That answer would’ve won him the debate.)
It is based mostly on the statement of the judge in question, Perez Hilton, who apparently gave her a very low score for her answer, which dragged down her average and cost her the crown, as Bricker mentions.
Isn’t the person who “deserves” to win the one who doesn’t get an average-dropping low score from one of the judges?
The only way your (and Bricker’s, presumably) observation matters is if you want to claim Perez Hilton should never have been a judge in the first place. Otherwise, if he was qualified to be a Miss USA judge (and all the other judges were, too), then his score (and theirs) for Prejean is perfectly valid and she got the final tally she deserved, which turned out not be sufficient to win.
Even if we accept that what Hilton said is completely accurate (which is doubtful) so what? Would you say that Kerry deserved to win the 2004 election until the voters decided to punish him by voting for Bush instead?
Hilton was a judge - it was his job to pick who he liked. Same with the other judges. If they decided they liked Dalton or somebody else better than they liked Prejean that means Prejean didn’t win. There was never a time when she was supposed to win and somebody took her title away. It was never her title to lose.
I love how this thread, ostensibly a Conservative paean to what we poor knee-knocking liberals are ascared of, has turned into a vigorous back and forth on one of the most important issue or our times: Carrie Prejean and the sand in her pussy.
Let’s get a grip, people. She came in second in the Miss ‘Do These Pumps Go With This Bikini’ USA contest, where they parade back an forth in evening gowns and bathing suits with matching high-heels, with vaseline on their teeth and tape holding their tits up; she didn’t get stiffed out of the Nobel prize.
If we substitute race and a race-baiting question for Perez Hilton’s, we can easily see the unfairness. We could imagine a Miss Mississippi 1964 contestant being asked about how she feels about the “recent” Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court case by a judge who’s known to have strong segregationist views. The contestant would answer that she welcomes the decision because love and marriage should not know racial boundaries, and the judge gives her such a low score that she is unable to win.
In such a case, no one here would object to characterizing the situation as Prejean’s has been characterized.
Right? You certainly wouldn’t be saying, “Hey, it was his job to pick who he liked!” No, you’d know that the judge used his view of racial relations as the single criteria, and because you strongly disagree with that judge’s view, you’d be comfortable assigning insalubrious characterizations to the process by which the contestant was eliminated.
That’s not unfair, just a criterion we don’t like. Any of the contestants could have been asked the question, right? Is it unfair when a spelling bee contestant gets a particularly tricky word and is eliminated, while somebody else (who might well have been bounced on the same word) advances on an easier one? No, because that’s the game. You gotta play what you’re served.
The game in this case is, in part, answering the judge’s question in a way the judge likes. Granted, it’s a stupid game (not only for this reason), but that doesn’t make it unfair.
So can I claim that whoever came in third place deserved to win except that the judges decided that somebody else looked better?
Prejean, as a social conservative, expressed her opinion that same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to get married. Hilton, as a social liberal, expressed his opinion that he prefered somebody else as Miss USA.
Which takes us right back to Lonesome Polecat’s original rant - a mix of “How dare liberals say and do things that offend conservatives!” and “How dare liberals take offense to things said and done by conservatives!”
The Constitution says you have a right to speak - it doesn’t say you have a right to speak and nobody else can disagree with you.
But I stand by the rest of my assessment: if we were discussing a contestant strongly penalized for the view that same-sex marriage SHOULD be legal, or that interracial marriage is perfectly fine, many people would be discussing this with precisely the same outraged tones we see from lonesome polecat.