Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

This is funny to me...

-- Miss California USA Carrie Prejean "breached her contract" by keeping semi-nude photos a secret and could be stripped of her beauty queen title, according to a state pageant spokesman.

Prejean said the photos -- taken when she was a teenage model -- were being used in a "vicious and mean-spirited" effort to silence her for "defending traditional marriage."

The 21-year-old Miss USA contestant has been the center of controversy since she declared her opposition to same-sex marriage in a response to a question on the pageant stage last month.

"That answer, and my commitment to stand by my beliefs, has since resulted in attacks on me and my integrity as a woman," Prejean said in a news release dated Tuesday.

Her fate was being discussed in "closed-door meetings" Tuesday among California pageant officials, lawyers and representatives of Donald Trump, who owns the international competition, said Miss California USA spokesman Roger Neal.

"They are going over the legalities and clearly she breached her contract," Neal said. "When you compete for Miss California, you're supposed to disclose whether you posed for nude or semi-nude photos because it's grounds for disqualification."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/05/05/c ... index.html

There's nothing inconsistent between flashing 'em and having a belief in traditional marriage!

Ivytalk wrote:There's nothing inconsistent between flashing 'em and having a belief in traditional marriage!

dbackjon wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:There's nothing inconsistent between flashing 'em and having a belief in traditional marriage!

I take it she flashed 'em BEFORE the Miss America pageant paid for a boob job?

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

I take it she flashed 'em BEFORE the Miss America pageant paid for a boob job?

Was there anything to see then?

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

I take it she flashed 'em BEFORE the Miss America pageant paid for a boob job?

They missed it, Bub...

I want to see her cooch. Maybe even her snapper. Wood it be too much to ask to see her beaver? How 'bout her puckered wrinkled pink asshole?

Now, what the phuck did somebody say she said??

Wedgebuster wrote:I want to see her cooch. Maybe even her snapper. Wood it be too much to ask to see her beaver? How 'bout her puckered wrinkled pink *******?

Now, what the phuck did somebody say she said??

I love women...!!! (seriously I totally do)
they make me happy - particularly when they publicly raise their flag on the hill of moral high ground... only to surrender it - in a cooch & Beaver portfolio for the morally decrepit (such as the gentlemen of this forum)

Ahh... life

May I also say: I love the way God works - it is beautiful to watch

Cleets Part 2 wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:I want to see her cooch. Maybe even her snapper. Wood it be too much to ask to see her beaver? How 'bout her puckered wrinkled pink *******?

Now, what the phuck did somebody say she said??

I love women...!!! (seriously I totally do)
they make me happy - particularly when they publicly raise their flag on the hill of moral high ground... only to surrender it - in a cooch & Beaver portfolio for the morally decrepit (such as the gentlemen of this forum)

Ahh... life

May I also say: I love the way God works - it is beautiful to watch

The pic was ONLY released to vilify her for her religious beliefs...

...typical Gay extremist hate.



Having said that...

Hippie...it's Cinco de Mayo...

...what's in your glass tonight.

travelinman67 wrote:

Cleets Part 2 wrote:

I love women...!!! (seriously I totally do)
they make me happy - particularly when they publicly raise their flag on the hill of moral high ground... only to surrender it - in a cooch & Beaver portfolio for the morally decrepit (such as the gentlemen of this forum)

Ahh... life

May I also say: I love the way God works - it is beautiful to watch

...typical Gay extremist hate.

Whatever.

The only hate speech is what spewed from her hypocritical mouth.

dbackjon wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
...typical Gay extremist hate.

Whatever.

The only hate speech is what spewed from her hypocritical mouth.

What hypocrisy?

travelinman67 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
Whatever.

The only hate speech is what spewed from her hypocritical mouth.

What hypocrisy?

Her hiding behind the Purity of the bible, while LYING on her application, where she lied about her topless photos.

dbackjon wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:

What hypocrisy?

Her hiding behind the Purity of the bible, while LYING on her application, where she lied about her topless photos.

Well, unless those topless pictures were with her entangled with another hot blonde, I see no hypocrisy. Apples and oranges, my friend.

travelinman67 wrote:
The pic was ONLY released to vilify her for her religious beliefs...
...typical Gay extremist hate.



Having said that...
Hippie...it's Cinco de Mayo...
...what's in your glass tonight.

Well I'm not familiar with "typical gay extremist hate" but I do enjoy nude women with a high moral standard
Regarding whats in my glass:
I had a glass of water with my Thai food tonight... and we just finished a lovely evening together
She is wonderful... (did I mention I love women)

dbackjon wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:

What hypocrisy?

Her hiding behind the Purity of the bible, while LYING on her application, where she lied about her topless photos.

Technically, they were lingerie photo's that could at worst be labeled "semi-nude" (from back angle covering up her chest).

While the participant contract prohibits, "Appearing in public or permitting myself to be photographed in a state of partial or total nudity or in a lewd, compromising or sexually suggestive manner constitutes a violation of this provision (this includes photographs of images that may appear on any website...)." , the photos were done as demo shots when she was 17, and sent to the ad agency for Victoria's Secret in an attempt to gain a job as a VS model once she turned 18. At no time was there any "frontal nudity" according to her spokesperson.
Secondarily, by purchasing and publishing the photo, the website "The Dirty" may have not only violated her contract with the original photographer, but publishing "semi-nude" photos of underage girls is still classifiable under the 2003 Child Protect Act even absent specific sexual content or activity...

...sooo...even if DOJ opts not to investigate...Prejean could hypothetically pursue a civil case against the website.

Does this change the (im)propriety of her response?

Maybe.

Just as with juvenile criminal records, the courts as a rule have supported the general position that juvenile criminal records DO NOT need to be disclosed by adults applying for jobs (there are some exceptions depending on the criminal activity or type of employment sought...i.e., L.E., military, etc...). While not a lawyer, I'd suspect that there are similar rules pertaining to contractual disclosures.

Beyond the legal positions, could it be argued that she was unethical in her response? Yes.

Does an arguable breach in personal (and Christian) ethics by failing to disclose a legally marginal breach mean she's a hypocritical Christian? Probably no more than every instance when a Christian passes a beggar or homeless person without acting to aid them.

It's pathetic, however, that there are so many GLBT's in America who are incapable of showing as much tolerance, understanding and integrity as Miss. Prejean.

travelinman67 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
Her hiding behind the Purity of the bible, while LYING on her application, where she lied about her topless photos.

Technically, they were lingerie photo's that could at worst be labeled "semi-nude" (from back angle covering up her chest).

While the participant contract prohibits, "Appearing in public or permitting myself to be photographed in a state of partial or total nudity or in a lewd, compromising or sexually suggestive manner constitutes a violation of this provision (this includes photographs of images that may appear on any website...)." , the photos were done as demo shots when she was 17, and sent to the ad agency for Victoria's Secret in an attempt to gain a job as a VS model once she turned 18. At no time was there any "frontal nudity" according to her spokesperson.
Secondarily, by purchasing and publishing the photo, the website "The Dirty" may have not only violated her contract with the original photographer, but publishing "semi-nude" photos of underage girls is still classifiable under the 2003 Child Protect Act even absent specific sexual content or activity...

...sooo...even if DOJ opts not to investigate...Prejean could hypothetically pursue a civil case against the website.

Does this change the (im)propriety of her response?

Maybe.

Just as with juvenile criminal records, the courts as a rule have supported the general position that juvenile criminal records DO NOT need to be disclosed by adults applying for jobs (there are some exceptions depending on the criminal activity or type of employment sought...i.e., L.E., military, etc...). While not a lawyer, I'd suspect that there are similar rules pertaining to contractual disclosures.

Beyond the legal positions, could it be argued that she was unethical in her response? Yes.

Does an arguable breach in personal (and Christian) ethics by failing to disclose a legally marginal breach mean she's a hypocritical Christian? Probably no more than every instance when a Christian passes a beggar or homeless person without acting to aid them.

It's pathetic, however, that there are so many GLBT's in America who are incapable of showing as much tolerance, understanding and integrity as Miss. Prejean.

Not to mention poontang.

houndawg wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Technically, they were lingerie photo's that could at worst be labeled "semi-nude" (from back angle covering up her chest).

While the participant contract prohibits, "Appearing in public or permitting myself to be photographed in a state of partial or total nudity or in a lewd, compromising or sexually suggestive manner constitutes a violation of this provision (this includes photographs of images that may appear on any website...)." , the photos were done as demo shots when she was 17, and sent to the ad agency for Victoria's Secret in an attempt to gain a job as a VS model once she turned 18. At no time was there any "frontal nudity" according to her spokesperson.
Secondarily, by purchasing and publishing the photo, the website "The Dirty" may have not only violated her contract with the original photographer, but publishing "semi-nude" photos of underage girls is still classifiable under the 2003 Child Protect Act even absent specific sexual content or activity...

...sooo...even if DOJ opts not to investigate...Prejean could hypothetically pursue a civil case against the website.

Does this change the (im)propriety of her response?

Maybe.

Just as with juvenile criminal records, the courts as a rule have supported the general position that juvenile criminal records DO NOT need to be disclosed by adults applying for jobs (there are some exceptions depending on the criminal activity or type of employment sought...i.e., L.E., military, etc...). While not a lawyer, I'd suspect that there are similar rules pertaining to contractual disclosures.

Beyond the legal positions, could it be argued that she was unethical in her response? Yes.

Does an arguable breach in personal (and Christian) ethics by failing to disclose a legally marginal breach mean she's a hypocritical Christian? Probably no more than every instance when a Christian passes a beggar or homeless person without acting to aid them.

It's pathetic, however, that there are so many GLBT's in America who are incapable of showing as much tolerance, understanding and integrity as Miss. Prejean.

Not to mention poontang.

'Zactly! I think she could be the world's most sensitive piece of gay-dar equipment, when she speaks, if you hear her, you are gay.

I seen her on the TV with that little fuzzy white thingy maybe a dozen times now, and still have no idea what her voice sounds like.

Technically, I was only slightly buzzed at worst when driving, so I don't really consider it "Drunk Driving".

While the law specifically prohibits driving when "the driver's physical or mental fitness are appreciably impaired by alcohol, drugs or a combination of both (What about cough medicine? People do it all the time...)." , the decision to get behind the wheel was made by an impulsive youth whose judgement was obviously impaired by the ingestion of mind-altering substances and this decision would not have been made had my mind been clear & sober. At no time did I cause any property damage or harm any persons. Secondarily, my driving ability was not called into question as the only reason I was charged was due to a DWI checkpoint being located on my route home from the bar. Sooo.......I just find it pathetic that policemen are out harassing people who aren't swerving or anything yet allow people to talk on cell phones in rush hour traffic......

See how easy that is TMan?

I don't really know or care what any of you are talking about. She can tell me she wants slavery, and I wouldn't hear it.

i still think it's ironic that some broad who makes her bacon whoring herself around as a (recently underage) sex object, finds it anywhere appropriate to question the morality of anyone elses sexuality.

it reeks of hypocrisy, and she mostly comes off as the next in a long long line of "do as i say not as i do, my morality is better than yours" hypocrites.

to be honest... the shitstorm that has fallen on her is the ultimate "muntz moment" haw haw.

It's women like this that are tearing down everything Sasha Grey is trying to do to promote equality
http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/i ... the-story/

I'm pretty sure I'd f_ck her regardless of her shifting moral scale when applied to herself...

But before we become her apologist
or attack her sliding scale...

can't we just admire her in a moment of silence...

[/quote]I seen her on the TV with that little fuzzy white thingy maybe a dozen times now, and still have no idea what her voice sounds like. [/quote]

That's marraige material right there.

Cleets Part 2 wrote:I'm pretty sure I'd f_ck her regardless of her shifting moral scale when applied to herself...

But before we become her apologist
or attack her sliding scale...

can't we just admire her in a moment of silence...

You, sir, are not allowed to post again until we've seen the panties pic of your girlfriend.

Cleets Part 2 wrote:I'm pretty sure I'd f_ck her regardless of her shifting moral scale when applied to herself...

But before we become her apologist
or attack her sliding scale...

can't we just admire her in a moment of silence...

in the minority of opinion here but there is too much ugly in that head to make for her body imo