The Miss California Controversy

[Guest Aloysius]

Good stuff.

 

[Westside Steve]

And still manage to give Wanda Sykes a pass.

 

At least yer consistant Jonnie.

 

WSS

[Westside Steve]

What did Wanda Sykes say?

Rush kidney failure joke. Where ya been? Did you listen to the Stewart bit?

Not a big deal but he couldn't resist keeping left.

 

WSS

[calfoxwc]

yeah, I was being coy at first about who said it to get a more serious, legit response

 

from the hard core libs on the board.

 

Didn't work.

 

But had Rush said he hopes Obama's kidneys fail...

 

it would have been outrage in every state of the country

 

that has any leftists in it.

 

But, hypocrisy of the left, is a way of life by necessity.

 

 

 

 

[Westside Steve]

At any rate, it's a non issue with me. Rush is an easy target, he's a blowhard and hurls stones with the best of them, so I'm not sure there should be any outrage when somebody lobs em' back at him.

 

I know he can take it.

BTW did you notice Heck shitting his pants over someething fairly innocuous Rush said?

WSS

[Westside Steve]

I see the comments as more politically motivated than race related. Like I said before, if it was Colin Powell in office as president and was working on passing similar legislation then Rush would of kept his mouth shut. And to me that's what makes race irrelevant in this argument. If the reaction of Rush depends on the party of the person involved, then it's not race, however if you truly believe he would of blasted Powell all the same saying the same things, then you have to consider race.

Powell's a bad example. He's not a Republican anymore.

If it were Rice or Steele getting a pass? That'd be the tell.

WSS

 

I would like to pose a question though, what makes a person racist? Is it taught, or is it something inherent in a certain persons DNA that makes them hate whoever is of a different race?

 

I'd say it means fostering certain ideas about people based on race.

Not necessarily good or bad.

Koreans are smart.

Germans are logical.

Mexicans are hard working.

Irish are humorous.

 

And of course the bad side of it.

 

It'd be a good discussion for a few posts.

WSS

 

[Kosar_For_President]

The people on this board that praised this girl for her upstanding morals are the same fags that bought into the Susan Boyle crap. What a bunch of sheep. I heard hot sauce goes good with crow.

[Guest mz.]

I'd say it means fostering certain ideas about people based on race.

Not necessarily good or bad.

Koreans are smart.

Germans are logical.

Mexicans are hard working.

Irish are humorous.

 

And of course the bad side of it.

 

It'd be a good discussion for a few posts.

WSS

 

Here's one post: I thought you were smarter than this. You sound like Reggie White (RIP).

 

You're not 12 years old, are you?

 

Guess Jews are cheap? Or is is smart?? Or hard-working???

 

And Indians (from India). Is it smelly?? Smart?? Hard-working???

 

The majority of Irish are unfunny, the majority of Mexicans are lazy. The majority of Germans are illogical and the majority of Koreans are dumb. People of all races and nationalities, as a whole, take on these very human (lazy, unfunny, illogical, dumb) characteristics. Don't fool yourself with lame generalities.

 

[Guest AdaM]

I see the comments as more politically motivated than race related. Like I said before, if it was Colin Powell in office as president and was working on passing similar legislation then Rush would of kept his mouth shut. And to me that's what makes race irrelevant in this argument. If the reaction of Rush depends on the party of the person involved, then it's not race, however if you truly believe he would of blasted Powell all the same saying the same things, then you have to consider race.

Powell's a bad example. He's not a Republican anymore.

If it were Rice or Steele getting a pass? That'd be the tell.

WSS

 

I would like to pose a question though, what makes a person racist? Is it taught, or is it something inherent in a certain persons DNA that makes them hate whoever is of a different race?

 

I'd say it means fostering certain ideas about people based on race.

Not necessarily good or bad.

Koreans are smart.

Germans are logical.

Mexicans are hard working.

Irish are humorous.

 

And of course the bad side of it.

 

It'd be a good discussion for a few posts.

WSS

 

 

We would be as 'smart' as koreans if our public education system wasn't worse than Uganda's.

 

[Westside Steve]

We would be as 'smart' as koreans if our public education system wasn't worse than Uganda's.

 

 

No Adam.

It means that students in many other countries are better educated because it is a cultural standard.

I'd doubt that schools in India Korea or China are as nice as ours.

 

But even in the poorest US school districts Koreans fare better than most.

 

WSS

[calfoxwc]

LIke my friend from India said -

 

in other countries, the work ethic is dynamic, and desperate.

 

In America, the work ethic of certain subcultures... is replaced by sloth, scapegoating,

entitlement due to imagined current day oppression - as a justification

for said sloth.

 

A sad commentary - self induced failure due to self-fullfilling prophesy

as a sub-cultural way of life.

[calfoxwc]

Here's an interesting take about the hypocrisy on this issue:

 

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31863

[Guest mz.]

Cal, I say this with all due respect, but did you notice all of the great conversation everyone was having while you were "in the fields" yesterday?

[osusev]

john stewart always makes me laugh. Nice clip alo

 

I have to admit that a lot of stereotypes have some basis of truth, not necessarily for genetic causation but possibly a mix of social/regional influences.

 

I am Asian and hispanic, I know how to defend myself, I like tech related stuff, sushi, sake, giant robots, educated, works a lot, other "nerdy stuff" and YES even Karoake....

My hispanic side LOVES CHROME and shiny things, low riders, funny mexican music and tequila.......

 

I sort of fit the stereotypes...... I think its funny personally.

[Guest Aloysius]

The issue is that stereotypes are also self-perpetuating and tend to have sharper edges. If you say that black people are lazy, you make it all the more acceptable for young black kids not to achieve (or make them think they can't do so). And if you say Jews are cheap or greedy, you get almost a quarter of Americans saying that Jews are responsible for the financial crisis.

 

Sure, there are people within each ethnic/racial/religious group who fit the stereotypes, but I don't get why that bears mentioning.

 

It's funny to play on stereotypes, but it's a little more serious if you believe some of the negative ones.

 

[Kosar_For_President]

 

Rabid Anti-Dentite, classic.

[Legacy Fan]

I'd just like to know where/when everyone got clued-in that we are now supposed to be taking the Q&A portions of beauty pageants seriously, because I never got that fcuking memo. I mean, really?

 

Great clip, Al. The Donald impersonations were bladder-testing.

[Guest mz.]

As far as Miss Cali goes, well it just further proves that when you go against the grain then the dogs will come after you.

 

How exactly was that heroic (as cal would say) statement by Miss Cali "going against the grain" when gay marriage was vetoed in California?

 

[Westside Steve]

How exactly was that heroic (as cal would say) statement by Miss Cali "going against the grain" when gay marriage was vetoed in California?

 

 

Because she took a risk for a belief.

Heroic may be over the top but how about if you were running for office in Alabama and admitted you were bi or Muslim.

That'd be brave and it might cost him the election.

That's all.

 

And who knows; the benefit she gets from those who oppose gay marriage may outweigh the loss.

 

Trump is smart enough to cash in.

And that';s what ideals are used for most of the time.

 

 

WSS

 

[Guest mz.]

Because she took a risk for a belief.

 

That's not what going against the grain means. It means making things difficult by acting against the wishes of others. When "the others" evidently agree with her (look at the vote), how exactly is this not going with the grain?

 

[calfoxwc]

That's not what going against the grain means. It means making things difficult by acting against the wishes of others. When "the others" evidently agree with her (look at the vote), how exactly is this not going with the grain? mz the pussy

*******************************************************************

Sounds like a stupid parody of "when a woodchuck chucks wood,..."

 

LOL.... No wonder no one expects you to have anything intelligent to offer.

[Westside Steve]

That's not what going against the grain means. It means making things difficult by acting against the wishes of others. When "the others" evidently agree with her (look at the vote), how exactly is this not going with the grain?

 

Among the voters in California gay marriage was voted down.

 

I will assume that is not the opinion of the entertainment industry of which the pageant is a part.

WSS

[Kosar_For_President]

I am right, because if I was wrong then this comment would of been a non issue and nobody would of said a word about her response....

 

Are you sure this isn't Cal, I swear you two are the same people.

[Kosar_For_President]

That's not what going against the grain means. It means making things difficult by acting against the wishes of others. When "the others" evidently agree with her (look at the vote), how exactly is this not going with the grain? mz the pussy

*******************************************************************

Sounds like a stupid parody of "when a woodchuck chucks wood,..."

 

LOL.... No wonder no one expects you to have anything intelligent to offer.

 

Yea Cal, sorry it's not black and white, you just can't see grey. Let me know you need me to explain that.

[Guest mz.]

That's not what going against the grain means. It means making things difficult by acting against the wishes of others. When "the others" evidently agree with her (look at the vote), how exactly is this not going with the grain? mz the pussy

*******************************************************************

Sounds like a stupid parody of "when a woodchuck chucks wood,..."

 

LOL.... No wonder no one expects you to have anything intelligent to offer.

 

It's shameful when a 60 year old cannot admit he's wrong.

 

[calfoxwc]

You're 60? That makes one of us.

 

But I'm not surprised that Heck asked about ages,

 

and you would turn it into a slur.

 

Pretty immature and smartmouth - and not necessary.

[Guest mz.]

My other pet peeve is famous people who only take on a charity just because they themselves or a family member has suffered some disease, so they champion against that disease. You should just do work because you have been blessed and have the time. I always admired Noah Wiley, the guy from E.R. He took up the mantle for autistic kids. His child is not autistic, and he doesn't have any family members who have been diagnosed with autism. He just saw it as a cause that needed help.

 

Why would someone who has money/a platform getting behind a charity ever piss anyone off?

[Guest mz.]

It's not that they genuinely care about helping the nameless people with X disease/affliction, it's because their own family has contracted said disease. Before that happened they could care less about helping people out, oh but now my son/daughter/parent/spouse has it, well let me get started right away!!

 

My wife's mother recently died of pancreatic cancer. Is it wrong for her to get involved in this cause, even though she hasn't really been involved in any cause before? Having an autistic brother probably served as a motivating factor for you in some way to help combat autism...no?

 

Don't get me wrong, it's good that they're helping, but to laud them as some selfless worker and canonize them as a saint is over the top.

 

Nobody's canonizing anybody. If you don't want to listen to what someone like John Travolta says (who would?), don't listen. But understand, for charities, money is money and exposure is exposure, and the "celeb's" reason for doing what they're doing should always be an afterthought.

[Guest mz.]

It's when these celebs get so high and mighty about their work, and pat themselves on the back that get me peeved.

 

Fine. Then it's on you if you get peeved. I personally couldn't care less about what they say. If they're doing good, they're doing good.

 

[Guest mz.]

I don't know if anything is "on me" per say. It's an aggrivation, like when my kids put the milk carton back with a sip left in the jug. Nothing major, but since we were discussing it I figured I would share. And I said what you said, that it's good that they're doing good things, they just happen to be doing it for selfish reasons.

 

I only mean "it's on you" when discussing how you allow the supposed actions of the celebs bother you. I guess I'm better at laughing at it for what it is...

 

I'm sure you're aware of Travolta's kid passing away, right?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/....jett.travolta/

 

I personally think Travolta's a blowhard, a dipshit and other than Pulp Fiction and Get Shorty, a guy who appears in shitty movies. But, that being said, if he chose to champion the cause to help raise money/attention to help with whatever his kid suffered from, I wouldn't necessarily see it as being selfish or grandstanding. Though it may satisfy his ego, he is still doing good while on his soapbox.

 

Sean Penn/Bono/etc. standing on a foreign policy soapbox = grandstanding with a purpose of wanting to be heard.

The same people standing on a disease awareness or charitable foundation soapbox = grandstanding with a purpose of greater good (though I reckon it satisfies their ego at the same time).