BART Cop Smashes Drunk Dude's Head Through Glass
Daisy Does the 49ers: Green Bay Tops SF
Truck Fire at 25th and Geary
Don't Dump Unwanted Stuff On City Sidewalks
SFist Endorses: Angelyne for Governor
Anti-gay rights advocate Miss California Carrie Prejean gets to keep her meaningless crown, said Donald Trump. After pageant officials sort of said they would let her keep her head bauble yesterday, even though it wasn't really their decision to make, Trump gave his final seal of approval, saying that the half-nude photos of Prejean, which were taken when she was a teen, were fine. Because she wasn't fat or old. And that he couldn't buy this kind of publicity. Also, regarding Prejean's famous anti-gay tirade masquerading as a sentiment of free speech, Trump said, "She gave a very, very honest answer at the pageant ... It's the same answer the President of the United States gave." Oh, snap! Anyway, case closed on the everyone's favorite lying whore.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Having nude pix taken makes you a whore?
Then whores really need to unionize, man, 'coz most of the ones I know are going way beyond the call of duty to get paid. Nobody bothered to tell THEM that all yas gotta do to make money with your mouth is say "cheese."
taking nude pix doesn't make you a whore. even trading sex for money doesn't make you a whore. see, being a whore makes you a whore.
As a whore, I can confirm Brock is correct.
I thought liberals were supposed to be understanding of different views? I just don't see the outrage, and to call her a lying whore is way over the line.
different views?
*shakes head*
You still don't get it? So where's your post crucifying Obama's position? Or you prefer to attack a beauty pageant's political positions?
21-year-old, thin, white, blond beauty pageant contestants from SoCal hold more weight than politicians. So: yes, the latter.
But for reals, this isn't a left or right issue. You still don't get it. Which is what's scary.
"21-year-old, thin, white, blond beauty pageant contestants from SoCal hold more weight than politicians. So: yes, the latter. But for reals, this isn't a left or right issue. You still don't get it. Which is what's scary."
I think you maybe need to explain it better, because to be honest I don't get it either. Although I don't agree with her, I can understand her stance. By changing the definition of marriage, we're asking everyone to make a big change to the way that things are usually done (and it appears to be working, btw). She very respectfully disagreed with what we want to do. I don't see why she now deserves this type of enmity because of it.
Quite frankly, I don't know why more people aren't calling Obama out on his stance, too.
I don't agree that it's simply "a different viewpoint" however, unless you consider the KKK's ideology to simply be a "different viewpoint" as well.
Mmmm Brock, obviously you're the one who still doesn't get it. Look at the comments of your readers.Think long and hard.
Well, if the commenters say so...
She signed a contract with NOM to speak out against gay marriage. Wtf does that have to do with Obama?
Obama hates gays.
??
Brock, while I agree that this beauty queen is certainly worthy of some degree of outrage, this post brings up an interesting question about SFist and its place in the world of journalism.
Last week, you posted an interesting discussion about SFist's right to post the names of those people who were recently laid off from the Chronicle. You seemed to argue, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that SFist should be held to the same standard as other news outlets and retain the right to print something if it is true and newsworthy, even if that news "hurts people's feelings."
However, in the case of the beauty queen, you seem to want to print (or post, as the case may be) something that, if you were held to the same standard as other news outlets, could be considered libelous and would possibly lead to legal action and would definitely lead to advertisers pulling their sponsorships. Can you imagine the outrage if the Chronicle or the New York Times called someone a "whore"?
So I guess my question is: To which set of standards should SFist be held?
"You seemed to argue, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that SFist should be held to the same standard as other news outlets and retain the right to print something if it is true and newsworthy, even if that news 'hurts people's feelings.'"
You are wrong. Newspapers and journalists should be held to certain standards. Ideally. And blogs have none. Ideally. Both mediums have the right to publish items that don't always make people smile; however, the former medium shouldn't try to suppress the free flow of information.
What, exactly, would you consider libelous in the above post? Hurt feelings don't count.
Brock, I see "turtle_276"'s point. Ms. Prejean is not *my* favorite lying whore, as you well know. As a member of the group "everyone," I demand a retraction.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that calling someone a "lying whore" (and I am making no judgement about the veracity or propriety of that claim) could be considered libelous.
So to be clear, and again I am making no judgements, you do not consider yourself a journalist? So does SFist, as a blog with ideally, no standards, make any claim as to the veracity of more "newsworthy" articles? In the past few hours, there were postings about an armed robbery in SF and multiple shootings on 680, by any definition, that is serious news. If blogs have no standards, how can we have any confidence regarding the truth of anything we see here?
because a) she lied and b) she is a whore. ta-da. libelous free!
oh, and: "if blogs have no standards, how can we have any confidence regarding the truth of anything we see [on the internet]?"
now you're making progress, turtle_276.
So as a professional, are you really comfortable equating SFist with all the other crap on the internet? Don't your advertisers, colleagues and readers deserve a little better?
I didn't. You did. And you're not that dumb, I"m guessing.
Aaaand, that wasn't a question. But I see what you're doing here.
1whore
Pronunciation:
\ˈhȯr, ˈhu̇r\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English hore, from Old English hōre; akin to Old Norse hōra whore, hōrr adulterer, Latin carus dear — more at charity
Date:
before 12th century
1: a woman who engages in sexual acts for money
"Brock Keeling is an attention whore" would be more accurate.
I give it away for free, honey.
Somebody remind me why anyone even cares about the word bubbles blown by this inflate-a-date?
Well, as BlueCanary said above, if you don't for civil unions and against gay marriage based on religious principles as President Obama...then you are = KKK.
Facts:
- Carrie Prejean lied about her age when the pink underwear/'oops i lost my top can you get it for me' photos were taken.
- Carrie Prejean blamed a 'windy day' on even more racy pics that show nip (Bad Christian! No wafer!)
- Carrie Prejean trades on her looks.
Conclusions:
- Carrie Prejean is a liar.
- Carrie Prejean is a whore. Or, a 'hoe' - as it was explained to me "a hoe is a whore who does not accept money or gratuities." There are no guarantees of money or fame for entering the pageant world, so its arguable that she is actually a hoe.
Have any of you actually ever watched more than 2 minutes of these pageants? You end up having seizures from the never ending sea of teeth and fake tits. It's quite remarkable.
the boredom puts me to sleep before the seizures have a chance to set in. my life has room for neither plastic women nor pageant host mario lopez (or whoever, it never matters).
I couldn't agree more Robin. Seems like all these self made Barbies really accomplish is to make real women feel inferior.
She has had plastic surgery, dabbled in porn and voted to suppress the civil rights of others...so she sounds like a pretty qualified representative of CA.
She seems like just another hypocritical right winger to me. Let's hope that her 15 minutes are just about over.
http://photos.tmz.com/galleries/carrie_prejean_2#41804