Shanna Moakler to Miss California: ‘Stop lying.’

May 14th, 2009 // 67 Comments

Instead of letting sleeping fake breasts lie, Shanna Moakler went on the offensive this morning against Carrie Prejean. Shanna called into Ryan Seacrest to explain why she resigned from the Miss California USA organization and stated she has no ill will towards Donald Trump. Via Sawf News:

Moakler says she was in agreement with Donald Trump at the press conference on Tuesday, during which he announced that Prejean would continue as Miss California, but seeing how things were playing out afterwards she decided to quit.
“The turning point for me was watching the Today show,” Moakler told Ryan Seacrest during a phone in to his Morning Show on KISS FM on Thursday.
“She [Prejean] was sitting there continuing to lie…it is obvious to everybody that the lying is still going on. I just couldn’t stand behind her,” Moakler added.

Okay, this situation is getting way out of hand. Fortunately, I’ve come up with a solution that should satisfy all parties involved. Long, story short: Shanna, Carrie and I have a crazy three-way while Donald Trump cuts me a check for $1 million. Our nation needs to heal, dammit! (I’ll be in the hot tub.)

Carrie Prejean on Today 5/13/09:

Photos: Splash News

  1. Rachell

    This has nothing to do with anything, but Moakler has just the prettiest face ever. I love her makeup.

  2. smarg

    Homosexuality is a filthy, disease-ridden practice explicitly condemned by God.

  3. Netstarman

    Can this woman get any more of a whore in front of the media, Miss California said it was her opinion and only hers that it should only be a man or woman , she didn’t say everyone should believe in her opinions. When cowboy ass wrangler “Perez Hilton”set that question up he probably new that she was going to say her personal opinion that it would be a man and woman marriage. Just let it be Moakler. Maybe that’s why Travis Barker decided to be on that plane when it crashed he new if he had to be married to that lock-jaw woman with chipped teeth from sucking on vibrators , i would have gone down and crashed with the plane too.

  4. Bill Sabab

    Rule for all you kiddies out there: When a liberal tells you they are all for diversity and inclusiveness, just remember: ONLY WHEN YOU AGREE LOCKSTEP WITH THEM.

    Otherwise, you’re #^&*!).

    Take it to heart, you’ll thank me later.

  5. clooneytunes

    #54 No, Bill, you’re confused AGAIN. That’s YOUR side that demands that. Try and keep up, you’ll thank me later.

    We’re the side that’s all for diversity because we don’t want you to be denied any rights we have. We’re the guys who will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself and spew whatever hate-filled sewage your narrow mind can generate. We will not censor you and we will be goddamn inclusive because we won’t hunt you down and kill you or demand your pouty whining ass be stripped of the rights you want to deny others because we don’t like how you roll. But no power on eath can compell us to agree with you, or thank and bless you for your intolerance, bigotry, ignorance and outright stupidity. And if you think they go hand in hand, you’re a fucking infant.

  6. jimmyJam

    what the hell does a miss california even do?

  7. justifiable

    #47 WTF: I DON’T think married people should get a break on their taxes. Like Mussolini giving benefits to those who had more than 7 kids because it built a better fascist state, it discriminates. You’re basically being rewarded by the gov’t for finding someone you can stand to live with. The only time this could ever be fair is if the person you’re married to is Kate Gosselin.

    If you think the gov’t shouldn’t be licensing marriage, guns, drivers, collect fees and give tax breaks – by all means try to put a measure on the ballot . But there’s a big difference between that and arguing that only straight people can marry, only white people should have guns, only Christians should get tax breaks, and only men should be able to vote. Any measure that denies civil rights to any group you don’t like is unconstitutional, it violates the 14th Amendment . The electorate doesn’t get to vote on how to interpret the law – the courts rule on that.

    Our democracy works through social contract. We agree to be governed by a central authority – that consent is what gives the government its authority; we benefit by having social order, That’s why civil law, whether you like it or not, takes precedence over your right to a religious belief when those beliefs infringe on the civil rights of others. Your beliefs may tell you it’s OK to marry a child of 10, that you must mutilate your daughter’s genitals to make her a good Muslim wife, or that your child is possessed by a demon and you need to cut his stomach open with a sacred knife to cure him. But your right to religious freedom has limits – the government will still arrest and try you in civil court for child molestation, assault on a minor, child endagerment, and murder.

    You define marriage as strictly a spiritual or religious thing. Fine – the gov’t isn’t telling you who, or how, to marry when it comes to your religion. But it won’t recognize your religious ceremony without a license because anything that changes your status in this country is a LEGAL or civil matter first.

    BTW, there’s nothing “self-evident” about a religious belief. The philosophical truth that Jefferson deemed “self-evident” is that as humans, we’re all entitled under natural law to the same rights. I don’t get more rights than you if I’m smarter, you don’t get more than me if you’re stronger. Jack doesn’t get any more because he’s male, Nancy doesn’t get any more if she’s a Christian, and Stan doesn’t get any less because he’s gay. Oh, wait…shit,. Sorry, Stan. Nancy, Jack and WTF there say you can’t have the same rights they get to have because they disapprove of the gender of the person you love and want to marry. Welcome to your status as a second class citizen, Stan. And sorry, you still have to pay the same taxes as Nancy, Jack and WTF even though you have less rights than they do.

    Polygamy? Our civil marriage contracts are between two people, not more, because of western tradition. Some claim it’s strictly due to Biblical tenets and that’s why it shouldn’t be extended to gay people. But OT kings and patriarchs had multiple wives, and in the NT Paul demands only church leaders have one wife. In Christ’s time Rome controlled the western world and their laws allowed one wife. Judeans were allowed to adhere to their religious beliefs, so Herod kept his wives, but if you were a Roman citizen like Paul, you followed civil law. What Byzantine and medieval Europe added to that code, claiming as Biblical doctrine centuries afterwards, was also an extreme religious reaction to what Muslims embraced – and that meant leaving multiple wives to the heathen Turks and feeling righteous about monogamous unions, claiming NT scripture decreed it.

    There isn’t any real reason prohibiting multiple marriages – but our civil contracts and legal system aren’t set up that way. You could claim a second or third spouse can’t have the same status or rights as the first, that it encourages abuses and fraud, and makes divorce with multiple community properties a legal nightmare. But it’s an entirely different argument than gay marriage – they’re prohibited from having the civil right that exists between two people NOW.

  8. Now you do it again, shanna!!

  9. miss california


    want some more nice

    click name

  10. Gando

    It’s rare beauty and politics go together.People are always getting angry when they hear something they don’t like to hear.They’re denying other opinions.What makes them no better or worse than others.Or maybe it’s worse because they suppose to know.Let the one who never lied before cast the first stone!

  11. World to Shanna Moakler: ‘Stay away from cameras.’

  12. S Bosman

    Whats the point of the questions section in a beauty contest anyway? So they can pretend its not about how hot they look in a bikini and nothing else?
    Usually if they can speak a couple of sentences without mangling their words they get 7/10 and then they move on. Does anyone remember any of the questions or answers of any of the other contestants – they mean nothing unless they stuff up in some way like the one that messed up on her geography a coupe of years ago

  13. PostmortemG

    “Gay marriage is nothing more than gays wanting to be princess for a day and lesbians wanting to get in everyone’s face.”

    Princess for a day? That’s the funniest thing I’ve read in this thread. =D And Carrie Prejean is fucking hot – *NOTHING* arouses me more than powerful women.

  14. goodwolf

    This Shanna chick is way too much…media whore..yep…..hypocrite…you bet……I couldn’t care less one way or the other about the Miss California “situation”, but Shanna Moakler is using it to try desperately to maintain some kind of relevance and convince us she actually has morals…
    after her past exploits, it’s a little late don’t you think?…..

  15. Kodos

    Feeling desperate for attention since your ridiculous so-called husband, once covered with ridiculous tattoos, is now covered with yummy scar tissue?
    Miss Prejean has more class than you ever will, you pathetic attention whore.

    Go back to oblivion now, dingbat.

  16. Karma

    To Kodos aka # 66 what does her ex being badly burned have to do with Moakler’s politics? I hope you are or NE 1 you love are not in a disfiguring accident or mishap. Maybe you could using avoid a stove, planes, cars or wistfully walking down the street, or even having kids since life is like russian rollette. And its people like you that are the moral compass of the world?

Leave A Comment