Take out Clinton because I agree. I don't believe McCain or Romney or Obama's kids were cracked on this badly or even at all. They are supposed to be off limits. They weren't with her.

It isn't her fault. It just demonstrates how her philosophy is not the answer. Her own daughter has said that abstinence is unrealistic. In other words, she should stop wasting people's time claiming that is a solution.


It is one thing to want a cure for autism, and it is another thing to be so ignorant about the science that you can't tell what research helps and what does not. She appears to live in a world that doesn't care about facts.


What personal attacks? Being made fun of by comedians?


Ok.

Give me a break. Every politician puts his kids out there when they campaign. The difference is that her kids weren't following her politics but hmm, I don't recall Cheney's or Reagen's homosexual children getting this kind of abuse especially as kids. I don't recall the sluttish alcoholic Bush girls getting this kind of abuse. Now we crack on handicapped kids.

It's hypocrisy at it's highest and 100% unnecessary at this point in time. It's assholish to the extreme and again, an indicator of the tone of the party which pretty much reminds me how assholish the Republicans got when they got a majority that was supposedly permanent.

[quote=Tekneek;2064201]It isn't her fault. It just demonstrates how her philosophy is not the answer. Her own daughter has said that abstinence is unrealistic. In other words, she should stop wasting people's time claiming that is a solution. [quote]

I think I know why you don't realize what's going on.


hxxp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/06/bristol-palin-says-abstin_n_197597.html


So abstinence is against science? I never knew that. Better not tell Isaac Newton. Dude invented a lot of shit. I guess he had no handle on science.

hxxp://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/957/was-isaac-newton-a-virgin

That unscientific bastard.

If any of your political views are immediately refuted by something that is happening within your own family, pointing that out is fair. I'm not sure what else was attacked by legitimate media, but I am willing to read about it/look into it if you want to show it to me.

This quote from Todd Purdum sums up Sarah Palin and who she appeals to...

"Palin has shown herself to have remarkable gut instincts about raw politics, and she has seen openings where others did not,” writes Purdum. “And she has the good fortune to have traction within a political party that is bereft of strong leadership, and whose rank and file often demands qualities other than knowledge, experience, and an understanding that facts are, as John Adams said, stubborn things.”

What the hell are you talking about? Who cracked on her handicapped kid? Palin mentioned that in her speech, but I've never heard it, not from Democrats, Late Night comedians, or anyone.

And if you don't think the the late night comedians cracked about the Bush twins, you must have not been watching late night TV during that period.

And I don't know why you lumped in homosexual children in with "sluttish, alcoholic" behavior as if somehow that was equivalent, but the only people to attack Cheney's daughter were Republicans, such as Alan Keyes.


So late night comedians = the party?

Did you bump your head on something? The part about autism was separate from the part about abstinence. Since it wasn't clear enough for you the first time, now you know.

The facts out there easily demonstrate that people, of all ages, need to know about more ways to prevent pregnancy than abstinence. Abstinence would be just one of many tools in that area, not the single answer.

Found this quickly. NBC is a legitimate media outlet right?


Think this is fair?



I agree with this and I'm not a Palin supporter but wrong is wrong and I've noticed attacks like Letterman and the joke above that are beyond the pale.

Fair enough. I did misread what you said. I was wrong. You still haven't pointed out that you wrong by saying Bristol thought abstinence was unrealistic instead of Levi.

NBC may be legitimate media, but SNL is a comedy show. If your claim that the media is after her family is based on comedians, you've got a very weak point.

I will admit this. I did not record the video interview where I watched and heard her say it. That's as far as I am going on that one. Of course, it doesn't matter much what she says. Her actions speak much more loudly.

Give me a break. I'm not lumping them together as anything except what people like to attack. No judgement involved. I have nothing against hot sluts and/or homosexuals but I don't live under a rock and realize, as you pointed out, that these behaviors get attacked. Period. Read into it how you like.


I'd say yes, just like the democrats have said that Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the republican party. Again, can't have it both ways here.

Actually, the whole point of the SNL skit was to make fun of the media's overly negative coverage of Palin and her family, not Sarah Palin herself.

Then no more Rush Limbaugh jokes right? I mean, as he's said, he's just an entertainer.

So you admit you can't prove it but you're still really right. Great admission there hotshot.

This christmas I'll get you a loom. Surely it will help with your spinning.

Let me know when the DNC Chairman and several elected Democrats defer to Letterman or Conan and apologize for criticizing them.

I don't think I've ranted about Rush Limbaugh. At least, I don't remember doing it. He's just a radio guy. I see no reason to care about what he thinks or does. If he tries to state something as fact, when it is not, then at least understanding that he is wrong could be important knowledge for everyone to have. Calling him evil because he is a radio guy who has to fill a few hours everyday with something people are willing to listen to would be a bit of a leap. People obviously do not tune in, day after day, to listen to 3 hours full of nothing but facts. They find that boring.

Just as good as your claims up to this point, I figure.

That was the point of the skit. You can put blinders on and pretend that SNL was actually calling Todd Palin a pedophile, but that's not what happened.

Does it really take 2 glasses of wine to quiet a 3 month old? My kid is 16, so it's been a while...

"According to expense reports, Sarah Palin charged the state of Alaska over $21,000 for her children to travel with her on official business. In fairness to Governor Palin, when she leaves them home alone, they get pregnant." --Seth Meyers

"Speaking of Sarah Palin, she said she's a life-long member of the National Rifle Association. Which may explain why she's in favor of shotgun weddings." --Conan O'Brien


"You know who is really, really happy that John McCain did not win last night? The boyfriend of Sarah Palin's daughter. He doesn't have to get married now. 'Whew, thank God!'" --Jay Leno


"A lot of speculation about Sarah Palin's future, but last night, she denied rumors that she's getting ready to run for president in 2012. Palin said, 'That's a long time away. I'll be a great-grandmother by then.'" --Conan O'Brien

Until then, you'll remain a hypocrite. I get that.

Calling him evil?

Thanks for demonstrating two things:

1) Leno sucks

2) More than just Letterman made these jokes, but Palin oddly focused only on him.

[quote=larrymcg421;2064227]That was the point of the skit. You can put blinders on and pretend that SNL was actually calling Todd Palin a pedophile, but that's not what happened.[/QUOTE

And you can wear blinders and think that if there weren't jokes about young Palin's sexuality that they'd have ever made that joke.

But come on here, we're talking character assassination not fact finding. No one of any party telling jokes about other parties have been actually accusing them of the action. They're all just telling jokes. You can't seriously believe otherwise. Geez.

Oh noes!!!! He went for the I know I am but so are you joke. I'm doomed. Doomed I tell you.

SIGH.

Which are two distinct facts that I don't agree with you on at all but of course are not part of this discussion.

Yeah, some people try to work that angle. In general, I don't care too much what entertainers think of anything.

Other than SNL did someone else (even accidentally) imply that her 14 year old was sleeping with a grown man?

The ballplayer ought to have raised hell about Letterman, probably even more than anybody in Palin's camp.

Personally I don't either but I do think that they influence a lot of people who don't have as much time as I do to surf the web all day and get several different opinions and versions of the news to realize that the truth doesn't necessarily spring from their mouths, especially the pseudo news guys like limbaugh, the daily show ect. I didn't like it when Limbaugh did it I'll be damned if I'll like when the left does it. I'll like it less, I'm on their side.

Axxon, if it will make you feel better, I will admit that she was an easy target for comedians and they really went for it. It's important to note that most of them probably didn't even know who she was until she accepted the VP slot for the GOP ticket, which means she thrust herself into that scene. It isn't her fault, but she could have stayed in Alaska and never been forced to deal with it. Do we now add "hopelessly naive" to her list of traits?

Unless the ballplayer was Luis Polonia of course.

I agree with all of this. This all started because I thought she may have possibly decided to remove herself from public life to spare herself and her family more of this. Are you willing to concede that? No problem if you aren't. We can agree to disagree on it. It's not that important. :)

Rush Limbaugh is called the leader of the Republican party because Republican party leaders have actually apologized for criticizing them after getting flooded with tons of hate mail from Limbaugh followers. Nothing like that has happened with the late night hosts and you know it. If you just want to ignore those facts so you can make your argument, that's perfectly fine, but it makes you look like a dumbass when you call someone a hypocrite after they noted the clear differences between the two situations.

So at what point do some of you figure out the obvious?

Namely, that the old joke about "50,000 X at the bottom of the sea = a good start" isn't really meant to be all that funny? Or that if you're being charged by Opposition Politician X, Osama bin Laden, and an angry rhino but you only have two bullets, the correct response is to shoot Opp Pol X twice. We aren't really kidding when we say that you know.

Indeed. In that instance all bets are off.

Dola, I 100% believe she was hopelessly naive ( maybe hopefully is a better word since I think that's the constituency she was selected to appeal to and she did ) but I don't think she'd have been chosen if she wasn't.

I didn't say anything about her character. I was making fun of her speech, which was terrible. I don't mind a good sports metaphor. I use them all the time. I was making fun of the fact that she botched the one she used, and then threw in several other cliches/metaphors along the way.

No, I'm saying I've heard this particular mantra for years. I know some people who seriously wanted him to and believed he would run for president in 2000. Rush has been one of the strongest speakers for the republican party for years unlike any democrats except Al Frankin ( and lookie what he did )and I feel that it's hypocritical to ignore that and assume this only happened overnight.

Gotcha. Noted.

Bush's daughters got media and comedy attention for drinking. Chelsea would have gotten negative press/jokes if she got in trouble as a late teen. Late teens getting in trouble = fair game for press reporting and comedians. That is the way it is, even if that is unfortunate, and Palin and Bristol did not get special treatment.

Bush got just as much negative attention for his blunders as Palin did.

Clinton and Edwards got jokes/press over their expensive haircuts just as Palin got attention over her wardrobe.

I am sorry, but where in the hell is the special character assassination that Palin went through? At worst, she got a strong magnifying glass because she came out of nowhere into Presidential level politics. But what she was criticized for and made fun of for was absolutely nothing unusual.

I don't believe the Bush girls got that much negative press and I clearly don't remember anyone suggesting Bush slept with either of them. That's garbage.

The last family member who took it in the shorts this badly was Billy and he was a grown man and had a sense of humor about it.

I remember the Chelsea = ugly jokes....

I thought that they were the news though and not jokes. Although since she got into college and such I thought she was actually hittable. {shrug}

Eww.

Sure, why not? Ultimately, I don't really care what she does, as long as it doesn't involve her governing over me.

Blogs are a bad place to get news from IMO.

I wasn't getting news from it. I was just contributing it to the conversation.

You know...they report, you decide.

Lettuce not overreact to the Iceberg scandal.

It can't be a real scandal. It doesn't even have "gate" at the end.

Give it time man. Give it time.

I'm guessing from the fact that you just argued that a teenager disagreeing with mom and dad's position on issue X automatically makes mom and dad wrong that you don't have teenagers.

;)

Those were my thoughts...I guess every time his kids disagree with him, he's wrong.

If my daughter is pregnant, then my promotion of abstinence is an abject failure. I see that is somehow difficult to comprehend, but it looks pretty obvious to me.

You're kidding right? If your kid does something against your belief you are a failure? Really? Damn. Just damn.

It sure is hard to convince people that abstinence only is the way to go in schools when you as a parent can't even make that work in your own home.

So someone who has a drunken relative should just shut the fuck up about the dangers of alcohol abuse? Odd.

When did I say that makes me a failure? Or makes Sarah Palin a failure? I said it makes that position/cause a failure.

I have read my statements a few more times and they seem pretty clear, so I am not convinced the problem is on my end.

If you're promoting a particular theory/view on how to avoid getting drunk, yet your daughter is walking around drunk all the time, then you would definitely have a hard time selling it.

I think it's fair to say that a child is much more than just 'a relative' and becoming pregnant with a child is much more than just 'doing something against your belief'. Likewise, if you position yourself as a proponent of abstinence, and your teenage daughter gets pregnant, I think that is a good indicator that your words and your convictions are not entirely in balance.

Ok, so the position is automically a failure if someone other than you takes the opposite position? I'm not getting that either frankly but I'll move my statement to that failure as opposed to a personal failure if you want.

I wish you were making sense.

First you change it from child to relative, which is completely different because no one expects you to be responsible for your uncle Ned.

I would say that if you advocate a no alcohol policy in schools, and want to prohibit teaching kids not to drive drunk, then your daughter gets a DUI, it makes your policy look foolish. You lose credibility on that issue.

True, couldn't possibly be anyting but that. Couldn't be someone else disagreening or letting their hormones take over their bodies for a while. That never happens or if it does, it immediately means that the person not doing the actions words and convictions are not entirely in balance.

Of course, how her words and actions can force anything isn't really our problem. If she couldn't convinve her daughter then obviously her words and convictions aren't in balance instead of her stepford daughters convictions either being different or compromised. Her actions are her parents fault.

Can't believe I missed this.

You said this


This clearly says her position/cause is a failure.

I said this

to clarify that you indeed call the position a failure even though Sarah did nothing against her position.

I then gave you that

to clearly say that it wasn't a failure in Sarah but a failure of the policy that you felt occurred. Now all kids everywhere can have free sex as obviously the policy of abstinence is a failure.

Not sure if this makes any sense to you but it does to me.

Notice the words 'good indicator', or if you'd like me tor respond in kind with over-excited hyperbole, sarcasm and strawmen:

Yeah, you're right, parents have absolutely no effect on children.

So, call it a child. I'm good with that. A child can't possibly go against their parent's beliefs or the parent is a failure. I won't give you that. I wasn't 100% obligated to inherent beliefs nor did I and it was in no way an indicator of her success as a parent or invalidates her positions. Hell, some of them were right.

I'm not even going to give you good indicator frankly. It's easy to say but I'd like to see more proof than just a statement.

I guess it's a good indicator that parent's of murders or kidnappers or shoplifters or terroristrs words and convictions are not entirely in balance. I just don't see the logic of this broad a brush honestly.

It doesn't indicate the person is a failure. It's indicates their involvement with a particular cause/position is a failure. Good luck selling to anybody that abstinence is a realistic scheme to avoid unwed pregnant teenagers, when your very own daughter is one of them. You cease to be very convincing.

I would think that we could keep them occupied by sending them to "safe drunk driving" classes instead.

I mean...since many parents tell their kids to not drive drunk...and that apparently doesn't work for ALL parents...then the only logical thing to do is to teach them how to drive drunk "safely".

Axxon, you seem to be having the biggest stumbling block equating deep seated 'beliefs' with a publicized (and in this case political) position. You seem to be arguing that Sarah Palin should not be criticized for the beliefs that her daughter may not share, whereas I think everybody else is still stumbling over whether Palin's 'beliefs' are even real, or just generated for publicity/policy. I'm not in any way questioning her right to believe in abstinence (regardless of what her daughter does), I just don't believe she does, at least not in the way she says she does, and I think a pregnant daughter makes for some pretty good evidence.

The policy of abstinence isn't a failure. The policy of abstinence only is a failure.

But keep building up those strawmen!

Uhhh, yeah?

I agree.

What is the only 100% surefire way to not get pregnant? Should it be the only thing promoted? No. Should we just drop abstinence because kids are going to have sex?

Tekneek...not sure if you have kids or not but you are asking from seriously nasty karma if you aren't careful.

Hey, I'm not saying Bristol Palin is a bad person. It doesn't really matter much to me that she got pregnant as a teenager and isn't marrying the father. What matters to me is that Sarah Palin will try to influence policy in the direction of a view that didn't even work for her own family. She has a credibility problem with it that many can see right through. Better to just revise her position, or drop it altogether. It will bother her devout following, but at least it will be believable.

It is not the same, but it is similar to somebody like Mark Sanford still rolling out the "sanctity of marriage" bit to tell others how they should live, while not having it apply to his own family. It is a much more direct issue there, but you will always have a credibility issue when your family contradicts the way you're telling others to conduct themselves.

Who in this thread is saying abstinence should not be taught at all?

People are confusing abstinence with abstinence only. I would not support a sex education program that did not teach abstinence as part of the curriculum. I think such a program would be just as stupid as one that taught abstinence only.

I just don't get how her daughters actions are any evidence about her. I'm talking personal experience. My beliefs did not mirror either of my parents beliefs I was too young and immature; I was wrong. I don't see how my being wrong sheds any light on their sincerity nor have either of them acted contrary to their beliefs or recanted them. I just don't get how anything I did had anything to do with their honesty or how Bristols actions had anything to do with Sarah's.

Not a good communicator, maybe. But not someone who doesn't believe what she's trying to say. That's painting with too broad a brush IMHO.

That was my main point, once this became a primary point. Palin appears to promote the view that it is a one-stop solution to the problem, which the evidence in her own home contradicts.

No, but you don't adopt a policy that excludes other ways to avoid unwanted pregnancy. Palin's policy, as I recall, was of abstinence alone. Nothing else. That is not realistic and intentionally attempts to keep people in the dark about other ways to avoid it, which means that when abstinence fails there is nothing else left to decrease the odds of an unwanted pregnancy.


First of all, there is no such thing as karma in the real world. Secondly, I have a much more realistic view of the world than the magical one that Palin and some others try to live in.

I'm not saying you are but I am saying if good behavior is judged one way then bad behavior must also be and to temper it I threw in small stuff like shoplifting ( should have used jaywalking so I will ) to make that point it isn't about being bad. Jaywalking doesn't make you a bad person but if a kid jaywalks it says nothing about their parent.

Albeit one that her daughter apparently regrets and now has agreed with her mothers views. Sounds more like Sarah has even more support for her position in light of this.


Fixed that for you. Therein lies the rub. I feel there is enough to dislike about her opinions to try and paint parents with this brush or ever assume they should take a position they disagree with because a child made a mistake. That's just so wrong.

Different issues for reasons you explained. Maybe if Jenny had stuck by him but that didn't happen. Jenny advocates monogamy. Does Mark's actions in any way impugn her or the message? This is a much better question in this case.

Ok, I agree with your criticism of her position. Just to make that clear. I believe in what you wrote above. I just don't think what happened to her daughter has any bearing on whether the policy is flawed or not. That's my only disagreement here. To me it's a cheap shot and actually avoids the issue which has enough evidence on it's own that fishing expeditions aren't really needed.

Well, you're getting into the realm of where you're now denying what is accepted as basic human psychology, so I don't know what to tell you. It's pretty widely accepted that your parents are your primary influence on your actions and your values, to the point that I thought it was common sense. No, of course your parents aren't responsible for every single action you take, but seriously, all you're doing now is slinging out one straw man after another to obscure an argument that has devolved into questioning common sense, hoping to obfuscate the fact that your point has completely dissolved into the ether.

I think it does. I don't blame parents 100% for everything their offspring do, but I don't absolve them completely from the start either.


An unwed teenage mother might agree to many things, because it is surely a lot better than being tossed out on your ass with nowhere to turn. There is still a credibility issue there, for me, because it is hard to tell whether she is truly convinced, or sees that it is the best way to make sure her parents pay her bills and help her raise this baby.


I don't care about her personal views, per se, but her political views. If she wants to push a view into public policy that has already failed her family, she's not a good spokesperson for the cause. End of the story. Like it or not.

I've been very consistent in my opinion. Now you're saying that the parent isn't responsible for every single action that you take but in this case it's clearly her responsibility. I'm not sure how you were able to decide what actions a parent is responsible for and what actions they're not unless it's to support your prejudged opinion of the parent. I'm really not seeing it.

Same here, If she didn't think it was a big enough deal to enforce within her family, but still feels that she should force it on the entire country, why shouldn't we question that? If she feels HER daughter is responsible enough to make that choice on her own, but the rest of our children aren't, why can't we question that?

But you've already decided that a child's view on premarital sex is the parents fault right? I'm just trying to be clear. Where do we draw the line?

So, for clarity's sake, your position (that you've been super clear on) is that a parent has absolutely no effect an anything a child does, at any time in their lives. Or are you the only one who gets strawmen this round?

No, I haven't. I was pointing out the absurdity to claim that you've got the solution, when it failed inside your very own home. I have to tell you, I would never try to push a program through public policy that had already flopped in my own family. That would be the first wake up call that the concept needs some revisions in order to find success. I suppose some people aren't troubled by reality and will push their flawed/failed views regardless.

I'm saying there is no issue where the parent is totally responsible for their childs actions nor is there any way to judge a parents credibility in their beliefs because their child took an action contrary to the parent's belief. There is no way to judge what went through Bristols mind but I'm betting what mamma told her wasn't really up there at that point in time.

That is common sense my friend.

And we're saying that if momma had also told her that if you do have sex, you should make sure he wears a raincoat, then maybe she wouldn't be pregnant right now.

So a parent of a kid that dies sniffing glue has no reason to push for a public policy program trying to prevent glue sniffing? A parent whose child drove drunk can't push for a public policy program to try and prevent other parent's having a similar experience? Are you saying that learning a harsh lesson disqualifies you from advocating public policy on that issue?

Which reveals why Sarah Palin's view, trying to tell the rest of us that abstinence is the only solution for the rest of society, is a failure. It didn't even stick with her own daughter, who presumably she would have the most influence upon.

Done with your strawmen. No more.

Ok, but this gets into way too personal an area. I bet if the choice was between a raincoat and no raincoat Sarah would advise the raincoat but her belief is that between abstinence and the raincoat she's only gonna support the abstinence. In her mind, the raincoat encourages her kids to screw like rabbits and that's not how she'd prefer they live.

I don't agree with her opinion and I wouldn't want it to be public policy but I just don't see how her daughter getting pregnant impugns her views. It wasn't the right thing, her daughter admits it but they are dealing with it. To say that because her daughter got knocked up she's abandoning her beliefs would be worse.

Again, to be clear. We don't disagreer with the wrongness of her position. We disagree with what her daughter getting pregnant says about her veracity in holding said position.

You're right. Abstinence is the only policy that is dictated solely by the parent. Sorry I wasn't seeing it.

homemade prono is coming out next week, that's why she resigned

It must suck to be an orphan.

I'm not a Sarah Palin fan by any means...but do you not see a difference between what is taught in a school by teachers vs. what is taught at home by parents? And the ability for parents to determine their own discretionary education on social/morality issues?

I'd also submit that her logic and approach to parenting (in regards to sex ed) is likely less related to what she specifically tells her daughter about sex and more about how she has taught her daughter to formulate decisions in general, in her life.

I think this issue is a bit overblown in importance (like many conservative issues), and I really have no issues with "potential" preventionary methods of pregnancy and STDs, but it doesn't point specifically to a policy view disconnect IMHO...nor does it make sense to judge policy by "Palin daughter = pregnant= taught abstinence only = failure of policy".