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".