Fire Letterman Rally

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

No.

She has the look of a professional, intelligent woman who loves this country and upholds good, conservative, family values.

Aw, you almost had me there for a second

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Aw, you almost had me there for a second

SI

he had me. i was like

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by SnowMan

Now, if you accuse us of having the most ugly women per capita, I think you've made a very valid point...

You have Women??

[lungs]

Originally Posted by SnowMan

Now, if you accuse us of having the most ugly women per capita, I think you've made a very valid point...

We'd give you a good run for your money here in Wisconsin.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Just my two cents...........

I think there's merit in the thought that people are far too judgmental of women and his jokes were pretty crude given we're dealing with an 18 year old. While that's legal, she's still a young kid. I'd be pissed if he said that about my child, regardless of her previous errors in judgment.

Unfortunately, any discussion of merit is being overshadowed by the idiots who are taking the rape/child molester angle way too far.

[Kodos]

Considering there shouldn't be a rape/child molester angle at all.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Considering there shouldn't be a rape/child molester angle at all.

Exactly.

[molson]

I wish they would just leave the kids alone. Chelsea was nationally mocked for being ugly when she was in her teens - it was just ridiculous, it's amazing she didn't kill herself. (And I hate the argument that it's OK once Bristol turns 18 - we're not talking about a driver's license here).

I guess this is one of the benefits of the Obama media/popular culture love fest, his kids appear to be untouchable. Maybe that will kill this whole "tradition".

[DaddyTorgo]

wasn't it McCain who said that Janet Reno was Chelsea's father or something?

[Kodos]

Yep. It'd be better if we could just focus the attacks on the politicians themselves.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by molson

And I hate the argument that it's OK once Bristol turns 18 - we're not talking about a driver's license here

To be fair, I don't think (most) people are saying she's "fair game" at 18, just that the joke was meant to be about an 18 year old and David Letterman is not some pedophile tongue rapist.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

To be fair, I don't think (most) people are saying she's "fair game" at 18, just that the joke was meant to be about an 18 year old and David Letterman is not some pedophile tongue rapist.

Fair enough, but a lot of people (in this thread) are saying she's fair game because....Palin brought them on stage once. God forbid she recognize her family on the biggest night of her life.

Not that I think Letterman should be fired or anything, but good for Palin for probably getting the late night hosts to shut up about her kids. Would people not want to do the same if it were their kids? Not mocking her kids will just be the "cool" underground/internet thing to do, I don't think we'll be seeing much of it in the mainstream anymore.

[albionmoonlight]

The fact that this thread is already two pages long demonstrates that, whatever you think about Palin, she stokes the fires. Never a bad trait for a politician.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by molson

Fair enough, but a lot of people (in this thread) are saying she's fair game because....Palin brought them on stage once. God forbid she recognize her family on the biggest night of her life.

Well, to be perfectly honest, I think that Bristol became fair game once she chose to appear on the cover of People magazine. I don't think the joke was particularly funny, it definitely wasn't clever, and I don't even watch late night network shows. However, I think that putting yourself in the public eye like that has a downside, and either her mom is milking this for as much publicity/political gain as possible (my bet), or they truly didn't understand that putting yourself in the public arena comes with a lot of scrutiny, not all of it fair (which would make them at best naive, at worst incredibly stupid).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Well, to be perfectly honest, I think that Bristol became fair game once she chose to appear on the cover of People magazine. I don't think the joke was particularly funny, it definitely wasn't clever, and I don't even watch late night network shows. However, I think that putting yourself in the public eye like that has a downside, and either her mom is milking this for as much publicity/political gain as possible (my bet), or they truly didn't understand that putting yourself in the public arena comes with a lot of scrutiny, not all of it fair (which would make them at best naive, at worst incredibly stupid).

This "fair game" comment really rubs me the wrong way. If you were in her parents' shoes, you would have reacted just as strongly. It's never OK to make jokes at the expense of a young, impressionable girl. That includes all the other examples cited in this thread. As another poster mentioned, Chelsea got the same crap and it was way out of line.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

So, are you outraged when Lindsay Lohan gets mocked?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

So, are you outraged when Lindsay Lohan gets mocked?

isn't that somewhat different though because Lohan put herself in the public eye by virtue of her chosen occupation, while politicians' daughters are in the public eye through an accident of birth?

i'm sure one could make that argument

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

My point, which I made above, is that by CHOOSING to go on the cover of PEOPLE MAGAZINE, you are no longer in the public eye through an accident of birth.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by SnowMan

Now, if you accuse us of having the most ugly women per capita, I think you've made a very valid point...

Originally Posted by BYU 14

You have Women??

Best strip club in America, with VERY hot women, is in Alaska.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

My point, which I made above, is that by CHOOSING to go on the cover of PEOPLE MAGAZINE, you are no longer in the public eye through an accident of birth.

But she's not being jabbed because of anything she said in that People Magazine article. If anything, she came off as a pretty good, if somewhat naive, kid who handled herself well. She did nothing other than what many teenage mothers have done before her. That doesn't mean she's a whore as Letterman's joke implied (and you're foolish if you think the intent was anything other than to demean her in that way).

Lindsey Lohan is getting lambasted due to her inappropriate lifestyle that she chose. That's a much different situation.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

My point, which I made above, is that by CHOOSING to go on the cover of PEOPLE MAGAZINE, you are no longer in the public eye through an accident of birth.

i can see your point with that.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

But she's not being jabbed because of anything she said in that People Magazine article. If anything, she came off as a pretty good, if somewhat naive, kid who handled herself well. She did nothing other than what many teenage mothers have done before her. That doesn't mean she's a whore as Letterman's joke implied (and you're foolish if you think the intent was anything other than to demean her in that way).

Lindsey Lohan is getting lambasted due to her inappropriate lifestyle that she chose. That's a much different situation.

It's not fair - of course - but people who are in the public eye aren't treated fairly. A big reason why I'd never want to be famous.

[Arles]

First, these groups in the video are the white equivalent of Jesse Jackson and are a complete joke. They deserve whatever ridicule they get from an asinine demonstration.

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Well, to be perfectly honest, I think that Bristol became fair game once she chose to appear on the cover of People magazine.

I think this is pretty silly. Does the fact that the Obama girls appeared on People magazine mean they are fair game?


Leave the kids out of it - all it does it make the side attacking look bitter and (ironically) childish.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

To rebut, Arles, Bristol was on there discussing life as a teenage mother - which is the origin of the joke. She was using that part of her life to increase her fame, which leads to people taking shots at you. I would argue that Bristol Palin would have largely faded into the "Where Are They Now" portion of her life except for her choices to keep herself in the public eye. Like the Octomom - if she weren't out pimping herself to whoever will put her on TV, no one would be mocking her.

If the Obama children had something about them that would lead to them getting mocked (see Chelsea's unfortuante awkward looks) then they too should not be pushed out into the public eye because people are dicks. I want to reiterate that I don't think in any way that Bristol DESERVES to be treated like this, but one can't say they're SURPRISED by it at all.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

She was using that part of her life to increase her fame, which leads to people taking shots at you.

That's a pretty faulty characterization. Everything in that article indicates she was using it as a platform to lend support to those young girls that end up in a similar situation. That's not something that warrants 'people taking shots at you'. That's far from trying to 'increase her fame'. Would you mind citing the specific quotes where you feel she's trying to use it to increase her fame as opposed to openly discussing her situation to inform others?

You're looking for a motive that's simply not there.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I guess you're far less cynical than I, MBBF.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I think it's idiotic and juvenile how hard people are on Palin and her family

In 2008, as McCain's running mate, Palin makes a big deal (amongst other items) of being behind abstinence-only education, on top of a collection of other right-wing "family values" pablum.

Her daughter becomes pregnant and she and her boyfriend (now fiancee) are paraded in front of the public in an obvious "shotgun wedding" (to detractors) / "demonstration of family values" (to supporters).

Bristol has the kid and hits up the media outlets claiming to be the poster child for why to avoid teen pregnancy, all the while glamorizing it (see the "People" pictures) and admitting that abstinence is "not realistic".

Sorry, the public gets off on hypocrisy, especially if it involves sordid details and hot chicks. I'm absolutely not surprised that the Palins are getting hammered for this.

[JeeberD]

I got an e-mail at work the other day from corporate and the subject line read something like, "Talking Points re: Palin/Letterman Controversy"

My first reaction was, what in the hell does that have to do with OG and why should I expect anyone to ask me about it? Well, it turns out that OG advertises during Letterman and ever since this whole thing has developed the home office has received numerous phone calls asking how we can dare advertise with him, blah blah blah...

Idiots.

[flere-imsaho]

Or, as written by Gail Collins:

“Just because you’re wearing high-heeled sexy shoes doesn’t mean you should have a baby,” said Neil Cole.

I believe we can all rally around this sentiment.

Cole is the head of Iconix, a company that makes the Candie’s line of teen fashions. A couple of years ago, under fire from critics who accused him of dressing high schoolers like tarts, he established the Candie’s Foundation, which fights teen pregnancy. And there he was on Wednesday introducing the foundation’s new teen ambassador, Bristol Palin.

Palin is not in any way to be confused with the new Candie’s brand spokesperson, Britney Spears. Bristol is the one endorsing abstinence; Britney is the one promoting “hot bottoms.”

Can I say upfront that this is a terrible, terrible idea? Not the sexy clothes. Perhaps in the best of all possible worlds we would not have 12-year-olds dressing as if they were auditioning for a leading role in “Girls Gone Wild,” but history suggests that resistance is futile. There was one minute back in the late 1960s when the women’s movement tried to convince everyone that being liberated involved wearing sensible shoes. It was not a success. Really, you should never try to impose feminist principles that even Gloria Steinem refuses to pay attention to.

But surely, when it comes to combating teen pregnancy, the Palin family has done enough damage already. What worse message could you send to teenage girls than the one they delivered at the Republican convention: If your handsome but somewhat thuglike boyfriend gets you with child, he will clean up nicely, propose marriage, and show up at an important family event wearing a suit and holding your hand. At which point you will get a standing ovation.

Now a single mom on the outs with the father of her baby, Bristol wants a new kind of happy ending.

“I just want to go out there and promote abstinence and say this is the safest choice,” she said on “Good Morning America.”

“It’s not going to work,” said her ex-boyfriend, Levi Johnston, in a dueling early-morning interview.

If you have ever watched Levi Johnston on TV for two minutes you will appreciate how terrifying it is when he has the most reasonable analysis of a social issue.

Because Bristol’s own philosophy seems, at minimum, tentative, it’s hard to tell whether she believes that cheerleading for abstinence should be coupled with education about birth control methods. She and Levi used condoms, except when they didn’t.

Her mom has said in the past that she opposes “explicit” sex education, which kind of sounds like ... sex education. And while encouraging kids to wait is obviously fine, the evidence is pretty clear that abstinence education is worse than useless. Texas, where virtually all the schools teach abstinence and abstinence alone, is a teen pregnancy disaster zone. “It’s had one of the highest rates for as long as I can remember,” said David Wiley, a professor of health education at Texas State University.

Bristol appeared Wednesday at Event to Prevent, a teen town hall, during which she said very little except to assure her audience that having a baby is no picnic. (“You have so much responsibility. It’s just hard work all the time.”) It’s hard not to suspect that for her, being the anti-pregnancy ambassador is just a good excuse to get out of Wasilla.

But where were her parents? Her mom ought to know by now that the only way to protect your family from becoming tabloid fodder is to make it clear to the media that the kids are absolutely, totally off limits. You can’t put them on network TV one day and then complain the next when a reporter asks whether the baby’s other grandmother is still facing drug charges.

“We contacted the governor’s office, and the next thing we knew Todd Palin was on the phone and said Bristol wanted to talk,” Cole said, explaining how his ambassador had been recruited. And indeed, there was Todd, beaming as his beautiful daughter stood in front of about 50 shrieking photographers, smiling a fixed smile.

We have seen so many bad plans about breaching the public-private divide lately. Elizabeth Edwards’s book tour. Eliot Spitzer’s media blitz. (Can we point out here that when 51 percent of the public tells pollsters that they would rather have Spitzer as governor than the current incumbent, David Paterson, that is not the same as saying they would like Spitzer to come back? You could probably get 51 percent of the voters to say they would rather have Vlad the Impaler than David Paterson. Or at least 30.)

But when a teenager goes out on this kind of mission, you have to wonder where her parents’ heads were. What does this say about Sarah Palin’s judgment?

Although we’ve sort of answered that question before.

[Mike Lowe]

Originally Posted by sabotai

"What do you think of Leno?"

"I....I only watch Fox News channel."

Haha, epic.

Haha, I was thinking the same thing. FOX eh? BIG surprise!

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JeeberD

I got an e-mail at work the other day from corporate and the subject line read something like, "Talking Points re: Palin/Letterman Controversy"

My first reaction was, what in the hell does that have to do with OG and why should I expect anyone to ask me about it? Well, it turns out that OG advertises during Letterman and ever since this whole thing has developed the home office has received numerous phone calls asking how we can dare advertise with him, blah blah blah...

Idiots.

Idiots yes, but this is how people in Lettermans position get fired.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I guess you're far less cynical than I, MBBF.

So it was your opinion without any basis in the article. That's fine, but don't state is as fact. Take my word for it since I've been known to make that mistake.

Regarding your other comment that 'no one should be surprised', it doesn't really matter whether anyone is surprised. As you correctly stated, it was wrong no matter what the motive.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

So it was your opinion without any basis in the article. That's fine, but don't state is as fact. Take my word for it since I've been known to make that mistake.

Seems to me this is an opinion thread. Really confused about how you could have interpreted me saying "She did this for fame" as fact, that seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Regarding your other comment that 'no one should be surprised', it doesn't really matter whether anyone is surprised. As you correctly stated, it was wrong no matter what the motive.

Sure, I could rail about how popular culture takes cheap shots at people, but that's pretty obvious. What's more interesting to me is why she would put herself in a position to be shot at.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Sure, I could rail about how popular culture takes cheap shots at people, but that's pretty obvious. What's more interesting to me is why she would put herself in a position to be shot at.

We're going in circles here. That's already been explained by several posters. Discussing her experience as a teen mother in a publication does not equal 'putting herself in a position to be shot at'. Even if you don't agree with her 'abstinence' stance, it doesn't warrant a personal attack on her by a public figure. Cracking on the parents for their stance is well-warranted.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

We're going in circles here. That's already been explained by several posters. Discussing her experience as a teen mother in a publication does not equal 'putting herself in a position to be shot at'. Even if you don't agree with her 'abstinence' stance, it doesn't warrant a personal attack on her by a public figure. Cracking on the parents for their stance is well-warranted.

I think I'm ready to agree to disagree as well. If you changed "does not equal" to "should not equal" I'd agree with you. I'm the kind of person who would never want to be famous, because whether its fair or not famous people get shat on.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

In 2008, as McCain's running mate, Palin makes a big deal (amongst other items) of being behind abstinence-only education, on top of a collection of other right-wing "family values" pablum.

Her daughter becomes pregnant and she and her boyfriend (now fiancee) are paraded in front of the public in an obvious "shotgun wedding" (to detractors) / "demonstration of family values" (to supporters).

Bristol has the kid and hits up the media outlets claiming to be the poster child for why to avoid teen pregnancy, all the while glamorizing it (see the "People" pictures) and admitting that abstinence is "not realistic".

Sorry, the public gets off on hypocrisy, especially if it involves sordid details and hot chicks. I'm absolutely not surprised that the Palins are getting hammered for this.

I gotta say, that's a pretty fair summation of the situation.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I think I'm ready to agree to disagree as well. If you changed "does not equal" to "should not equal" I'd agree with you. I'm the kind of person who would never want to be famous, because whether its fair or not famous people get shat on.

+1

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

We're going in circles here. That's already been explained by several posters. Discussing her experience as a teen mother in a publication does not equal 'putting herself in a position to be shot at'. Even if you don't agree with her 'abstinence' stance, it doesn't warrant a personal attack on her by a public figure. Cracking on the parents for their stance is well-warranted.

Umm, no, her abstinance stance warrents whatever it gets, she didn't follow it, but now tries to say its the way to go? hindsight is 20/20 or something.

Her mother is a moron, a power hungry angry-bitch moron. SHe takes advantage of anyone and everyone she can for personal gain and then, THEN, when something happens that ruins her use of them she has the uadacity to get upset about it?

Please. That entire family should be flushed. Along with anyone supporting them.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I gotta say, that's a pretty fair summation of the situation.

+100000

[Pumpy Tudors]

Wasn't the purpose of the thread to make fun of the nutjobs? What's wrong with you people?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Wasn't the purpose of the thread to make fun of the nutjobs? What's wrong with you people?

One could argue that they are, what with all the talk about the Palin family *rimshot* Am I right? Can I get a little applause here?

Wait, that sounded too stupid and like a joke a late night talk show host would make

SI

[RendeR]

Those arguing about the jokes being wrong are obviously not tuned in to what gets ratings and what makes money.

You also seem to care what a late night comedian says....

kinda sad all told.

Who gives a fuck what letterman says anyway? he's an old fart whose riding the coattails of his career using whatever material he can find.

and you think it MATTERS?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Those arguing about the jokes being wrong are obviously not tuned in to what gets ratings and what makes money.

You also seem to care what a late night comedian says....

kinda sad all told.

Who gives a fuck what letterman says anyway? he's an old fart whose riding the coattails of his career using whatever material he can find.

and you think it MATTERS?

You sound like someone who enjoys spending $10/oz for steak.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by cartman

You sound like someone who enjoys spending $10/oz for steak.

LOL umm....yeah thats...no..no just step AWAY from the conversation =)

[larrymcg421]

I really can't stand it when people refuse to engage the debate in an honest way. "Brought her up on stage once"? Yeah that's all we're talking about. Give me a break. She used her to make a point about responsibility and values that tied into her campaign theme. That's certainly different than just simply putting her on stage. And it turned out to be the show that many people assumed at the time. I don't think anyone was surprised when they didn't get married.

I think some of the comparisons being used aren't apt either. For instance, I think there's a difference between a joke about the choices someone made and joking about something they can't control. For instance, jokes about the Bush daughter DUI or Gore's son are about situations they put themselves in. The Bristol situation is a little more sketchy, because I don't consider what she did a bad thing and the joke borders the taste line, but it's still a joke about a decision she made. Jokes about Chelsea Clinton were about something she had no control over. And jokes about the Obama daughters would certainly be over the line, just as the Letterman joke would have been way over the line if it actually was about Willow.

[path12]

I'm just weary of outrage.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I really can't stand it when people refuse to engage the debate in an honest way. "Brought her up on stage once"? Yeah that's all we're talking about. Give me a break. She used her to make a point about responsibility and values that tied into her campaign theme. That's certainly different than just simply putting her on stage. And it turned out to be the show that many people assumed at the time. I don't think anyone was surprised when they didn't get married.
.

The stage "incident" is most commonly cited.

But it still escapes me how a political candidate's decisions make it OK to attack their children in tasteless ways. Bristol wasn't Palin's campaign manager, as far as I know. And the idea that Palin is somehow wrong to be upset that someone is attacking her children is just bizarre.

It's all about Palin though, you can see it in this thread. The weird hate comes first, then the scramble for the justification.

Both Palin and Hillary Clinton get a disproportionate amount of raw anger, considering their actual influence. Sexism in this country is far more prevalent than racism, and it's more accepted. You can say "bitch", any other gender slur all you want. The racial slurs on the other and have an aura of universal wrongness. Which is good, I just wonder if we'll ever reach that point with sexism.

(I should point out that people who criticize Palin aren't sexist. I think it exists in the over-the-top hate about wardrobe criticisms, the "slutty stewardess" stuff, the "bitch" attitude (which Hillary Clinton gets a ton of too even though by a male standard, there's nothing offensive about her personality at all, and the weird hate in general).

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Both Palin and Hillary Clinton get a disproportionate amount of raw anger, considering their actual influence.

For me, and many people I know, Palin quickly became the poster child for all the hypocritical right-wing "family values" bullshit we've been fed since 1994.

For fifteen years a right-wing PR machine has told me I'm what's wrong with America because I have liberal social values and then gone and done things that are worse or at least hypocritical to their stances (Ted Haggard -> gay sex, Henry Hyde -> adultery, Rush Limbaugh -> prescription drug abuse, Larry Craig -> gay sex, Sarah Palin -> such an awesome mother her teenage daughter gets pregnant out of wedlock).

So excuse me if, every time one of these self-righteous fucknuts takes a swan dive off of the hypocrisy plank, I point and laugh.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think this is pretty silly. Does the fact that the Obama girls appeared on People magazine mean they are fair game?

I think it's tricky. Bristol Palin is on the cover of People and making the rounds on talk shows to promote abstinence among other things like her image. This isn't her just standing next to her Mom at a rally or sitting in a family photo. It's her exposing her life and her beliefs for some personal gain. I don't see how that's much different than what Lindsey Lohan or Britney Spears do.

When she first started doing interviews many months ago, she actually seemed genuine and like someone that could really do some good in lowering teen pregnancies around the country. She talked like a real teenager who had learned valuable lessons. I think her Mother and probably her Mother's handlers have tried to use her as something else now and changed her original beliefs for political benefit. It is sad that she didn't stick to the original line.

So while I think children and family should be 100% off limits, I also believe that if you are self-promoting yourself as an adult, you don't get to cover yourself up under that shield. She is no longer an innocent bystander who got caught up in attacks (she was last year). She is now an active figure and semi-activist.

The saddest thing about this is that everyone is missing one of the worst part about Letterman's comments. It wasn't that he attacked her child, it's just the ridiculous stereotype we have for young women who have sex. If you're a young female and have sex you're a whore. If you're a young male and have sex you're a ladies man. I think labeling every teen girl who has sex as a whore is an unhealthy societal image we are portraying.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Both Palin and Hillary Clinton get a disproportionate amount of raw anger, considering their actual influence. Sexism in this country is far more prevalent than racism, and it's more accepted. You can say "bitch", any other gender slur all you want. The racial slurs on the other and have an aura of universal wrongness. Which is good, I just wonder if we'll ever reach that point with sexism.

That's 100% right. Martha Stewart was a cunt for being a tough boss. Donald Trump gets hailed as a tycoon and savvy businessman for the same thing. George Clooney is a ladies man for sleeping around, Sienna Miller is just a slut.

It seems that many men in this country are afraid of powerful women. I do think a lot of the criticism on Palin was fair (in terms of context) but I know that if she was a young, good looking male governor of Alaska, she wouldn't have had half the pressure. The hatred toward powerful women in this country is rather sick. Whether it's a politician, attorney, or CEO.