Is Sarah Palin the mother?

[themadscientist]

All those little old ladies in the bible belt will have an opinion on this and will undoubtedly vote their conscious.

Sarah has more baggage than freight train.

Careful when setting precedent. Palin doesn't have Bill Ayres and Tony Resco on speed dial.

[AZhitman]

Sarah has more baggage than freight train.

Yeah. A real burden on society.

[ishkabibble]

ROFL

[OriginalWheelman]

So now the child's parent's are responsible for everything their child does? This is ridiculous. Instead of supporting her child's right to choose, you ridicule her for getting teen pregnant. Wow. Just because this is what her mother believes does not mean this is what she believes. EVERY PERSON HAS FREEWILL. You people make me sick. Literally. I can not believe the hate that is going around. I can't believe I saw a quote from a left leaning woman saying that Palin belongs at home with her son. Is the Father incapable of parenting? That's some equal rights right there. I've said it once and I'll say it again. HYPOCRITES! I refuse to respect any viewpoint from this point forward for anyone who disrespected her child for this. A lot of you have lost my respect.

[audtatious]

Why are you replying to me?

[OriginalWheelman]

Why are you replying to me?

You were at the top of this page, and I clicked the reply button from your post. I got so sick I didn't want to read anymore nonsense. Nothing geared towards you at all. It's days like today I'm ashamed to be a human. I can't believe I have a common genetic makeup with some of these people.

[AZhitman]

I can't believe I saw a quote from a left leaning woman saying that Palin belongs at home with her son.

Yep. There's your women's lib supporters.

They want her at home caring for the kids, not out in the working world.

Maybe McCain chose her to drive the hypocritical libbies out of their patchouli-reeking hiding places.

[szh]

I can't believe I saw a quote from a left leaning woman saying that Palin belongs at home with her son.

That is just the classic liberal hypocrisy! No wonder McCain is gonna run against to Obama and not Clinton. When push comes to shove, the Democrats simply could not have selected Clinton. Would have gone against their inner core!

I recently read something that gave me some food for thought. If McCain had been trying to get a female equivalent to Clinton - supposedly to pick off those Clinton voters - then he would have picked one of the other, more well-known, Republican women possibilities! Somebody like Gov Kay Hutchison.

The fact is, he picked Sarah Palin. Because of her commitment to her work, her obvious desire to not be just another politician, etc.

Good choice!

Z

[themadscientist]

Yeah, what happened to "change" and "hope" Obama people? All talk no walk huh?

[Qwerty1942]

TMS, you now have to change your sig so that it accurately reads: McCain/ GILF '08

[themadscientist]

no doubt, she's a cutie.

[skylndrftr]

Yep. There's your women's lib supporters.

They want her at home caring for the kids, not out in the working world.

and we're the hypocrits...

Maybe we just think somebody who runs on family values and bible thumping christian morals shouldn't have a pregnant teenage daughter...

[HashiriyaS14]

What I find funny is that the left thinks it's real news.

I disagree, sensationalists aside.

There are media scumbags on both sides. The left has it's scumbags, and they're jumping on this. The right has it's scumbags too, and they've focused on stuff like "ZOMG Obama smokes a cigarette now and then". BFD.

James Carville said that the whole "teen pregnant" thing should be ignored, that it's not material. He said he didn't want to be a part of his conversation on the show as he was a "wild hayseed" when he was a kid and he understands that sometimes parents cause their parents grief.

He then held up this picture of Wasilla City Hall and said it looked like "A bait shop in Southern Louisiana":



The SERIOUS Democratic press/commentators don't give a shxt about the daughter, they're focusing on the issue that Palin isn't qualified to run a 7-11.

Let's ignore the statistical outlier wackos on each side.

If you guys promise to ignore, say, Begala and focus on Carville, we'll ignore Michelle Bachmann and focus on Ed Rollins.

Bachmann was OBNOXIOUS on Larry King last night. When Carville questioned Palin's credentials, Bachmann asserted it must be because he's sexist, even though he WORKED ON HILLARY'S CAMPAIGN! What kind of underhanded shxt is that?

I respect the hell out of Ed Rollins, and so far I think his commentary on the Palin nomination has been fair, balanced, and intelligent.

[audtatious]

I would have thought the appropriate response from those who support people doing what they want, when they want, would be to pat her on the back for having a daughter who has liberated herself from the chains of the moral high ground-preaching right-wing? NOW should be actively promoting the daughter for stepping up and acting as she pleases as well. Instead she gets attacked.

When a left-winger bails to the right-wing, the right-wing usually accept them with open arms. If a right-winger does something supported by the left-wing (as mentioned above), the left-wing attacks them. Does that make sense?

[audtatious]

The SERIOUS Democratic press/commentators don't give a shxt about the daughter, they're focusing on the issue that Palin isn't qualified to run a 7-11.

Who is that? Seems just about every news station is jumping on the story and attacking while constantly ignoring other stories concerning Obama (including Fox news).

I want to see complete details concerning Obama's Rezko and Ayres assiciations. I also want to know exactly what his connection is with Dr. Khalid al Mansour.

[HashiriyaS14]

I would have thought the appropriate response from those who support people doing what they want, when they want, would be to pat her on the back for having a daughter who has liberated herself from the chains of the moral high ground-preaching right-wing? NOW should be actively promoting the daughter for stepping up and acting as she pleases as well. Instead she gets attacked.

When a left-winger bails to the right-wing, the right-wing usually accept them with open arms. If a right-winger does something supported by the left-wing (as mentioned above), the left-wing attacks them. Does that make sense?

I'm sorry, but I'm just honestly not following the logic here. This isn't meant to be insulting, I really am confused.

NO ONE should support 17 year olds getting pregnant under any circumstances, as it's not ever okay. Anyone who lauds the daughter for this is nuts, but luckily I don't think this is really what either side of the aisle is doing, to their respective credits.

Are you seriously proposing that the Democratic party advocates teen pregnancy?

17 year olds shouldn't have kids, period. It robs them of their chance to fully realize their potential and it's a shame every time it happens, even if the family is behind it. This is not a beautiful thing, it's a tragedy, and no one should be making light of it, Democrat or Republican.

I'll admit that the news agencies are focusing on it more than I'd like, save the occasional beacons of sanity (Carville and Obama himself). I wish the media would back off too, so I think we're in agreement on that.

[audtatious]

Are you seriously proposing that the Democratic party advocates teen pregnancy?

No. I don't believe the Democratic party base as a whole is a buch of left-wing idiots.

This is pretty much targets the left-wing idiots themselves who have a double standard

[szh]

There are media scumbags on both sides. The left has it's scumbags, and they're jumping on this. The right has it's scumbags too. BFD.

True on that - both sides have them.

Note that this means the NYT falls into that category, they were the ones who published an attack on Palin's husband for the DWI ... inspite of Obama's request!

And, I am being very careful not to find the right scumbag camps to post from - even though I was initially tempted to do so after the attack we posted here on Palin and her baby Trig.

Let's ignore the statistical outlier wackos on each side.

I hope that includes the NYT too then!

Z

[Eikon]

I agree completely that no-one should be in favor of 17 year old kids having kids. I don't think anyone is saying it's a good thing.

But, I don't think it's fair to crucify a parent or call into question their ability to perform on the job as an elected official because one of their children made a mistake.

You made a comment earlier about it being strange or negative to see the oldest daughter acting like a mother for the youngest baby. Only in the past 20 years has that become "strange" in our society. It was commonplace in a large number of families years ago. The average family had what.. 5 kids just a few generations ago? My mom is the second oldest of 7. She and her older sister were "mom" to the youngest of the family. They did what they could to help the family.

There is an interesting phenomenon that happens in our society where it seems like parents who are extremely strong in their moral beliefs often have kids who violate those morals. I call it the "Pastor's Kids Phenomenon". In my youth I found that very frequently, the pastor's kid from our church was one of the biggest trouble makers. Sometimes the most strict parents who spent the most time and energy teaching their kids what they believe wind up having kids who rebel and very frequently do exactly what their parents preach against. - Does this make them bad parents? Does this call into question the parents true beliefs? Does this mean the parents are bad people?

I don't think it does.. I think kids are kids and many kids who have the best parents still do stupid things... sometimes just because they are kids, and sometimes just to rebel against their parents in an effort to find themselves.

[HashiriyaS14]

I hope that includes the NYT too then!

Oh it absolutely does.

Just like it includes the Washington Times too.

Both are businesses out for profit, they know they're own readership (liberal and conservative, respectively) and they'll print whatever appeals to that readership.

This is why ultimately we need to listen to the CANDIDATES, not to the commentary.

[szh]

Oh it absolutely does.

Just like it includes the Washington Times too.

Yup! Both the NYT and Wash Times are pretty darn partisan.

Both are businesses out for profit, they know they're own readership (liberal and conservative, respectively) and they'll print whatever appeals to that readership.

This is why ultimately we need to listen to the CANDIDATES, not to the commentary.

Also agreed. Can't wait for the debates.

Z

[smockers83]

This can happen to anyone's daughter, anyone's. Its just a matter of how the family decides to take care of it. Some families like to cover things up to keep things private and in the family. This really shouldn't be that big of a deal.

Obama says families are off limits.

Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama said that families should be off-limits in presidential campaigns after learning of the news. "Let me be as clear as possible," Obama said. "I think people's families are off-limits, and people's children are especially off-limits."

End of this discussion.

[AZhitman]

Maybe we just think somebody who runs on family values and bible thumping christian morals

Where'd you read that?

Your generalizations and assumptions are invalid.

Your obvious disdain for people of faith is duly noted, though. I hope it also applies to Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Sikhs...

I'll be waiting for you to use the term "Quran-thumper".

[szh]

Obama says families are off limits.

Totally agreed.

But, as someone else pointed out, the "media scumbags" are not listening. The NYT is now attacking Palin's husband for a DWI that happened 22 years ago.

People may be tired of negative attacks, but they do, unfortunately, stick in your brain and influence you.

Z

[skylndrftr]

yes it does AZ, its just stronger because I had to actually share airspace with them during high school and some of college.

My assumptions are perfectly valid, most RELIGIONS aren't even anti-BC. Nobody would come to that idea using logic, its solely based on the one place logic doesn't go...blind faith.

[AZhitman]

Those without faith are ill-equipped to question its existence.

I'm sorry you had to endure being around people with different views than you... that must have been very difficult for you. I hope you weren't irreparably harmed.

If you KNOW for a fact she opposes / prohibits BC, please share.

Again, your assumptions about the VP candidate are fundamentally invalid, as evidenced by your use of a generic and unsubstantiated stereotypical label.

[skylndrftr]

Those without faith are ill-equipped to question its existence.

I'm sorry you had to endure being around people with different views than you... that must have been very difficult for you. I hope you weren't irreparably harmed.

its not the being near it that bothers me its that waste of time they make of their lives. If your so insecure in your faith that you need to convert others then thats prett ysad.

I have faith in what I belive, and I don't need the threat of eternal damnation to keep me believing in it.

I don't question its existence, I just know enough about what the bible/quaran/old testament/teachings of bhudda says to know that I could care less My problem is peolple who base their lives on something that... frankly...stupid. Wanna see smoke come out a persons ears? Tell them your not a christian and then insist on having a literal biblical discussion with them when they try and convert you.

[audtatious]

its not the being near it that bothers me its that waste of time they make of their lives. If your so insecure in your faith that you need to convert others then thats prett ysad..

Then shouldn't you be calling out the Democratic protesters as well? They are actively forcing their viewpoints on the public quite a bit more than individuals trying to tell other individuals their religious viewpoints.

[skylndrftr]

protesters are protesters their goal is to get the message out to a large group.

Being accosted while I check my mail by a neighborh is a lot more annoying because I can't change the channel...

[audtatious]

You can deal with a neighbor on a 1:1 basis. If I run against protestors I have to deal with their msg until I get past them and in all but one instance they were Democrat protestors (with the one other time being some idiot holding a sign showing a fetus after an abortion). I also call the constant news media attacking republican standpoints at every possible opening as accosting as well thus I really have no news channel that is truely "fair and balanced" to choose from. With media bias you can't believe a damn thing you hear anymore.