A Look At Sarah Palin

ubs wrote

If it's any comfort, I'm pretty sure McCain will out live us all, including Sarah Palin's new son.

Truth to tell, so do I. His mother must be close to 100 and is sharp as a tack. She looks good for another 50 years, too.

Tenspace wrote

Then why did she get pregnant? I guess it was planned, eh?

Possibly. Teenagers who want to get married have been known to do it. Poor kid, she has latched onto a hunk and it seems pretty clear that he is in no hurry to marry!

I can think of a half dozen more scenarios, as well-- all drawn from real life. The least likely reason for her pregnancy is ignorance.

[Eva]

she should put it up for adoption.
that's what dr. laura says all teens have to do.

"do the right thing."

Eva- Since when do you listen to Dr. Laura?

I mostly agree with the adoption scenario but not when the parents (or grandparents) have the means and the desire to raise the child. It just is unnecessary in such a case. I have to admit that I would rather not see a 17 year old get married but it isn't my call, either.

[Philboid Studge]

Lily wrote

SO FUCKING WHAT??? ... Do you know that they don't just go home, write a speech out of thin air and hand it to the person who is paying for it? Do you understand that they consult, at rather great length, with that person and his or her team? Honestly, you don't have a clue how this works at all.

Irr, have you noticed that Lily is the most shrill when she really botches something? It's true that she's always somewhat wrong -- and so is always a bit shrill -- but the cow patties really fly when she wanders outside her field of expertise (whatever that is).

Palin's convention speech was written before the speech writers even knew who the nominee was. They had to emasculate it when they learned it would be read by a chick.

[nkb]

Lily wrote

Possibly. Teenagers who want to get married have been known to do it. Poor kid, she has latched onto a hunk and it seems pretty clear that he is in no hurry to marry!

I can think of a half dozen more scenarios, as well-- all drawn from real life. The least likely reason for her pregnancy is ignorance.

And there we have it, people! Lily has dropped some serious knowledge on us.

Teenage pregnancies are more likely due to kids wanting to be parents than not really knowing what they're doing, and getting pregnant because of faulty information from other kids, who also don't know jackshit.

[Irreligious]

Lily wrote

Oh you really are getting hysterical aren't you, old fellow?

Yes, I am, old crone. I'm bitterly disappointed in your return here, just to stir more shit. More duplicitous bullshit, to be precise.

Lily wrote

I've changed my mind. I think I will tell you where you have gone off the rails, yet again.

Isn’t this what I just said? Did I not say that knowledge of how to prevent pregnancy was not the issue?

No, you did not say that. You said abstinence does not cause pregnancy, which was a duplicitous and patronizing non sequitur.

You have been implying forever here that knowledge of how to prevent a pregnancy is not an issue that ought to concern unmarried teenagers. But a whole passel of posters in this forum have been telling you that this is not an effective approach. That's why I pointed you to Exhibit A: Big-bellied Bristol Palin.

You still refuse to deal with the elephant in the room: Abstinence only "education" does not work. Keeping young people in perpetual ignorance about sex does not keep them from having sex.

Lily wrote

You sure have that moral equivalence bullshit down pat. When Presbyterians start flying planes into buildings, when the first Assemblies of God team starts kidnapping civilians off the street and cutting their throats, when Methodists riot in the streets over cartoons poking fun at Christ, then, it will be time to equate the two belief systems.

And who the fuck started dropping bombs on Iraq 5 years ago? Buddhists? No, it was Presbyterians, Baptists, Roman Catholics, nondemoninational Evangelicals, and the like. All under the aegis of a commander-in-chief who professes to have daily conversations with his god, a Christian god. Get your head out of your ass. Christians are no more peaceful than any other humans on the planet. Abu Ghraib? The torture chambers at Guantanamo Bay? Bloodthirsty is bloodthirsty, regardless of your reasons for it.

Yeah, all the fine Christians here can justify their barbarism, and so do the fanatical and bloodthirsty Muslim extremists justify theirs.

Lily wrote

Join the 20th century, old fart. This is ludicrous. For every “evangelical” who poses any sort of threat, no matter how mild and harmless, there are thousands more who don’t pose a threat at all. Honestly, what a stupid and out-of-touch thing to say.

And let me say for the record that I have no problem being 50 years old. How old are you? Older, no doubt.

As for the cuddly Evangelicals, the same could be said of the thousands upon thousands of cuddly Muslims out there who wish you no harm. But neither of them is the issue here.

I'm not in any way out of touch with the more capricious variety of Evangelicals, the ones fomenting discord for a variety of nefarious purposes, money, power and control being their leading concerns. Then there are the sincere wackos, fomenting war in the Middle East, all so they bring about the alleged Rapture in their lifetime. They are not benign, peace-loving and tolerant folk. They will tolerate a patsy like you for as long as they need you.

Lily wrote

SO FUCKING WHAT??? All politicians use speechwriters. Are you actually claiming that the speechwriters set policy? Do you understand that it is a profession and that speechwriters actually take their cues from the person they are writing for? Do you understand that the political leanings of any professional speechwriter matters not at all, when they need to pay bills? Do you know that they don't just go home, write a speech out of thin air and hand it to the person who is paying for it? Do you understand that they consult, at rather great length, with that person and his or her team? Honestly, you don't have a clue how this works at all.

No one here claimed that other politicians don't have speechwriters. However, most of them are not currently running to hold the second highest office in the land while refusing to grant interviews to the media. Hell, if she's scared of the "Liberal media," why doesn't she at least take her ass on Fox News and consent to a sitdown?

I sincerely want to know if she believes in the Rapture, since she's made her religious beliefs a part of the campaign. Otherwise, I don't give a damn about her bonafides as a lipstick-wearing hockey mom or how she's going to manage to raise four kids at home and be vice president at the same time. That's her business. I don't want to hear the party speaking through Sarah Palin. I want to hear what she's got to say in her own words. She can save the canned speeches for her acolytes. I want her to sit her ass down and answer some pointed questions.

Lily wrote

When have you seen her speak extemporaneously? When?

Barely, when she was forced to stray from her talking points in her interview with Charlie Gibson last week. And that's the point.

Lily wrote

Come back to earth, Irreligious! You are floundering in a sea of ignorance.

I know, Lily, but you steadfastly refuse to leave this site. Much of the ignorance that surrounds me would be gone if you were, too.

Philboid Studge wrote

Irr, have you noticed that Lily is the most shrill when she really botches something? It's true that she's always somewhat wrong -- and so is always a bit shrill -- but the cow patties really fly when she wanders outside her field of expertise (whatever that is).

Palin's convention speech was written before the speech writers even knew who the nominee was. They had to emasculate it when they learned it would be read by a chick.

How do you do it? How do you continue to be irrelevant and boring at the same time?

Who ever supposed that a convention speech would be anything but a plug for the ticket? That sure requires a lot of personalizing! The fact that quite a bit of it was concerned with introducing Palin to the public at the same time is a mere accident, right? So, let's see. Some of the speech, the stuff that had to do with McCain (Remember him? The guy running for president?), was written in advance. Then, the stuff about Palin was written, what? The night before? Or, might it have been in advance of the convention, too?

So yeah, boy. There was something new under the sun and I didn't even notice it.

Talk about botching it!!! (Botching what? I don't have the faintest idea. But it is merely Studge, so who cares?)

Irreligious wrote

I sincerely want to know if she believes in the Rapture, since she's made her religious beliefs a part of the campaign. Otherwise, I don't give a damn about her bonafides as a lipstick-wearing soccer mom or how she's going to manage to raise four kids at home. That's her business. I don't want to hear the party speaking through Sarah Palin. I want to hear what she's got to say in her own words. She can saved the speeches for her acolytes. I want her to sit her ass down and answer some pointed questions.


Barely, when she was forced to stray from her talking points in her interview with Charlie Gibson last week. And that's the point.

Do you have even a clue how much that thing was edited? Well, I do. You ought to be worried about a mainstream media that is so partisan that it lies to you. But you aren't.

Here is the unedited transcript of what she told Gibson. Maybe your questions were left on the cutting room floor:

http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/

Rev_Linda wrote

Don't forget, she is also an abstinence only advocate when it comes to sex education. Wouldn't you think that a pregnant daughter would make her realize that maybe these programs really do not work?

I love the irony of that!

[ubs]

To hysterectate a speech probably requires major surgery. Where as to emasculate most likely involves just the lopping off of an extra paragraph or two.

Lily wrote

The notion that there is any 17 year old in this country that doesn't know how to have "safe sex" is preposterous. Can you really believe that neither one of the two in question here knows about condoms and all the rest? Seriously, you all have got to get past this positively antiquated notion that teenagers don't know how to avoid pregnancy. They do. The question you have to ask is why they don't do what adults and the surrounding culture have been pounding into them since the day they were born.

It is a question with very interesting answers.

HMMMM - I seem to recall when my children were young, their friends indeed knew about safe sex; however, because of their parent’s views, they were afraid to get caught purchasing condoms. So you tell me, where did that leave these kids? I mean we live in a rural area, unless they traveled at least 25 miles away, everyone knew them.

I got so tired of this self-righteous group that thought just because they believed in abstinence that their children would abide, that I purchased condoms and put out the word that they could come to me if they needed condoms. The only condition was that we had a discussion on sex.

Needless to say - the parents tried to lynch me - and to keep their children away from me - until of course that word began to spread that a few local teenagers were infected with HIV; then the narrow minded people - like you - adjusted their attitudes - expressing their phony gratitude to me for my foresight which inadvertently saved their children.

The point I was attempting to make prior is not that teenagers know about safe sex practices – but what narrow mindedness can do to our teenagers

If you gave my underaged child condoms and indulged in sex talk with him or her, I would have you arrested for contributing to the delinquency of a minor and, probably, sexual predation. I take a real dim view of random people out there in the neighborhood who "talk sex" with minors even if they are merely usurping the rights of parents.

If you really did any such thing, then your mind is too open-- your brains fell out.

[nkb]

Good thing for all of us that you never had children.

Good for your hypothetical children too.

[DrunkMonkey]

Lily wrote

DM. I cannot take you seriously. I really can't. This is the sort of nonsense teenagers write. The only reason you can write such tripe is that you believe what you want to believe and read only partisan trash.

I really can't believe that I have to explain the nature of language to you. "Obama doesn't have a plan" in the context of a political campaign means that he does not have a convincing plan. A well-thought out plan. A plan that could be put into effect without being completely overhauled and all the missing details filled in. A "plan" that can be taken seriously by anybody who can do the arithmetic. Honestly. I cannot believe that I actually have to explain this to you.

His "plan" is essentially the same stupid "plan" that was put into practice two years ago in Massachusetts and is already exceeding the amount it was supposed to cost by hundreds of millions of dollars. I linked to a number of reports about this "plan" just recently. Go inform yourself. It isn't like your vote matters but you really should be better informed about these things.

Lily. I cannot take you seriously. I really can't. This is the sort of nonsense that internet trolls write. The only reason you can write such tripe is that you believe what you want to believe and read only partisan trash. If you meant he did not have a plan (that you think is realistic) you would have said so. As it is, you were spouting the right-wing talking point that Obama has no substance and hasn't proposed anything in detail.

In another example of your stupidity or dishonesty (I still haven't decided which) you claim that Obama's plan is essentially the same as the Massachusetts plan. That is patently false. Hillary's proposed plan was similar to the one in Massachusetts. One major distinction is that Obama's plan does not have a mandate. There are other differences that you would find if you took the time to look them up.

Meanwhile, under the McCain/Palin plan there would be no net increase in those covered AND those that are covered would generally have less generous plans. 20 million fewer people would have employer-provided coverage and the markets would be deregulated.

McCain's Plan
Obama's Plan

It looks like you are the one that needs to be better informed. Obviously neither plan is perfect, but at least Obama's plan won't make things any worse.

[DrunkMonkey]

I wonder what Palin's ideal health care plan would be?

"Jesus is coming back soon, so it doesn't matter" is my guess.