Originally Posted By mawnck >>+Anyone that has read WE for any length of time will immediately notice this technique that the "social conservatives" deploy when the topic at hand goes against them: do everything and anything to deflect conversation away from the topic at hand, usually by blaming the opposition for some supposed misdeed...+ And the libs are always playing the role of the rabid victim.<< ROTFLMAO!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Rabid victim -- LOL! I am NOT a rabid victim. I got rabies of my own free will! I'd be happy to leave the Palins alone, if only they'd stop jumping into the spotlight every five minutes. What the GOP was thinking hitching their wagon to this bunch I will never understand. That so many of the party faithful went willingly and "rabidly" along with it is even funnier. But I wish no ill will towards Tripp, Track, Ping, Pong, Zingo, Pocket, or any of the other Palin kids and grandkids.
Originally Posted By mawnck Actually what I found so funny about post 13 was that his response confirmed the comment he was trying to argue with.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 Another guy knocks up a girl he has no intention to marry. YAY for the abstinence-only crowd! But you know that if her mother would've become VP, that marriage WOULD have occurred. Perhaps the abstinence-only group could use this space to explain how much more sacred forced heterosexual marriages are than sincere homosexual marriages.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< how much more sacred forced heterosexual marriages are than sincere homosexual marriages. >>> I don't have any statistics at hand, but my off-the-cuff guess is that the former has a higher rate of teenage pregnancy.
Originally Posted By Lisann22 LOL! I wonder how she would have then explained the methmama-in-law. <rolling eyes> I think Bristol is way better off in this deal being a single mom.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I wonder how she would have then explained the methmama-in-law*** a) double take b) huh? c) ROTFLMAO!
Originally Posted By wahooskipper It is always good, clean fun to take joy in other people's troubles.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***It is always good, clean fun to take joy in other people's troubles.*** Not in general. But where it pertains to celebrity seekers and/or hypocrites, I'm perfectly okay with it. In the Palin case, both seem to apply.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Well you see, that is interesting. Because most Americans, if asked, will tell you they don't like the tabloid journalism, celebrity obsessed society we are becoming yet here it is plainly clear that we not only like it but we relish participating in it.
Originally Posted By Mr X I don't think it's plainly clear here, per se. It's not a voyeuristic thing that the OP brought up here, but rather a significant political issue (Sarah Palin is the one who was running for high office on a platform of life-first, abstinence-only, family values and all that entails, AND her daughter certainly spoke out on the issue plenty as well). So, I disagree. In this case, it's more of a political issue (and a cause for concern, since the family intends to run for high office again in 2012, and even went so far as to organize a PAC for that purpose), and has nothing to do with tabloid anything.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper If Palin is still on the national stage in 2012 then Obama is going to be enjoying a 2nd term with little effort on his part.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Obama is going to be enjoying a 2nd term<< I wonder if he's enjoying the first one? :-D
Originally Posted By WorldDisney Well, I watched Good Morning America this morning having an interview Levi in Wassilla and he laid it out flat he's simply too young and immature to get married and he knows it. He made a point to mention he sees the kid anytime he wants, but its just too many problems between he and the the mother---which sounds like every relationship I know of lol. He did say he would like them to get together someday, but doesnt sound like anytime soon if ever. In the interview, he really does come off as a simple, country 19 year old who got in waaaay over his head. I mean, he seems like a decent guy actually, but he's clearly not ready for a lifetime commitment at this point. The interview mentions he's been looking for a job (get in line with the rest of the world ) which means hes not even helping to support the kid right now on his own. And it didnt even sound like college was in the prospects. And Inspector is right, it really bugs me if Palin won, these people WOULD be married which is sad. I mean, they were clearly forced to make this decision to save face for the campaign nothing more. They werent even together a year before they had committed themselves to the rest of their lives together while one was still in high school, that's just ridiculous. And he looks like a veeeery different guy then the one they were pushing at the campaign: the well dressed, well rounded, upstanding 19 year old vs the one on the interview who doesnt seem like he has a clue where hes going in life. Yeah, they BOTH dodged a very big bullet there .
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Well, I watched Good Morning America this morning having an interview Levi in Wassilla and he laid it out flat he's simply too young and immature to get married and he knows it.<< The fact that he recognizes that makes him smarter than his ex-future mother-in-law.
Originally Posted By Lisann22 <<<And Inspector is right, it really bugs me if Palin won, these people WOULD be married which is sad. I mean, they were clearly forced to make this decision to save face for the campaign nothing more. They werent even together a year before they had committed themselves to the rest of their lives together while one was still in high school, that's just ridiculous.>>> It was pretty clear he was an immature 19 year old or 18 year old or whatever when his myspace was jacked for the world to see.
Originally Posted By SuperDry I'll stand by what I said in #13 - there's not much more to add other than to perhaps rephrase it: This thread is not about bashing Bristol. The Republican party and those that supported it were just fine with using Sarah Palin's family situation as part of the election last year. In fact, both Sarah's youngest child and Bristol's decision to carry the baby to term and get married were all trumpeted as examples of the types of good Christian folk that the Palins are, and therefore just the kind of people we want in office. James Dobson and his ilk were all over it. Where was the outrage from the Republicans or Fox News back then? Obviously there was none because they were the very people most deliberately using the situations for their own advantage. Then, just last month, Bristol gives a TV interview. Where was the outrage from Fox News? There was none, in no small part due to the interview being a Fox News exclusive! And, this sort of thing never gets on Fox News unless it is in support of the overall agenda being driven. Yet, this week, we have news that the wedding is off, and all of a sudden Fox News thinks that the Palin family situation is a personal matter that should not be discussed. The comments about the rabid personal attacks on some left-leaning blogs is well taken, but it's presented as if the right-leaning blogs aren't equally nasty. It's true that some bad comments have been made, but they are made by factions on each side on just about every issue. So what? But yet several conservative posters think that this is good reason not to discuss it all. Where was the outrage least year during the campaign? What about last month when Bristol was on TV giving an interview to Fox News? Why didn't we hear complaints about the "tabloidization" back then?
