Astor Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 Quite the fixation on a matter that's totally irrelevant to the issue at hand, isn't it? Sorry, got confused by the conflicting discussions about who's baby was who's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 You're reporting my post because I didn't say "Source?" Because I gave a specific example? You didn't give a "specific source" and you know it. You created a red herring to distract from the issue and discredit my argument by claiming that I was getting my information from a well known political con-man. Only a few nuts accept Moore as a credible source. So you are either insulting me by calling me a nut, or you are attempting to discredit the issue by claiming it came from a crazy source. Get a grip, Rider. Yeah, I'm the jerk. You're the one who, instead of actually focusing on an actual issue, is questioning the validity of someone's pregnancy. The "issue" is that this woman is, instead of admitting that her daughter was going to be a teen mom, decided to claim that instead she was pregnant. Now, I don't know about you, but somebody who would go that far to hide what's going on in her family is pretty crazy. Even Cheney admitted his daughter was a lesbian. So, basically, your only credible evidence is she doesn't start showing until late? That seems very circumstantial. Not everyone develops at the same rate. Actually no. Pregnancies are pretty standard. Most women are showing, if only slightly, in their 3rd, 4th, and in some extremes, 5th month. By the 7th mother, development of the fetus has accelerated and a woman can't get away with clothes being "a little tight". By the 7th month there's not a woman alive(save Sarah Palin) who's been pregnant that would tell you they weren't showing at all. Another interesting factor is that her water had supposedly broken and she chose to take an 8 hour flight home instead of deliver where she was. That's unheard of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 My mistake. I was under the impression Michael Moore was the original source for this allegation. If you have such distaste for the man, then I apologize for that error. Exactly! It doesn't make any sense that she would lie. Sure, things are a little bit peculiar, I'll admit, but it seems much more logical to assume that this is an anomaly than that it's actually her daughter's. I doubt that it's unheard of. I REALLY doubt it's actually unheard of. Rare and unlikely, yes, but she's Alaskan. They have crazy blood. (For those of you who left your sense of humor in bed, I'm joking about the last part.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted September 1, 2008 Author Share Posted September 1, 2008 Well it's not the first time a family has tried to pass of a child's kid as their own. However it is indeed correct that her daughters pregnancy has little to do with the campaign aside from the social values the Republican party is advising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 Assuming her daughter actually is pregnant, which is hardly proven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 Assuming her daughter actually is pregnant, which is hardly proven. The same argument can be made against Governor Palin, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 Assuming her daughter actually is pregnant, which is hardly proven. Considering it was Palin's own campaign that announced it, I'd think it would be fairly reliable. Of course, maybe her daughter isn't and this is just one sick mother. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/01/palin-my-daughter-is-preg_n_122947.html I dunno the particulars of this source over another, but I'm sure there's a more fitting source considering it's an announcement from the horses mouth, so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted September 1, 2008 Author Share Posted September 1, 2008 Assuming her daughter actually is pregnant, which is hardly proven. It is. Also, Palin said when running for governor in 2006 that she would support funding for abstinence-only education in schools, according to Eagle Forum Alaska, a conservative group that sent a questionnaire asking gubernatorial candidates their views on a range of issues. Because that's shown to be effective. LOL Luckily this girl has money at her disposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 It is. Wow. Does this make Palin a hypocrite, or just stupid? ...or is this just her daughter's fault for getting pregnant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 It's going to be interesting to see the Republican party either talk about this or try to brush it under. Obviously it's a slap in the face of abstinence only programs if the daughter of one of it's leading advocates is now a pregnant and unwed(though soon to be) mother-to-be. They can't exactly condemn Sarah, as that would undermine themselves, and condemning the daughter of a person you can't condemn isn't exactly an effective strategy either. Considering who McCain could have chosen for a VP, and considering that from other reports I've read he knew about this before officially announcing the nomination, I think it's showing poor decision making on his part. Or, considering that McCain seems to only be toting party line and not things he used to actually believe in, it shows poor decision making on behalf of his party. I mean, lets face it, there was discussion about Sarah Palin as a possibility, but it was mostly relegated to "well there's talk of him choosing some lady from Alaska". In more recent discussions(before the pick) I don't think there was any serious talk about Palin being picked. Or maybe I just didn't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 ...or is this just her daughter's fault for getting pregnant? Well, I sure hope Sarah Palin wasn't involved in getting her daughter pregnant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted September 2, 2008 Author Share Posted September 2, 2008 Well, I sure hope Sarah Palin wasn't involved in getting her daughter pregnant. Unless... Probably not, but it would be craaaaazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 Hey, look, the kid made a mistake. Lots of kids do, in a variety of different areas. All it proves is that Palin's family is human just like everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 All it proves is that Palin's family is human just like everyone else. Oh yes, god forbid anybody should be, y'know, human. I think it's nice that both the Republicans and Democrats have come out in support of Palin family's privacy in this matter. It's nothing to do with anyone else but them, after all. Her daughter's pregnancy should have absolutely no bearing on the election - anyone who lets that decide their vote clearly has issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferc Kast Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 Oh yes, god forbid anybody should be, y'know, human. I agree entirely. I think it's nice that both the Republicans and Democrats have come out in support of Palin family's privacy in this matter. It's nothing to do with anyone else but them, after all. Uhh.... I would have to disagree, having known a friend who made that same unfortunate decision during my sophomore year of high school. Her daughter's pregnancy should have absolutely no bearing on the election - anyone who lets that decide their vote clearly has issues. The way I see it, anyone who doesn't let that decide their vote clearly has issues. "I am not a crook." Ring any bells? I, personally, want to know that our president & his/her family has good moral values. Having a kid before marriage is definitely not a good moral value. Or it wasn't the last time I checked, anyways. But, that's just my two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 I agree entirely.[/Quote] Good to know. Uhh.... I would have to disagree, having known a friend who made that same unfortunate decision during my sophomore year of high school.[/Quote] I'm not sure I understand. I was saying that it was good to respect the privacy of the people involved, and that's it's better to leave it to them, not drag it out in the open like it has been. The way I see it, anyone who doesn't let that decide their vote clearly has issues. "I am not a crook." Ring any bells? I, personally, want to know that our president & his/her family has good moral values.[/Quote] Bristol Palin isn't up for election though. None of Mrs. Palin's family are. Everybody makes mistakes, and this is tiny compared to the Nixon fiasco you quoted. EDIT: Also, yes, it is good for a family to good moral values. But it should be up to a 17 year old girl to make her own choices about these things. The couple are also over the age of consent, so it's not like they've done anything illegal, which is how some people are acting. And does anyone think maybe it was unplanned? They can't exactly have an abortion considering her mother's (and the party) views on the subject. Having a kid before marriage is definitely not a good moral value. Or it wasn't the last time I checked, anyways. Maybe it isn't, but I don't think it's right to criticise someone because they've made a mistake. Bristol Palin having a baby shouldn't be the issue. And besides, they've stated they'll be married before the baby arrives. At least they're doing the honourable thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 While I do agree that discussion specifically related to Bristol should be off-limits, I do think we should question what kind of light this shines on Sarah's abstinence-only position. I think we can have that conversation without slinging any stones at a young mother who didn't ask for any of this attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 While I do agree that discussion specifically related to Bristol should be off-limits Good to hear it! I do think we should question what kind of light this shines on Sarah's abstinence-only position. [/Quote] I don't think it should affect her position too badly. After all, i'm sure that only the most ardent believers could say that they didn't fool around as teenagers. But, you could then ask all kinds of questions such as whether contraceptives were used, which I don't think would really add to the matter. I think the average voter would probably just accept it as a mistake, a mistake that could happen to anyone who is maybe a little too influenced by their feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 I think this misses the point. Sarah is running on her conservative record, which includes staunch support for abstinence-only. If abstinence-only doesn't work in her home, then it greatly weakens her ability to preach to others without appearing a hypocrite. Kinda like when Ted Haggard used to preach about the sins of homosexuality before it was revealed that he himself is a homosexual, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 As much as I dislike the republican choices for this election, I do not beleive it to be Sarah Palin's fault. Her daughter is 17. 17! She is quite close to the age when your gain much more responsibility. She is a soon-to-be adult. I'm sure her mother raised her quite well. It is the daughter's responsibility in this case, not Sarah's. Sure, Sarah should advise her daughter about it, but because she, a soon-to-be adult, made a bad decision does not make it the parents' fault. now, as for this whole thing... I thing we should start leaving it alone, ASAP, and just focus on the real topic of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 It's not about responsibility or non-responsibility. It's about how well the policies you support work. If the policies that she supports publicly do not work privately (in her own home), then I think that calls into question her judgment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 now, as for this whole thing... I thing we should start leaving it alone, ASAP, and just focus on the real topic of this thread. Well, being an outsider to American politics, I was compelled to research Palin's policies. I was a bit surprised when I found she used to support Alaskan Independence, but that's old news, probably. As to her policies, I realise that they are most likely the Republican Party's core values, otherwise she wouldn't be a candidate, but I do disagree with a few of them (especially some statements she made regarding them). So based on that, if I were American, I doubt i'd vote for any ticket with her on. That said, I feel myself drawn to John McCain more easily than Obama... maybe it's the 'grandfather' feel he has to him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inyri Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 Well, being an outsider to American politics, I was compelled to research Palin's policies. I was a bit surprised when I found she used to support Alaskan Independence, but that's old news, probably. If she's only 44, it couldn't be that old of news. So that means in the last 20 years or so she's been anti-America and pro let's have our own state! Anyway, do you have a source for that? I'd like to see it if it's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 If she's only 44, it couldn't be that old of news. So that means in the last 20 years or so she's been anti-America and pro let's have our own state! Anyway, do you have a source for that? I'd like to see it if it's true. More here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted September 2, 2008 Author Share Posted September 2, 2008 I think this misses the point. Sarah is running on her conservative record, which includes staunch support for abstinence-only. If abstinence-only doesn't work in her home, then it greatly weakens her ability to preach to others This is the point of the motherhood thing. It has nothing to do with personal decisions. This is politics and if your policy is shown to prove ineffective in your own home, then it's reasonable to conclude that it will not work effectively in a larger scope. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.