Wait......cons are immoral too.
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
That is really reaching Kreskin, really reaching.......
There is just no satisfying you guys on this one.....
First of all, I raised the issue of unwarranted use of her power....you know, a real issue. But the left seems to have all the intellectual abilities (to say nothing of ethical restraint) of the National Enquirer.....all they want to talk about is her babies...
They are so shocked by the fact she actually lives up to her own professed beliefs that they engage in some kind of self-deluding double-think, emerging from their analysis of the situation completely convinced that her principled stand is somehow hypocrisy......now I fully understand that the left doesn't "get" the concept of "principles".
I am, however, amazed at the convoluted process they go through to accuse her of hypocrisy. And why do they do that?
Because they are literally incapable of believing anyone they disagree with could actually take an honest stand on their principles.
I must admit, watching this feeble attempt to degrade the woman is somewhat amusing...
And Avro, if you believe what you are saying, you are a whole lot dumber than I thought you werre.
Read back, your thesis is worse than just incorrect, it is ridiculous.
Oh, and BTW, how many 17 year old virgins do you know?
Or do you think all women are ****s?
That last line simply proves your vacuity.
Did you bring your dictionary, as I told you?
As long as they continue to push their social engineering agenda I'll keep telling people what I think of them and their brand of politics. I'd be more impressed if all the flag waving conservatives in that hall adopted down syndrome children. Certainly billionaires like that Ebay woman have the means to give a child a fighting chance. Or is that society-type stuff just left for the peasants to figure out?
I'm not sure how you define trampy ****, but the evidence so far as we know it, is that her daughter has had sex one time with one man. More than that, we don't know.
How does this make her a trampy ****?
My argument is perfectly legitimate, she had a choice and exercised it and I'm glad for her that she had a choice, to bad she doesn't think anyone else should have one.
I know you'll never get it Coply, so stop trying.
Oh wait, I forgot, only Liberals have children who are tramps. When con children get knocked up it's none of our business and oh isn't it great they are doing the right thing.:roll:
Do I think she is a tramp? No.
I know you'll never get it Coply, so stop trying.
Oh wait, I forgot, only Liberals have children who are tramps. When con children get knocked up it's none of our business and oh isn't it great they are doing the right thing.:roll:
Do I think she is a tramp? No.
I think more than anything the point is the rightwing conservatives usually argue that anyone who does this kind of thing is an immoral tramp, without ever knowing anything about the statistics they read. So why should her case be treated any different?
Regardless if she sticks to her beliefs or not, she will, much like Bush has already done, ruined life for many americans.... Bush already cut funding to sexual education in schools, and she's just more of the same, if not worse.... her personal beliefs shouldn't be a factor in the whole race for president.... it should be about what she and McCain can do for Americans and solve their problems they currently face, not shove her morals and religious beliefs into everybody's face.
But since they are being shoved in everybody's face, then they're open game. Find it funny or not, plenty of people don't like her.... hate her even.... based on what she represents and what she plans to do if she get's the power to do it.
I was a virgin until a week or so before I hit 20.... what's your point? Maybe you don't know that many 17 year old virgins, because those around you follow the same beliefs as Palin does, which are beliefs that don't work, supply no education, leave them on their own to figure things out, give them nothing like birth control or condoms to at least reduce the chances of STD's or pregnancy.....
I know one of the main factors of why I waited until I was at least close to 20, out of high school and living on my own, was due to proper education when I was younger..... which she opposes.... and apparently you oppose as well.
I am at the very least, living proof of what sexual education can do, while her sl*t of a daughter is living proof of what her approach will lead us to..... a bunch of ignorant dumb ass pregnant kids that their own parents will end up having to take care of.... on top of their own child.
What a wonderful plan. :roll:
Just some.
Good question.... how does this make her trampy? Well based on her own mother's beliefs, she shouldn't have had sex until she was married to begin with, which makes her a trampy sl*t by her own mother's standards.
And if she wasn't following her own mother's standards and not living up to her mother's "Character" then that raises the question about her mother's parenting abilities and teaching her kids her "Proper Morals" as they clearly failed.
But oh well... her daughter sl*tted it out to a self-proclaimed Redneck, forced her into marriage and to keep the baby for her own political agendas, so I guess it's alright then.
I have a plan that would cut down on late term abortions.
There should be a registry of people (publicly disclosed names) willing to adopt babies who are discovered to be chromosomally abnormal prior to birth. It would be mandatory for all third trimester women who are considering abortion to look through the list of those willing to adopt the children. Perhaps they could see all the millionaires and billionaires waiting to help out, and thus make it easier for them to carry to term and put the child in a great situation. It could even be a faith-based initiative.
There should be a registry of people (publicly disclosed names) willing to adopt babies who are discovered to be chromosomally abnormal prior to birth. It would be mandatory for all third trimester women who are considering abortion to look through the list of those willing to adopt the children. Perhaps they could see all the millionaires and billionaires waiting to help out, and thus make it easier for them to carry to term and put the child in a great situation. It could even be a faith-based initiative.
There are competing rights, overlapping hypocrisies.
If we think of a world that over-emphasizes the right to choose, then we really are demeaning the concept of sanctity of a new life, especially in this materialistic, throw-away society.
If we have government intrude too fiercely in such a private decision, then we risk a loss of a very deep right, privacy.
No matter how hard each side demonizes the other, their arguments won't win me over to either side.
Talk about Solomon splitting the baby in the middle !!!
This truly is an issue with so many facets that neither side of the choose or not choose debate can have the right to demonize the other.
I think the ultimate solute is the continual debate, the continual re-assessing and re-updating ourselves on what is right and what is wrong on all the angles of this issue.
Process towers over solution.
If we think of a world that over-emphasizes the right to choose, then we really are demeaning the concept of sanctity of a new life, especially in this materialistic, throw-away society.
If we have government intrude too fiercely in such a private decision, then we risk a loss of a very deep right, privacy.
No matter how hard each side demonizes the other, their arguments won't win me over to either side.
Talk about Solomon splitting the baby in the middle !!!
This truly is an issue with so many facets that neither side of the choose or not choose debate can have the right to demonize the other.
I think the ultimate solute is the continual debate, the continual re-assessing and re-updating ourselves on what is right and what is wrong on all the angles of this issue.
Process towers over solution.
I agree with much of what you say. But I'm the one who normally will throw flack back when flack is dished out. In regards to the abortion subject, I understand that there are different sides.... for and against. And I am also aware that this is a debate that will never end, as we will never get a complete and absolute agreement on how it should be addressed.
And since an absolute answer can not be reached, then the decision should be left to the individuals who are involved directly in that decision, and allow their own morals to take importance. If you're aginst abortions, then you have your child..... you're still given the choice. If you require an abortion based on very serious reasons, such as health, or otherwise, then you can make the hard decision in having one..... but you're still given the choice.
^ In this manner, both sides still get to promote their arguments and still able to practice their own morals and beliefs..... those who believe you are right, will follow suit, and thus, you will either get more or less people on your side.... but at least it is fair.
To me personally, the abortion thing shouldn't even be an issue in the debate for who runs as president/vice, as it shouldn't be any of their business to impose their own personal morals onto everyone else in this matter.... because the solution isn't absolute.
Unfortunatly, the Republicans made it an issue, and they seem to be geared to try and change the laws to suit their side of the moral meter if they get into power.... and them making the decision for everyone else is what I directly oppose.
I myself may end up having a child in the near future.... I've already thought about it a while ago that I'm ready and perhaps willing to have a child when it comes that time..... I will most likely not pick abortion as an option..... but that doesn't mean I feel others shouldn't be given the right to choose for themselves.
So they created the flack on this subject, I will only counter what I read and hear in order to keep the debate balanced. I mean, if I and others like me kept our mouths shut on this, then gradually the other side would start being heard more, more people will think there's no problem in controlling other people's lives and privacy, and it may very well occur. I don't think it is right based on principles, that they shouldn't be playing around with this topic to get themselves a foot in the door.
Just to make things clear, I am strongly in favour of sex education, and easily accessible birth control.
I don't like abortion, but think there is a reasonable compromise, allowing abortion in early to mid-term, forbidding it when it is feasible the child could exist outside the womb.
I do understand the religious right's opposition to abortion.
I do not understand their opposition to birth control.
I lost my virginity when I was 16. I hung with a fairly rough crowd, and no, I didn't know a lot of 17 or 18 year old virgins..............I did like a lot the girls I hung with, I married one 32 years ago.
The word "****" is completely sexist, as there is no comparable description of a man.....
And no Avro, I don't get illogical, twisted thought.....
I don't like abortion, but think there is a reasonable compromise, allowing abortion in early to mid-term, forbidding it when it is feasible the child could exist outside the womb.
I do understand the religious right's opposition to abortion.
I do not understand their opposition to birth control.
I lost my virginity when I was 16. I hung with a fairly rough crowd, and no, I didn't know a lot of 17 or 18 year old virgins..............I did like a lot the girls I hung with, I married one 32 years ago.
The word "****" is completely sexist, as there is no comparable description of a man.....
And no Avro, I don't get illogical, twisted thought.....
Just make things clear....
I don't like abortion as a form of birth control but in cases of rape, mother's health and babies health I leave that up to the woman. However, if a guy doesn't want to take of his mistake then I'm sure why a mother needs the burden either.
I don't know any 17 year old virgins....I'm 38 and that is a stupid question to begin with.
Colpy, the right defend there own in a way they don't the left.
Hypocrisy, it's easy to understand, no matter how un-Bush you try to be you are still a Bu****e.....stop pretending.
Do I believe Plain is a bad mother or person.....nope.
But had she been a Democrat she would have been labeled just that by the right wing spin doctors.
HYPOCRISY!!!!!!
I don't like abortion as a form of birth control but in cases of rape, mother's health and babies health I leave that up to the woman. However, if a guy doesn't want to take of his mistake then I'm sure why a mother needs the burden either.
I don't know any 17 year old virgins....I'm 38 and that is a stupid question to begin with.
Colpy, the right defend there own in a way they don't the left.
Hypocrisy, it's easy to understand, no matter how un-Bush you try to be you are still a Bu****e.....stop pretending.
Do I believe Plain is a bad mother or person.....nope.
But had she been a Democrat she would have been labeled just that by the right wing spin doctors.
HYPOCRISY!!!!!!
Ah hypocrisy?
This from the guy who called a 17 year old a ****, you brought it up......
Try opening that dictionary again.
Fair enough... I was just explaining my position to your question about knowing any 17 year olds who were still virgins, and applying it to the rest of the debate in regards to the education, based on Palin's position of no sex before marriage, etc.
Colin Farrell and Adam Lavine from Maroon 5 have been dubbed "Man Whor*s".... and I've called a few men Sl*ts on numerous occasions.... I don't considder it sexist. One would have to believe in inequality for that to be true.
:roll:
Man, are you dumb.
For an intellectual elite you sure aren't to bright.
Here's a cute little linky for you, watch the show from sept 3.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/show/CTVShows/20031021/dailyshow-default/
Last edited:
I'm dumb?
You get your opinions straight from Jon Stewart, and I'm dumb?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
First of all Stewart is a rabid Democrat.
Second of all, as Stewart himself says, his show is entertainment, not news. He himself expresses dismay that people actually take him seriously, and don't seek serious news elsewhere.
Thirdly, obviously Stewart doesn't understand the word "hypocrisy" either. If you say you are against abortion, and don't get an abortion, you are not guilty of "hypocrisy".
Now, just to illustrate, O'Reilly and Rove are guilty of hypocrisy.....no surprize there.
Palin and her family are not.
You should actually seek your news and commentary somewhere else rather than the Daily Show, if you want to be taken seriously.