ExiledInIllinois Posted September 2, 2008 Posted September 2, 2008 The NY Daily News is reporting who the father of Bristol's baby is. Complete with picture. For principle's sake, I will not link to the story. I just wanted to point out that it took less than twenty-four freakin' hours to report the story, and find out who babydaddy is. It seems there is no right to privacy anymore. For anyone. For God's sake, I don't need to know about this story. Just as I didn't need to know that Britney wasn't wearing undies or that Miley Cyrus took some pics that she probably regrets already. We've become such a salacious nation. We want to know everyone else's business all the bleepin' time. A country of busybodies, like Gladys Kravitz on "Bewitched". This is too ugly for me. I'm signing off for the night. Couple that with a country of moral do gooders. Moral do gooders always like when someone falls from grace... It is a chance to get them onboard with their moral agenda. First they will beat you over the head with abstinence and the bible. Then when that fails, the rallying cry becomes: "Everybody makes mistakes, everybody has those days." Granted this reconciliation is agood thing... But, at what cost? Why don't some people just accept that others make mistakes and let it go... Why proselytize them into submission?
buckeyemike Posted September 2, 2008 Posted September 2, 2008 Couple that with a country of moral do gooders. Moral do gooders always like when someone falls from grace... It is a chance to get them onboard with their moral agenda. First they will beat you over the head with abstinence and the bible. Then when that fails, the rallying cry becomes: "Everybody makes mistakes, everybody has those days." Granted this reconciliation is agood thing... But, at what cost? Why don't some people just accept that others make mistakes and let it go... Why proselytize them into submission? I'm a Christian, and I hope my life backs up what I profess. I make a lot of mistakes, though. I'm actually harder on the moral do-gooders, because there is usually some skeleton in their closet. We all have them. This all started with Gary Hart...follow me, you'll be very bored. Oops, who's that hot blonde coming out of your townhouse? Abstinence is best, but birth control should always be available. Since I'm pro-life, I cannot support abortion.
Bmwolf21 Posted September 2, 2008 Posted September 2, 2008 This is too ugly for me. I'm signing off for the night. At least you can console yourself by watching highlights of Cliff's 20th win.
Taro T Posted September 2, 2008 Posted September 2, 2008 I've noticed a patter with you McCain defenders. You just want to change the subject to Obama. This person will be one heart beat away from the presidency if McCain win. And if Obama wins, he will be 0 heart beats away from the Presidency. Your point being?
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 2, 2008 Posted September 2, 2008 I'm a Christian, and I hope my life backs up what I profess. I make a lot of mistakes, though. I'm actually harder on the moral do-gooders, because there is usually some skeleton in their closet. We all have them. This all started with Gary Hart...follow me, you'll be very bored. Oops, who's that hot blonde coming out of your townhouse? Abstinence is best, but birth control should always be available. Since I'm pro-life, I cannot support abortion. You can be pro-life. Nobody is asking you to support abortion or not support abortion. You have your own life to live and the choices to make in that life... You shouldn't be involved in controlling somebody elses physical body.
mot_the_Hoople Posted September 2, 2008 Posted September 2, 2008 And if Obama wins, he will be 0 heart beats away from the Presidency. Your point being? Obama seems qualified to me and so far to the rest of America with running the country. If the polls are to be believed most americans are cool with it. This person from Alaska doesn't have that. And she has a whole bunch of other problems. Maybe she will prove herself in the debates and in interviews to the public.
Taro T Posted September 2, 2008 Posted September 2, 2008 Obama seems qualified to me and so far to the rest of America with running the country. If the polls are to be believed most americans are cool with it. This person from Alaska doesn't have that. And she has a whole bunch of other problems. Maybe she will prove herself in the debates and in interviews to the public. I have yet to see a poll where Obama is gaining 50+% in any poll, so your claim that "most Americans are cool with" him is a bit overstated currently. You are comfortable w/ him, and that is fine. He has a very thin resume (as does the Republican VP candidate as well) to date and it will be interesting watching the next 2 months as he makes his case that the thin resume (and very liberal policies) should not be a deal killer.
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 2, 2008 Posted September 2, 2008 I have yet to see a poll where Obama is gaining 50+% in any poll, so your claim that "most Americans are cool with" him is a bit overstated currently. You are comfortable w/ him, and that is fine. He has a very thin resume (as does the Republican VP candidate as well) to date and it will be interesting watching the next 2 months as he makes his case that the thin resume (and very liberal policies) should not be a deal killer. Most Americans are dumber than stumps... How else does Bush get in. McCain picking Palin is more of the same pandering down to the masses as Bush and Hillary are noted for.
Taro T Posted September 2, 2008 Posted September 2, 2008 Most Americans are dumber than stumps... How else does Bush get in. McCain picking Palin is more of the same pandering down to the masses as Bush and Hillary are noted for. Perhaps by the Dems nominating darn near the only people that the American public wanted in that office LESS than Bush?
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 2, 2008 Posted September 2, 2008 Perhaps by the Dems nominating darn near the only people that the American public wanted in that office LESS than Bush? And there is the word: American public. What you said is not true. It is about voting and who does it. You can't make the connection like you did. You should have said: The American voters wanted in that office LESS than Bush. Big difference. Fool Me Once, Fool Me Twice... We will see if they get fooled three times. Bets are, people get out and vote this time.
Taro T Posted September 2, 2008 Posted September 2, 2008 And there is the word: American public. What you said is not true. It is about voting and who does it. You can't make the connection like you did. You should have said: The American voters wanted in that office LESS than Bush. Big difference. Fool Me Once, Fool Me Twice... We will see if they get fooled three times. Bets are, people get out and vote this time. Huh? No offense, but if someone is too lazy or too indifferent to vote, their opinion on who should run the country really doesn't matter. A person that cares can get an absentee ballot if they won't be able to vote on that 1st Tuesday. There is no excuse to not vote other than being ignorant. That is a VERY valid reason to not vote, and I would hope that if a person is ignorant of the issues and the candidates that they don't vote. The Dems appear to be certain that they have a "slam dunk" this time. We'll find out if they are correct in ~2 months. I'm not sure that they thought it was a lock in 2000, but they sure seemed confident in '04. The Republicans self destructed in '06 and Pelosi and Reid have done very little w/ that since then; it looks like Pelosi and Reid will have larger majorities this time but the top spot appears to be a toss up right now. This is setting up a very interesting season.
Booster4324 Posted September 2, 2008 Posted September 2, 2008 As an ex democrat, I would love the absolute whining by the Republicans and so called kitty moderates that are really just hiding because they are afraid to be truthful. That last is you AD. Pity they are !@#$ing up the whole country as a result. Get out and vote for a 3rd party candidate. At least let the pieces of sh-- know that we know what they are up to. Jesus Christ, 16 year old daughters are a campaign issue now? Someone push the reset button please.
Alaska Darin Posted September 2, 2008 Posted September 2, 2008 It isn't going to change until we can break the two party system... And it is not happening now... So align yourself with who you like best out of the two. There is a difference where the money will go. No there isn't.
Alaska Darin Posted September 2, 2008 Posted September 2, 2008 As an ex democrat, I would love the absolute whining by the Republicans and so called kitty moderates that are really just hiding because they are afraid to be truthful. That last is you AD. Now I'm a moderate? Jesus, would you give it up already? What is this desperate need so many of you have to try and pidgeon hole everyone? Pity they are !@#$ing up the whole country as a result. Get out and vote for a 3rd party candidate. At least let the pieces of sh-- know that we know what they are up to. You mean like I've done my entire life?
PastaJoe Posted September 2, 2008 Posted September 2, 2008 I wonder what the reaction would have been if Obama had a 17 year old daughter in the same situation. Would the conservatives be so forgiving as they are with Palin, or would we be hearing about how this is what happens when liberal parents don't teach their kids proper values, and is this the kind of leadership Americans want for its children and education system, one that results in teen pregnancies? If they can't lead their own children, how can they lead the country? I'm just wondering.
JK2000 Posted September 2, 2008 Author Posted September 2, 2008 I wonder what the reaction would have been if Obama had a 17 year old daughter in the same situation. Would the conservatives be so forgiving as they are with Palin, or would we be hearing about how this is what happens when liberal parents don't teach their kids proper values, and is this the kind of leadership Americans want for its children and education system, one that results in teen pregnancies? If they can't lead their own children, how can they lead the country? I'm just wondering. What do you think? Obama so much as farts and the right wing goes berserk!
HelloNewman Posted September 2, 2008 Posted September 2, 2008 He has a very thin resume (as does the Republican VP candidate as well) to date and it will be interesting watching the next 2 months as he makes his case that the thin resume (and very liberal policies) should not be a deal killer. The only person who's resume is as thin as cheap toilet paper is McCain's eye candy of a running mate. His new campaign slogan should be "Whoops pregnant again!"
Gary M Posted September 2, 2008 Posted September 2, 2008 I'm not talking about the kid, I'm talking about the lackluster parenting skills by a woman being shoved down our throats as being qualified to become the Vice President of the United States. Fixed
Gary M Posted September 2, 2008 Posted September 2, 2008 Let's make a list of all the stuff Sarah Palin doesn't know- 1)What her teenage daughter is up to 2)What a VP's job entails 3)Anything about Iraq 4)Who the Pledge of Allegiance was written by That's just off the top of my head, feel free to add to the list. Thanks to Algore she can look them up on the internet.
John Adams Posted September 2, 2008 Posted September 2, 2008 I wonder what the reaction would have been if Obama had a 17 year old daughter in the same situation. Would the conservatives be so forgiving as they are with Palin, or would we be hearing about how this is what happens when liberal parents don't teach their kids proper values, and is this the kind of leadership Americans want for its children and education system, one that results in teen pregnancies? If they can't lead their own children, how can they lead the country? I'm just wondering. Idiots would be beating him up just like idiots are beating up Palin.
Recommended Posts