Palin talks straws, Reagan optimism

Johnny DooWop said:

Exactly. Palin is a very good speaker and a very intelligent woman. The media took like one or two mishaps during her very first interview when she started campaigning and slammed her for being stupid. Then they try to smash her because she only has a bachelors degree and went to several different state colleges and took 6 years to get it. Just because Hussein Obama went to Columbia University and then Harvard Law school, doesn't make him smarter than Palin. She believes in the constitution, she knows the terrorist threat we face everyday, she knows economies grow by cutting taxes for the wealthy because they create jobs, and most importantly, unlike our socialist president, she believes in freedom.

Click to expand...

you know what? she is intelligent.......but not at all learned. huge difference.

stealthy said:

I take it all you Einsteins have been elected CEO of a state?

Jealousy is so ugly.

Click to expand...

Exactly. The woman didn't become governor of Alaska by being stupid. There's like 698,000 people in Alaska, most people can't even manage their own families right.

Johnny DooWop said:

Exactly. The woman didn't become governor of Alaska by being stupid. There's like 698,000 people in Alaska, most people can't even manage their own families right.

Click to expand...

Kinda like advocating abstinense only education, then finding out your daughter got knocked up by the captain of the Hockey Team... :rofl I'm terrible.

Jetboogieman said:

Kinda like advocating abstinense only education, then finding out your daughter got knocked up by the captain of the Hockey Team... :rofl I'm terrible.

Click to expand...

Adversity doesn't make a person, it reveals them.

stealthy said:

Adversity doesn't make a person, it reveals them.

Click to expand...

Adversity also reveals the holes in one's logic (Theory proven to be true by the "abstinence / pregnancy" axiom). :mrgreen:

danarhea said:

Adversity also reveals the holes in one's logic (Theory proven to be true by the "abstinence / pregnancy" axiom). :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Oxymoron.

Pretty hateful too if you think about it.

stealthy said:

Adversity doesn't make a person, it reveals them.

Click to expand...

This. Kind of like people bashing Ed Schrock and Larry Craig for being homosexual while voting against rights for homosexuals. If you really think about it, they weren't hypocrites, they were so dedicated to the Republican party they put their allegiance to the party over their own sexual identities. That's not hypocritical, that's sacrafice.

EnigmaO01 said:

Yep it's the media's fault she's so ignorant. Got it! :roll:

Palin/Factual? Isn't that an oxymoron? :lamo

Click to expand...

It's not so much ignorance on her part (which is false just by my video...) but ignorance on the part of the media to paint a negative picture on her with false accusations (using ethic complaints as "evidence") with anonymous "sources" and you fragile ignorant brains who eat it up as truth. So, not so much her fault

Palin factual...no not an "oxymoron" but true to be the case most of the time...:lamo

danarhea said:

Adversity also reveals the holes in one's logic (Theory proven to be true by the "abstinence / pregnancy" axiom). :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Actually the issue with Bristol in no way "proves" that abstinence only is bad.

One, Bristol recieved safe sex education in school. How one could singularly put the blame on "abstinence only" education when she's had both is questionable.

Two, without evidence that the pregnancy wouldn't have happened had she NOT recieved abstinence only education the conclusion is rather worthless. The notion that typically irresponsible or short thinking teens are ALWAYS going to use a condomn is as naive as thinking they are ALWAYS going to abstain.

Mind you, this is coming from a guy who actually is against abstinence only education. But I can't believe the number of people who will willingly leap towards the use of fault and flawed logic simply to one, get a dig in on Palin, and two, trash policy they dislike.

With all this talk about how "stupid" Palin is, watching peoples responses to her and the logic holes they often use for the sake of belittling her leaves me wondering what higher ground they have to stand on at times.

Johnny DooWop said:

This. Kind of like people bashing Ed Schrock and Larry Craig for being homosexual while voting against rights for homosexuals. If you really think about it, they weren't hypocrites, they were so dedicated to the Republican party they put their allegiance to the party over their own sexual identities. That's not hypocritical, that's sacrafice.

Click to expand...

I don't even see it necessarily as an alleginace thing.

Since when do all homosexuals, all blacks, all whites, all poor, all rich, etc HAVE to vote a certain way or they're "traitors" to their people. Why is it somehow impossible or viewed as "wrong" to believe differently than others in your group for whatever reason it may be? Obviously in the case of Craig he was ashamed of his sexuality, felt it was a bad thing, and struggled with it...why else keep it a secret and skulk around anonymously in bathrooms. Does that sound like someone that, just because of his sexuality, would think gays should get married and it should be legitimized as "no less normal or standard or status quo then straight"? I would say no. Yet he's lambasted as a "hypocrite" for daring to think differently than other bi or homosexual people. Its becoming the equivilent of an "uncle tom".

Not that I have much sympathy or care for Larry Craig. But I think it creates a mentality and an atmosphere that hampers legitimate, outed, homosexuals that DARE to actually vote republican rather than Democrat or have a different view regarding homosexual rights as it immedietely also belittles and degrades them for the audacity not to engage in group think

Zyphlin said:

Actually the issue with Bristol in no way "proves" that abstinence only is bad.

One, Bristol recieved safe sex education in school. How one could singularly put the blame on "abstinence only" education when she's had both is questionable.

Two, without evidence that the pregnancy wouldn't have happened had she NOT recieved abstinence only education the conclusion is rather worthless. The notion that typically irresponsible or short thinking teens are ALWAYS going to use a condomn is as naive as thinking they are ALWAYS going to abstain.

Mind you, this is coming from a guy who actually is against abstinence only education. But I can't believe the number of people who will willingly leap towards the use of fault and flawed logic simply to one, get a dig in on Palin, and two, trash policy they dislike.

With all this talk about how "stupid" Palin is, watching peoples responses to her and the logic holes they often use for the sake of belittling her leaves me wondering what higher ground they have to stand on at times.

Click to expand...

Actually, my purpose was not to show anything wrong with either Sarah or Bristol Palin, in regard to the abstinence issue, although I believe that there is with Sarah (although I cannot say the same for Bristol). That Bristol Palin has had both safe sex and abstinence education is beside the point. Study after study has shown that abstinence only does not work.

Here is an article about the study that was concluded in 2007.

Here is a study by the AMA, concluded in 2009.

Here is what abstinence education did for Texas.

And, remarks about abstinence or not, Sarah Palin is still an utter moron, and any comparison of her to Ronald Reagan is laughable,

The bottom line on the abstinence issue is that, despite cast iron proof that it does not work, the "socical conservatives" (a term that is an oxymoron) still embrace it. Why? Because this is not about science, but about creating a wedge issue, and also looking for a reason for government to exert more control over the private lives of its citizens. Yes, in spite of them, I still support the Tea Party (although not the Tea Party Express), but I find it quite curious that some who claim that they want less government control over our lives would embrace the government forcing abstinence education on its citizens.

Although I still strongly feel that Palin is an idiot, I will grant that she did allow her daughter to also take safe sex classes. That does show some balance on this particual issue. So, to those who call them Social Conservatives, how about this? Allow both safe sex and abstinence only education classes in schools, and let the parents decide which one (or both), to send their kids to. That seems like a solution that gets the government off the backs of the parents, while allowing parents the individual freedom and acceptance of responsibility that is a cornerstone of Conservatism.

danarhea said:

Actually, my purpose was not to show anything wrong with either Sarah or Bristol Palin, in regard to the abstinence issue, although I believe that there is with Sarah (although I cannot say the same for Bristol). That Palin has had both safe sex and abstinence education is beside the point. Study after study has shown that abstinence only does not work.

Here is an article about the study that was concluded in 2007.

Here is a study by the AMA, concluded in 2009.

Here is what abstinence education did for Texas.

Click to expand...

Which are all great and good and legitimate.

However, you bucked all that and attempted to just make a specious and illogical attack at Palin by suggesting that there was some kind of correlation between the type of education regarding sex that Palin pushed for for her Daughter and the fact Bristol got pregnant.

And, remarks about abstinence or not, Sarah Palin is still an utter moron, and any comparison of her to Ronald Reagan is laughable,

Click to expand...

Actually, there are a number of legitimate ways to compare her favorably to Ronald Reagan. Reagan also wasn't thought of during his time as the brighest of bulbs either. I'm not saying Sarah Palin = Ronald Reagan but its ridiculous to suggest its impossible to compare htem in some ways.

I also wonder greatly in regards to your definition of what a "total moron" is. To me this strikes me greatly like people pointing at certain movie stars and saying they're "ugly".

The bottom line on the abstinence issue is that, despite cast iron proof that it does not work, the "socical conservatives" (a term that is an oxymoron) still embrace it.

Click to expand...

How in the world can you have a thread where you're continually fellating Reagan and then throw out a statement like this.

You realize that Reagan WAS that "oxymoron"?

Why? Because this is not about science, but about creating a wedge issue, and also looking for a reason for government to exert more control over the private lives of its citizens. Yes, in spite of them, I still support the Tea Party (although not the Tea Party Express), but I find it quite curious that some who claim that they want less government control over our lives would embrace the government forcing abstinence education on its citizens.

Click to expand...

Agree completely with most of these points. However again, having rational and logical reasons to be opposed to something doesn't excuse throwing a poor argument out simply to attack, as it actually makes your position look weaker.

Although I still strongly feel that Palin is an idiot, I will grant that she did allow her daughter to also take safe sex classes. That does show some balance on this particual issue. So, to those who call them Social Conservatives, how about this? Allow both safe sex and abstinence only education classes in schools, and let the parents decide which one (or both), to send their kids to. That seems like a solution that gets the government off the backs of the parents, while allowing parents the individual freedom that is a cornerstone of Conservatism.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting option, though probably a more costly one. Me personally? I'd rather see a class that encourages and promotes abstinence as the only 100% safe means while simultaneously also informing them of the risks of sex in an actual realistic instead of hyperbolic measure and other means, such as condoms, to reduce them if you choose to engage in the risks.

I don't see ANYTHING wrong with encouraging and promoting abstinence as a choice for young people, and pointing out it is the only 100% safe means of preventing pregnancy or STD's. I do have issues however when you push this by using hyperbolic or exaggerated risks, or when you don't teach alternatives incase a student DOESN'T engage in abstinence.

I don't see a reason it needs to be one or the other...either ALL abstinence all the time, or promoting that its perfectly fine and natural and okay for teens to be bumping uglies and just slap a condom on it and it'll be fine.

Zyphlin said:

I don't even see it necessarily as an alleginace thing.

Since when do all homosexuals, all blacks, all whites, all poor, all rich, etc HAVE to vote a certain way or they're "traitors" to their people. Why is it somehow impossible or viewed as "wrong" to believe differently than others in your group for whatever reason it may be? Obviously in the case of Craig he was ashamed of his sexuality, felt it was a bad thing, and struggled with it...why else keep it a secret and skulk around anonymously in bathrooms. Does that sound like someone that, just because of his sexuality, would think gays should get married and it should be legitimized as "no less normal or standard or status quo then straight"? I would say no. Yet he's lambasted as a "hypocrite" for daring to think differently than other bi or homosexual people. Its becoming the equivilent of an "uncle tom".

Not that I have much sympathy or care for Larry Craig. But I think it creates a mentality and an atmosphere that hampers legitimate, outed, homosexuals that DARE to actually vote republican rather than Democrat or have a different view regarding homosexual rights as it immedietely also belittles and degrades them for the audacity not to engage in group think

Click to expand...

Very good point. I don't understand why these liberals think people can't be homosexual and yet still be conservatives. If they vote conservatively on anti-gay policies, they claim they are "hypocrites". NO, they are just true conservatives. I'm sure if there were black politicians in congress in the 50s and 60s, some of them would have voted against the civil rights movement (at least the conservative ones). And I'm sure liberals would have said "they are hypocrites". Why can't they just be conservatives?

EnigmaO01 said:

What people see in her I can't imagine. Not only does she make totally ignorant statements, her sharp tongue combined with those ignorant statements is appalling. Who can forget her, "Obama pals around with terrorists" statement.

Click to expand...

the same people who overlooked killer trees from Reagan

all of the Criticisms of Palin (she's too stupid, she's extreme, etc) were the criticisms Reagan was getting 1978-time-frame. there is plenty there for comparison.

Obama may not have had the qualifications some wanted for a CIC, but at least he's got a brain in his head, and isn't into the personal attacks to gain stature

Click to expand...

um what? this would be the bring a gun to the fight to punish your enemies guy, right?

McCain2012 said:

Very good point. I don't understand why these liberals think people can't be homosexual and yet still be conservatives. If they vote conservatively on anti-gay policies, they claim they are "hypocrites". NO, they are just true conservatives. I'm sure if there were black politicians in congress in the 50s and 60s, some of them would have voted against the civil rights movement (at least the conservative ones). And I'm sure liberals would have said "they are hypocrites". Why can't they just be conservatives?

Click to expand...

it's because liberals tend to judge you on what you are, and conservatives tend to judge you on who you are.

cpwill said:

it's because liberals tend to judge you on what you are, and conservatives tend to judge you on who you are.

Click to expand...

Bull****..