Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Ignoramus32074 wrote:
In light of the latest news, I started wondering why did Sarah Palin
suddenly elope with her husband and started googling for "track palin"
"born on". And I found something interesting.

Sarah Palin's son, Track Palin, was born on April 20, 1989.

http://www.alan.com/2008/08/29/conse...family-values/

Sarah married her husband on August 29, 1988.

Doing a simple math and making some assumptions, it becomes instantly
obvious why they actually "eloped". They eloped because Sarah was
pregnant for about a month as of the day of their wedding.


Yawn. Get a life.


Aaaahhh, those wonderful Republican family values.

--
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...
Ignoramus32074 wrote:
In light of the latest news, I started wondering why did Sarah Palin
suddenly elope with her husband and started googling for "track palin"
"born on". And I found something interesting.

Sarah Palin's son, Track Palin, was born on April 20, 1989.

http://www.alan.com/2008/08/29/conse...family-values/

Sarah married her husband on August 29, 1988.

Doing a simple math and making some assumptions, it becomes instantly
obvious why they actually "eloped". They eloped because Sarah was
pregnant for about a month as of the day of their wedding.

Yawn. Get a life.
Exactly. Iggy doesn't seem to get it. "Family values" are things that social
conservatives prescribe for *other* people. It doesn't apply to them. Jesus
loves them and they've been saved. It doesn't matter what they do.


No Ed. This has been happening since the beginning of mankind, in
both poor and rich families. You can do your best to educate a child,
but you can't live their lives for them.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of your attitude. You are no better than
anyone else on the planet, no matter what their faults may be but you,
like several others around here can't help but pass judgment on every
one of them. Don't tell me you've never made a mistake in your life,
and I don't believe you have ever walked on water.



Oh I'm sure he has made his share of mistakes. However, he doesn't go
around preaching "Family Values", like the Foleys, and the Craigs.

In case of Family Values, passing judgment is a Republican prerogative.

--
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

Jim Chandler wrote:
Ignoramus32074 wrote:
In light of the latest news, I started wondering why did Sarah Palin
suddenly elope with her husband and started googling for "track palin"
"born on". And I found something interesting.

Sarah Palin's son, Track Palin, was born on April 20, 1989.
http://www.alan.com/2008/08/29/conse...family-values/

Sarah married her husband on August 29, 1988.
Doing a simple math and making some assumptions, it becomes instantly
obvious why they actually "eloped". They eloped because Sarah was
pregnant for about a month as of the day of their wedding.



Or their son was a bit early. That is pretty close to eight months and
pregnancy isn't regulated by a time schedule. the nine month thing is
an average, nothing more. And so what if she was getting boned before
she got married. I don't think the Republicans hold that against anybody.


Oh yes they do, especially if the person in question happens to be a
Democrat running for elected office.

--
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

Abrasha wrote:

Oh I'm sure he has made his share of mistakes. However, he doesn't go
around preaching "Family Values", like the Foleys, and the Craigs.

In case of Family Values, passing judgment is a Republican prerogative.


Feel free to come back if you ever have anything worth posting.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

Keep something else in mind.

The guy, who got Sarah's daughter pregnant, is a real loser, by all
accounts. (see a separate post that I made about his myspace page,
looking for dating, and general illiteracy and so on)

I cannot possibly believe that Sarah and her husband do not realize
this as well.

Sarah is insisting that they get married. This leaves two
possibilities.

One is that she is lying and does not anticipate that they eventually
marry. That would be the better of two.

Another possibility is that she is serious and wants her daughter to
marry this turd, just to get conservative votes for herself.

If I had a daughter pregnant froma guy like this, I definitely would
not be running around demanding that they marry, that's for sure.
--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

On Sep 2, 8:33*pm, "Mark Dunning" wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message

...







"Steve W." wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Jim Chandler" wrote in message
news:8FZuk.282$393.31@trnddc05...
Ignoramus32074 wrote:
In light of the latest news, I started wondering why did Sarah Palin
suddenly elope with her husband and started googling for "track palin"
"born on". And I found something interesting.

Sarah Palin's son, Track Palin, was born on April 20, 1989.
http://www.alan.com/2008/08/29/conse...family-values/

Sarah married her husband on August 29, 1988. Doing a simple math and
making some assumptions, it becomes instantly
obvious why they actually "eloped". They eloped because Sarah was
pregnant for about a month as of the day of their wedding.

Or their son was a bit early. *That is pretty close to eight months and
pregnancy isn't regulated by a time schedule. *the nine month thing is
an average, nothing more. *And so what if she was getting boned before
she got married. *I don't think the Republicans hold that against
anybody.

pituieee! You can bet your ass they would if she was a Democrat.

--
Ed Huntress

BULL

No bull. Truth, and you know it.

Here is the REAL question. What did she and the father of the child do
after she discovered she was pregnant? They got married.

No, HERE's the real question. What are people who consider themselves
family-values conservatives doing shrugging off the daughter's pregnancy?
Aren't these the same people who tell everyone else to abstain before
marriage?

Aren't they the ones who blast Democrats for promoting sex education and
condom use? Or do these people change color like chameleons when the shoe
is on one of their feet?

You can bet they'd be raising hell right now if she was a Democrat. I
doubt if even you have enough bull**** in you to convince anyone here
otherwise.

Shrugging off?!? *It ain't any of our business.
Actually, the young people are doing the "right thing" and getting married.

I don't think that two 17-year olds have any business raising a
child. But what amazes me
is that no one is mentioning the alternative: adoption. That's good
for everyone: the baby,
the birth parents, and the adoptive parents that are presumably better
able to handle raising
a child.

Pre martital sex is now taboo in the eyes of the Left but extra marital sex
by politicians is forgivable?!?

Nice strawman.

The foaming rabid lefties (MSM included) are searching so hard to find
something wrong with this fine experienced (and Washington outsider)
candidate..........and finding squat.

Y'all embrace the "Change" candidate that picks the longest serving senator
to help him "change"

And when the R party gets a "honest" *breath of fresh air as a running mate-
it's a scramble to rake as much irrelevant muck as possible.

Y'all should be ashamed.

Mark

----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.pronews.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Sep 3, 8:21*am, Ignoramus27629 ignoramus27...@NOSPAM.
27629.invalid wrote:
Keep something else in mind.

The guy, who got Sarah's daughter pregnant, is a real loser, by all
accounts. (see a separate post that I made about his myspace page,
looking for dating, and general illiteracy and so on)

I cannot possibly believe that Sarah and her husband do not realize
this as well.

I bet they do, and if I was the dad I'd be hopping mad at this guy...
but heck, I'm a father of daughters so I'm biased.

Sarah is insisting that they get married. This leaves two
possibilities.

One is that she is lying and does not anticipate that they eventually
marry. That would be the better of two.

Another possibility is that she is serious and wants her daughter to
marry this turd, just to get conservative votes for herself.

If I had a daughter pregnant froma guy like this, I definitely would
not be running around demanding that they marry, that's for sure.

In all seriousness, why don't they put the child up for adoption?
That's really
the best option.

--
* *Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
* * * to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
* * * *from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
* * * * *more readers you will need to find a different means of
* * * * * * * * * * * *posting on Usenet.
* * * * * * * * * *http://improve-usenet.org/

On Sep 2, 3:42*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:52:27 -0500, Ignoramus2176





wrote:
On 2008-09-02, John R. Carroll jcarroll@ubu wrote:
Ignoramus2176 wrote:
Apparently, the dad is a self described 17 year old redneck.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09012008...palin_admits_h....

Here's his MySpace page, possibly edited afterwards:

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm...ewprofile&frie....

Some earlier quotes from it:

``"I'm a f**kin' redneck who likes to snowboard and ride dirt
bikes. But I live to play hockey. I like to go camping and hang out
with the boys, do some fishing, shoot some sh*t and just f**kin'
chillin' I guess. Ya f*ck with me I'll kick ass."

Here's what this guy is looking for right now:

``Who I'd like to meet: Anybody... for networking or for dating.''

I pulled it right off his page 5 minutes ago. I was kind of surprised
about his dating interests.

If I was in Sarah Palin's shoes, am not sure if I would push my
daughter too hard to marry that guy.

You'd have bigger problems than that if your wife caught you in Sarah
Palin's shoes Ig.

Good point! I would rather have a compressor hose up my ass than to be
caught by my wife in Sarah Palin's shows...

Better her shoes, than her lingere......

I think Sarah Palin, however, would look great in lingerie ;-)

"Confiscating wealth from those who have earned it, inherited it,
*or got lucky is never going to help 'the poor.' Poverty isn't
*caused by some people having more money than others, just as obesity
isn't caused by McDonald's serving super-sized orders of French fries
Poverty, like obesity, is caused by the life choices that dictate
results." - John Tucci,- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Sep 2, 5:42*pm, Jim Chandler wrote:
Hawke wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Bud" wrote in message
. ..

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 15:53:07 -0500, Ignoramus32074
wrote:

In light of the latest news, I started wondering why did Sarah Palin
suddenly elope with her husband and started googling for "track palin"
"born on". And I found something interesting.

Sarah Palin's son, Track Palin, was born on April 20, 1989.

http://www.alan.com/2008/08/29/conse...family-values/

Sarah married her husband on August 29, 1988.

Doing a simple math and making some assumptions, it becomes instantly
obvious why they actually "eloped". They eloped because Sarah was
pregnant for about a month as of the day of their wedding.

It looks like that's the order of things in Alaska, if it was good
enough for Jesus' Mom it's good enough for a US VP.

Holy cripes, it was an immaculate conception?

Not hardly. It is just the same old same old. Hypocrisy from the party of
"values". Clearly, it runs in the Palin family to engage in premarital sex.
But isn't abstaining from sex until after marrying what the republican party
preaches all the time? It's just more of the family values that republicans
like to profess to putting great store in but in reality pay no attention to
in their own lives. We believe in this but we do the opposite. Yep, that
about sums up what republicans are all about. It's a grand party all right.
Grand hypocrites they are.

Hawke

Yeah, like Pretty Boy Edwards, who had an extra-marital sex with a
staffer while his wife was/is terminally ill with cancer then had the
timerity to lie about it.

As did Gingrich, etc. etc. It's not a party line sin.

At least the good Governor brought it out in
the open. *So what if she and/or her daughter had pre-marital sex. *If
you check with the average American I'd bet that more than 80% of them,
on both sides, have. *I saw on one of the "news" channels this morning
that Governor Palins husband had a DUI arrest in 1986! *?What the ****
does that have to do with ANYTHING except be another piece of left wing
crap slung by the left leaning (leaning so far that they're about to
fall over) media hoping that something will stick. *Let's face it folks,
if you're in politics you're pretty much a liar and hypocrit regardless
of party affiliation. *

My point, exactly. So why are you confining your comments to the
"left wing"?

A friend sent me an email today that defined
hypocracy. *It said that John edwards was banned from making a speech at
the DNC for having an affair and lieing about it. *Bill Clinton spoke in
his place.

Jim- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

wrote: In all seriousness, why don't they put the
child up for adoption?
That's really
the best option.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yeah? Who would want to adopt a pregnant seventeen year old?

Leo Lichtman wrote:

wrote: In all seriousness, why don't they put the
child up for adoption?
That's really
the best option.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yeah? Who would want to adopt a pregnant seventeen year old?


Iggy?


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

On 2008-09-03, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Leo Lichtman wrote:

wrote: In all seriousness, why don't they put the
child up for adoption?
That's really
the best option.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yeah? Who would want to adopt a pregnant seventeen year old?


Iggy?

I was accidentally thinking about the same thing...
--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

That MIGHT be true. It Might be false. I suppose you are a doctor
and know the exact dates and lengths and of first, middle, and last babies.

And frankly, who cares. You support bad films on the air don't you M.A.T.
don't you ? Being a Liberal, you believe in all sorts of liberal ideas.

Martin

Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/


Abrasha wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Ignoramus32074 wrote:
In light of the latest news, I started wondering why did Sarah Palin
suddenly elope with her husband and started googling for "track palin"
"born on". And I found something interesting.

Sarah Palin's son, Track Palin, was born on April 20, 1989.

http://www.alan.com/2008/08/29/conse...family-values/

Sarah married her husband on August 29, 1988.

Doing a simple math and making some assumptions, it becomes instantly
obvious why they actually "eloped". They eloped because Sarah was
pregnant for about a month as of the day of their wedding.


Yawn. Get a life.


Aaaahhh, those wonderful Republican family values.



----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Shrugging off?!? It ain't any of our business.
Actually, the young people are doing the "right thing" and getting
married.

Pre martital sex is now taboo in the eyes of the Left but extra marital
sex
by politicians is forgivable?!?

The foaming rabid lefties (MSM included) are searching so hard to find
something wrong with this fine experienced (and Washington outsider)
candidate..........and finding squat.

Y'all embrace the "Change" candidate that picks the longest serving
senator
to help him "change"

And when the R party gets a "honest" breath of fresh air as a running
mate-
it's a scramble to rake as much irrelevant muck as possible.

Y'all should be ashamed.

Mark

BRAVO!

Hear Hear!!!


Ya ha ha ha. It's sure fun to see all you right wingers squirming. But what
the hell, all that is happening is that you people are getting the same
thing you always do to Democrats. In the immortal words of Karl Rove, "She's
fair game". So you get the same thing that you have been doing for years now
and boy I see you sure do hate getting back what you have been throwing out.
Family foul ups by politicians have never been off limits. In this case you
have a family that is supposedly a paragon of virtue and an example of
wonderful family values. Then you have one of the members having sex at
sixteen and getting knocked up and that is now of no importance and nobody's
business? Who are you kidding? That may be true unless the mother is the
potential VP.
I hear all day long about the decline of values in our country and children
born out of wedlock is one of the main reasons for it. Except when it's the
family of a republican candidate? Sorry, you hypocrites. Whether it's Bill
Clinton's brother or Jimmy Carter's brother or anyone else that fouls up it
reflects badly on the family. If you think having a teenager getting
pregnant isn't a reflection on this family you're full of ****. And having
an irresponsible teenage boy marry the girl is pretty damn stupid too. What
are the chances that will be a successful marriage? Slim and none. You folks
just have to face up to the truth for once. This is a big screw up for the
Palin family not a moment for pride. Every screw up affects the whole
family. This one is important and it looks bad for Palin. Too bad you don't
like it, but that's tough.

Hawke

"Abrasha" wrote in message
...
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...
Ignoramus32074 wrote:
In light of the latest news, I started wondering why did Sarah Palin
suddenly elope with her husband and started googling for "track
palin"
"born on". And I found something interesting.

Sarah Palin's son, Track Palin, was born on April 20, 1989.

http://www.alan.com/2008/08/29/conse...family-values/

Sarah married her husband on August 29, 1988.

Doing a simple math and making some assumptions, it becomes instantly
obvious why they actually "eloped". They eloped because Sarah was
pregnant for about a month as of the day of their wedding.

Yawn. Get a life.
Exactly. Iggy doesn't seem to get it. "Family values" are things that
social
conservatives prescribe for *other* people. It doesn't apply to them.
Jesus
loves them and they've been saved. It doesn't matter what they do.


No Ed. This has been happening since the beginning of mankind, in
both poor and rich families. You can do your best to educate a child,
but you can't live their lives for them.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of your attitude. You are no better than
anyone else on the planet, no matter what their faults may be but you,
like several others around here can't help but pass judgment on every
one of them. Don't tell me you've never made a mistake in your life,
and I don't believe you have ever walked on water.



Oh I'm sure he has made his share of mistakes. However, he doesn't go
around preaching "Family Values", like the Foleys, and the Craigs.

In case of Family Values, passing judgment is a Republican prerogative.


That's true but then there is the other side of that coin; not living up to
the values you tell everyone are so important to you.

Hawke

In light of the latest news, I started wondering why did Sarah Palin
suddenly elope with her husband and started googling for "track palin"
"born on". And I found something interesting.

Sarah Palin's son, Track Palin, was born on April 20, 1989.

http://www.alan.com/2008/08/29/conse...family-values/

Sarah married her husband on August 29, 1988.

Doing a simple math and making some assumptions, it becomes instantly
obvious why they actually "eloped". They eloped because Sarah was
pregnant for about a month as of the day of their wedding.

It looks like that's the order of things in Alaska, if it was good
enough for Jesus' Mom it's good enough for a US VP.

Holy cripes, it was an immaculate conception?

Not hardly. It is just the same old same old. Hypocrisy from the party
of
"values". Clearly, it runs in the Palin family to engage in premarital
sex.
But isn't abstaining from sex until after marrying what the republican
party
preaches all the time? It's just more of the family values that
republicans
like to profess to putting great store in but in reality pay no
attention to
in their own lives. We believe in this but we do the opposite. Yep, that
about sums up what republicans are all about. It's a grand party all
right.
Grand hypocrites they are.

Hawke

Yeah, like Pretty Boy Edwards, who had an extra-marital sex with a
staffer while his wife was/is terminally ill with cancer then had the
timerity to lie about it.

As did Gingrich, etc. etc. It's not a party line sin.

At least the good Governor brought it out in
the open. So what if she and/or her daughter had pre-marital sex. If
you check with the average American I'd bet that more than 80% of them,
on both sides, have. I saw on one of the "news" channels this morning
that Governor Palins husband had a DUI arrest in 1986! ?What the ****
does that have to do with ANYTHING except be another piece of left wing
crap slung by the left leaning (leaning so far that they're about to
fall over) media hoping that something will stick. Let's face it folks,
if you're in politics you're pretty much a liar and hypocrit regardless
of party affiliation.

My point, exactly. So why are you confining your comments to the
"left wing"?


Because he belongs to the right wing and only sees the wrongs on the
Democrat's side. For instance, he says what did Palin's husband's DUI arrest
in 1986 have to do with anything. I would remind them that they brought up
Bill Clinton's pot smoking when he was in college and in Europe to boot.
What did that have to do with anything? So here you have the right wing
going all the way back to Clinton's college days to find a fault with him
but when the same thing is done to them he's outraged. It's the same with
the Swift Boating of John Kerry. If the Democrats start a campaign to make
McCain's wartime actions look bad will he complain about it? Of course. They
just don't get it that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
They have done every dirty trick in the book to try to get elected and when
the same things are used against them they cry and whine. To me when I hear
the republicans crying about how dirty the Democrats are it just tells me
they are getting some of their own medicine. They're just a bunch of god
damn babies.

Hawke

"Ignoramus27629" wrote in message
...
On 2008-09-03, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Leo Lichtman wrote:

wrote: In all seriousness, why don't they put
the
child up for adoption?
That's really
the best option.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yeah? Who would want to adopt a pregnant seventeen year old?


Iggy?

I was accidentally thinking about the same thing...


I was thinking that I wouldn't want to adopt a pregnant seventeen year old
but I would like to impregnate one. As long as she was good looking.

Hawke

Jim Chandler wrote in news:WZnvk.372$1a2.101@trnddc04:

William Noble wrote:
hey guys, don't you think that there is some right to privacy here?
Without regard to your political ideology, the govenor's daughter is
not running for office, so unless her behavior provides material for
blackmail or other leverage against the govenor, don't you think
that this should be a family matter




** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **


Not in the feeble minds of the disaster/sleaze story purveying media.

Jim


well, leaving feeble minded media aside, I was suggesting in my own
humble way to leave the girl alone - aren't we, the neurologically
endowed denizens of this NG, mature enough to allow the young lady to
grow up before she gets dragged under the wheels of one or another
political machine?



** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **


I agree. Now if we can just get the rat ******* media assholes to do
the same. Good Morning America spent not less than TEN MINUTES on the
subject this morning. I'm starting to get sick of ABC.

Jim


"Inside Edition" on ABC spent their entire program slot on the Palin
family, including interviews of both Sarah's and Todd's parents.

I expect even more to come.

On 2008-09-04, Hawke wrote:


In light of the latest news, I started wondering why did Sarah Palin
suddenly elope with her husband and started googling for "track palin"
"born on". And I found something interesting.

Sarah Palin's son, Track Palin, was born on April 20, 1989.

http://www.alan.com/2008/08/29/conse...family-values/

Sarah married her husband on August 29, 1988.

Doing a simple math and making some assumptions, it becomes instantly
obvious why they actually "eloped". They eloped because Sarah was
pregnant for about a month as of the day of their wedding.

It looks like that's the order of things in Alaska, if it was good
enough for Jesus' Mom it's good enough for a US VP.

Holy cripes, it was an immaculate conception?

Not hardly. It is just the same old same old. Hypocrisy from the party
of
"values". Clearly, it runs in the Palin family to engage in premarital
sex.
But isn't abstaining from sex until after marrying what the republican
party
preaches all the time? It's just more of the family values that
republicans
like to profess to putting great store in but in reality pay no
attention to
in their own lives. We believe in this but we do the opposite. Yep, that
about sums up what republicans are all about. It's a grand party all
right.
Grand hypocrites they are.

Hawke

Yeah, like Pretty Boy Edwards, who had an extra-marital sex with a
staffer while his wife was/is terminally ill with cancer then had the
timerity to lie about it.

As did Gingrich, etc. etc. It's not a party line sin.

Read on what McCain did to his first wife.

i

At least the good Governor brought it out in
the open. So what if she and/or her daughter had pre-marital sex. If
you check with the average American I'd bet that more than 80% of them,
on both sides, have. I saw on one of the "news" channels this morning
that Governor Palins husband had a DUI arrest in 1986! ?What the ****
does that have to do with ANYTHING except be another piece of left wing
crap slung by the left leaning (leaning so far that they're about to
fall over) media hoping that something will stick. Let's face it folks,
if you're in politics you're pretty much a liar and hypocrit regardless
of party affiliation.

My point, exactly. So why are you confining your comments to the
"left wing"?


Because he belongs to the right wing and only sees the wrongs on the
Democrat's side. For instance, he says what did Palin's husband's DUI arrest
in 1986 have to do with anything. I would remind them that they brought up
Bill Clinton's pot smoking when he was in college and in Europe to boot.
What did that have to do with anything? So here you have the right wing
going all the way back to Clinton's college days to find a fault with him
but when the same thing is done to them he's outraged. It's the same with
the Swift Boating of John Kerry. If the Democrats start a campaign to make
McCain's wartime actions look bad will he complain about it? Of course. They
just don't get it that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
They have done every dirty trick in the book to try to get elected and when
the same things are used against them they cry and whine. To me when I hear
the republicans crying about how dirty the Democrats are it just tells me
they are getting some of their own medicine. They're just a bunch of god
damn babies.

Hawke



--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote:

That MIGHT be true. It Might be false. I suppose you are a doctor
and know the exact dates and lengths and of first, middle, and last babies.

And frankly, who cares. You support bad films on the air don't you M.A.T.
don't you ? Being a Liberal, you believe in all sorts of liberal ideas.



Liberal? Are you blind, or just stupid? Not only am I for the death
penalty, I think their sleazy lawyers should be strapped in their laps
when they flip the switch. Forget 'three strikes' laws. Third
conviction is a death penalty for violent criminals. Liberals make me
want to puke, but even worse are idiots who spout nonsense, nonstop.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

On Sep 3, 6:04*pm, "Leo Lichtman" wrote:
wrote: *In all seriousness, why don't they put the

child up for adoption?
That's really
the best option.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yeah? *Who would want to adopt a pregnant seventeen year old?

;-) Okay, fair enough. As far as a 17-year old girl, though,
unfortunately
I could think of some very sick people who would want to adopt her.

On Sep 4, 2:07*am, "Hawke" wrote:
In light of the latest news, I started wondering why did Sarah Palin
suddenly elope with her husband and started googling for "track palin"
"born on". And I found something interesting.

Sarah Palin's son, Track Palin, was born on April 20, 1989.

http://www.alan.com/2008/08/29/conse...family-values/

Sarah married her husband on August 29, 1988.

Doing a simple math and making some assumptions, it becomes instantly
obvious why they actually "eloped". They eloped because Sarah was
pregnant for about a month as of the day of their wedding.

It looks like that's the order of things in Alaska, if it was good
enough for Jesus' Mom it's good enough for a US VP.

Holy cripes, it was an immaculate conception?

Not hardly. It is just the same old same old. Hypocrisy from the party
of
"values". Clearly, it runs in the Palin family to engage in premarital
sex.
But isn't abstaining from sex until after marrying what the republican
party
preaches all the time? It's just more of the family values that
republicans
like to profess to putting great store in but in reality pay no
attention to
in their own lives. We believe in this but we do the opposite. Yep, that
about sums up what republicans are all about. It's a grand party all
right.
Grand hypocrites they are.

Hawke

Yeah, like Pretty Boy Edwards, who had an extra-marital sex with a
staffer while his wife was/is terminally ill with cancer then had the
timerity to lie about it.

As did Gingrich, etc. etc. *It's not a party line sin.

At least the good Governor brought it out in
the open. So what if she and/or her daughter had pre-marital sex. If
you check with the average American I'd bet that more than 80% of them,
on both sides, have. I saw on one of the "news" channels this morning
that Governor Palins husband had a DUI arrest in 1986! ?What the ****
does that have to do with ANYTHING except be another piece of left wing
crap slung by the left leaning (leaning so far that they're about to
fall over) media hoping that something will stick. Let's face it folks,
if you're in politics you're pretty much a liar and hypocrit regardless
of party affiliation.

My point, exactly. *So why are you confining your comments to the
"left wing"?

Because he belongs to the right wing and only sees the wrongs on the
Democrat's side. For instance, he says what did Palin's husband's DUI arrest
in 1986 have to do with anything. I would remind them that they brought up
Bill Clinton's pot smoking when he was in college and in Europe to boot.
What did that have to do with anything?

In both cases, nothing at all. Even George Bush's DUI may be
irrelevant.

So here you have the right wing
going all the way back to Clinton's college days to find a fault with him
but when the same thing is done to them he's outraged. It's the same with
the Swift Boating of John Kerry. If the Democrats start a campaign to make
McCain's wartime actions look bad will he complain about it?

Actually, didn't Rove start a rumor that McCain was a bit unhinged
from his
(McCain's) POW days? Didn't it turn the Republican primary to Bush in
2000?

Of course. They
just don't get it that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
They have done every dirty trick in the book to try to get elected and when
the same things are used against them they cry and whine. To me when I hear
the republicans crying about how dirty the Democrats are it just tells me
they are getting some of their own medicine. They're just a bunch of god
damn babies.

Go ahead and say how you really feel about this ;-)

Hawke- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...
Ignoramus32074 wrote:
In light of the latest news, I started wondering why did Sarah Palin
suddenly elope with her husband and started googling for "track palin"
"born on". And I found something interesting.

Sarah Palin's son, Track Palin, was born on April 20, 1989.

http://www.alan.com/2008/08/29/conse...family-values/

Sarah married her husband on August 29, 1988.

Doing a simple math and making some assumptions, it becomes instantly
obvious why they actually "eloped". They eloped because Sarah was
pregnant for about a month as of the day of their wedding.

Yawn. Get a life.
Exactly. Iggy doesn't seem to get it. "Family values" are things that social
conservatives prescribe for *other* people. It doesn't apply to them. Jesus
loves them and they've been saved. It doesn't matter what they do.


No Ed. This has been happening since the beginning of mankind, in
both poor and rich families. You can do your best to educate a child,
but you can't live their lives for them.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of your attitude. You are no better than
anyone else on the planet, no matter what their faults may be but you,
like several others around here can't help but pass judgment on every
one of them. Don't tell me you've never made a mistake in your life,
and I don't believe you have ever walked on water.

Apparently he's never had a headstrong teenage daughter either.
You do your best, and you help them deal with the consequences of their
bad decisions

RB wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...
Ignoramus32074 wrote:
In light of the latest news, I started wondering why did Sarah Palin
suddenly elope with her husband and started googling for "track palin"
"born on". And I found something interesting.

Sarah Palin's son, Track Palin, was born on April 20, 1989.

http://www.alan.com/2008/08/29/conse...family-values/

Sarah married her husband on August 29, 1988.

Doing a simple math and making some assumptions, it becomes instantly
obvious why they actually "eloped". They eloped because Sarah was
pregnant for about a month as of the day of their wedding.

Yawn. Get a life.
Exactly. Iggy doesn't seem to get it. "Family values" are things that social
conservatives prescribe for *other* people. It doesn't apply to them. Jesus
loves them and they've been saved. It doesn't matter what they do.


No Ed. This has been happening since the beginning of mankind, in
both poor and rich families. You can do your best to educate a child,
but you can't live their lives for them.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of your attitude. You are no better than
anyone else on the planet, no matter what their faults may be but you,
like several others around here can't help but pass judgment on every
one of them. Don't tell me you've never made a mistake in your life,
and I don't believe you have ever walked on water.

Apparently he's never had a headstrong teenage daughter either.
You do your best, and you help them deal with the consequences of their
bad decisions.


Ed would have locked her in his basement till she was an old maid.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 21:11:52 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm,
aarcuda69062 quickly quoth:

In article ,
"Mark Dunning" wrote:


Shrugging off?!? It ain't any of our business.
Actually, the young people are doing the "right thing" and getting
married.

Pre martital sex is now taboo in the eyes of the Left but extra marital
sex
by politicians is forgivable?!?

The foaming rabid lefties (MSM included) are searching so hard to find
something wrong with this fine experienced (and Washington outsider)
candidate..........and finding squat.

Y'all embrace the "Change" candidate that picks the longest serving
senator
to help him "change"

And when the R party gets a "honest" breath of fresh air as a running
mate-
it's a scramble to rake as much irrelevant muck as possible.

Y'all should be ashamed.

Mark

BRAVO!

I'll second that. Bravo!

Don't be so quick to judge the "breath of fresh air." You're jumping much
too early for reason.


I just got off the Washington Post Votes Database site. It was
overwhelming. I'd become quite angry at Joe Biden's 30% missed votes
until I saw Obama's 45% missed votes. My heart flipped when I saw
McCain's 64% missed votes in this session of CONgress. Gawd, no wonder
everyone hates politicians. Overpaid and underworked.

Interesting. The candidate for -change- votes 95% with his party line.

The hero candidate only followed his party line 79%. From this angle,
I'd probably have voted the way he did. Screw party lines.

McCain voted with his party 88.3% of the time in the current Congress. Obama
has only been *in* the current Congress. So they're pretty close to being
the same.

And they're both pandering, with the same votes, on the earmarks issue
(check out what percentage that is of the federal budget for an eye-opener)
and several others. It's clear they've both voting this term for a record on
which to run for president.

--
Ed Huntress

"RB" wrote in message
...
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...
Ignoramus32074 wrote:
In light of the latest news, I started wondering why did Sarah Palin
suddenly elope with her husband and started googling for "track palin"
"born on". And I found something interesting.

Sarah Palin's son, Track Palin, was born on April 20, 1989.

http://www.alan.com/2008/08/29/conse...family-values/

Sarah married her husband on August 29, 1988.

Doing a simple math and making some assumptions, it becomes instantly
obvious why they actually "eloped". They eloped because Sarah was
pregnant for about a month as of the day of their wedding.

Yawn. Get a life.
Exactly. Iggy doesn't seem to get it. "Family values" are things that
social
conservatives prescribe for *other* people. It doesn't apply to them.
Jesus
loves them and they've been saved. It doesn't matter what they do.


No Ed. This has been happening since the beginning of mankind, in
both poor and rich families. You can do your best to educate a child,
but you can't live their lives for them.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of your attitude. You are no better than
anyone else on the planet, no matter what their faults may be but you,
like several others around here can't help but pass judgment on every
one of them. Don't tell me you've never made a mistake in your life,
and I don't believe you have ever walked on water.

Apparently he's never had a headstrong teenage daughter either.
You do your best, and you help them deal with the consequences of their
bad decisions

'Sounds good to me, RB. It's too bad that the right wing has never seen fit
to apply that to other people. They raise hell about family values (whose
family?) only when it applies to other people.

When Dick Cheney's daughter came out of the closet, it put a damper on some
of the right-wing gay bashing. Now we have a situation where McCain's
campaign managers are chalking it up to "life happens." Indeed it does.
Maybe this will chill some of the hypocritical bull we hear from the right
about "family values." But maybe not. They seem to have morphed the issue
from parental responsibility to getting her married.

If Palin was a Democrat, there's no doubt that the social conservatives
would raise hell about her failed parenting, the result of selfishly
focusing on her career at the expense of her daughters, and how the
daughter's pregnancy was payback for a mother who let her down. There's no
doubt about it, and there probably isn't an honest person on this NG who
doesn't know it.

The issue is a pretty good integrity test for this group right here. There
are a few who don't seem to have much of it.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sep 1, 5:25 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:



No, HERE's the real question. What are people who consider themselves
family-values conservatives doing shrugging off the daughter's pregnancy?
Aren't these the same people who tell everyone else to abstain before
marriage?

Aren't they the ones who blast Democrats for promoting sex education and
condom use? Or do these people change color like chameleons when the shoe is
on one of their feet?

You can bet they'd be raising hell right now if she was a Democrat. I doubt
if even you have enough bull**** in you to convince anyone here otherwise.

--
Ed Huntress

Are you saying that the parents are responsible for their childrens
actions? And therefore we should say anyone with a child that does
something wrong, should be castigated? Or should people be judged on
what they do? Not what their parents do, or children do, or
associates do.


Dan

On Sep 2, 9:29 am, "Hawke" wrote:

Not hardly. It is just the same old same old. Hypocrisy from the party of
"values". Clearly, it runs in the Palin family to engage in premarital sex.
But isn't abstaining from sex until after marrying what the republican party
preaches all the time? It's just more of the family values that republicans
like to profess to putting great store in but in reality pay no attention to
in their own lives. We believe in this but we do the opposite. Yep, that
about sums up what republicans are all about. It's a grand party all right.
Grand hypocrites they are.

Hawke

The religious right are not the entire Republican Party. Just as not
all Democrats are for raising taxes and big government.

Dan

On 2008-09-04, wrote:
On Sep 1, 5:25 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:



No, HERE's the real question. What are people who consider themselves
family-values conservatives doing shrugging off the daughter's pregnancy?
Aren't these the same people who tell everyone else to abstain before
marriage?

Aren't they the ones who blast Democrats for promoting sex education and
condom use? Or do these people change color like chameleons when the shoe is
on one of their feet?

You can bet they'd be raising hell right now if she was a Democrat. I doubt
if even you have enough bull**** in you to convince anyone here otherwise.


Are you saying that the parents are responsible for their childrens
actions?

Parents are responsible for being bad parents and not giving kids
enough attention when they need it most, not providing age appropriate
sex advice, etc.

i

And therefore we should say anyone with a child that does something
wrong, should be castigated? Or should people be judged on what
they do? Not what their parents do, or children do, or associates
do.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 17:07:40 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
The issue is a pretty good integrity test for this group right here. There
are a few who don't seem to have much of it.
snip
=========
I don't know about the group's integrity, but this points up a
major problem with the entire conservative/neo-con mindset, that
is the inability to tell when the conditions and circumstances
have changed sufficiently to require reevaluation and possibly
revision of their socio-economic and diplomatic policies. Just
because I wear a heavy coat to go outside in the winter does not
mean that I need to wear a heavy coat to go outside in the
summer.

In this case it is their attempt to impose "Victorian" social
mores/norms on a very different society. [And even they this
applied only to the select social strata and wanna-bees]
Victoria was the Queen of the UK from 1837 to 1901, and it is
time we move on. [FWIW she had 9 children]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victori...United_Kingdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorianism
http://www.isis.aust.com/stephan/wri...ality/vict.htm
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~UG97/blues/simmons.html

You may also find these articles of interest
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/...ne/7595871.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/wo...html?ref=world

Ed Huntress wrote:
"RB" wrote in message
...
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...
Ignoramus32074 wrote:
In light of the latest news, I started wondering why did Sarah Palin
suddenly elope with her husband and started googling for "track palin"
"born on". And I found something interesting.

Sarah Palin's son, Track Palin, was born on April 20, 1989.

http://www.alan.com/2008/08/29/conse...family-values/

Sarah married her husband on August 29, 1988.

Doing a simple math and making some assumptions, it becomes instantly
obvious why they actually "eloped". They eloped because Sarah was
pregnant for about a month as of the day of their wedding.
Yawn. Get a life.
Exactly. Iggy doesn't seem to get it. "Family values" are things that
social
conservatives prescribe for *other* people. It doesn't apply to them.
Jesus
loves them and they've been saved. It doesn't matter what they do.

No Ed. This has been happening since the beginning of mankind, in
both poor and rich families. You can do your best to educate a child,
but you can't live their lives for them.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of your attitude. You are no better than
anyone else on the planet, no matter what their faults may be but you,
like several others around here can't help but pass judgment on every
one of them. Don't tell me you've never made a mistake in your life,
and I don't believe you have ever walked on water.
Apparently he's never had a headstrong teenage daughter either.
You do your best, and you help them deal with the consequences of their
bad decisions

'Sounds good to me, RB. It's too bad that the right wing has never seen fit
to apply that to other people. They raise hell about family values (whose
family?) only when it applies to other people.

When Dick Cheney's daughter came out of the closet, it put a damper on some
of the right-wing gay bashing. Now we have a situation where McCain's
campaign managers are chalking it up to "life happens." Indeed it does.
Maybe this will chill some of the hypocritical bull we hear from the right
about "family values." But maybe not. They seem to have morphed the issue
from parental responsibility to getting her married.

If Palin was a Democrat, there's no doubt that the social conservatives
would raise hell about her failed parenting, the result of selfishly
focusing on her career at the expense of her daughters, and how the
daughter's pregnancy was payback for a mother who let her down. There's no
doubt about it, and there probably isn't an honest person on this NG who
doesn't know it.

The issue is a pretty good integrity test for this group right here. There
are a few who don't seem to have much of it.

Speaking of integrity, why don't you cite an example where conservatives
en-masse condemned a Democrat with a pregnant teenage daughter? the
very fact that you and I cannot think of one is telling, because you
know good and well it must be happening every week or so. It's a
non-issue, unless there are no other issues.
Your pontifications are bloated with generalities and opinions, and
very scant on facts. I'll bet you have a mirror in front of your monitor
so you can admire your sage visage as you type.
There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around, and you certainly have
your share.

wrote in message
...
On Sep 1, 5:25 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:



No, HERE's the real question. What are people who consider themselves
family-values conservatives doing shrugging off the daughter's pregnancy?
Aren't these the same people who tell everyone else to abstain before
marriage?

Aren't they the ones who blast Democrats for promoting sex education and
condom use? Or do these people change color like chameleons when the shoe
is
on one of their feet?

You can bet they'd be raising hell right now if she was a Democrat. I
doubt
if even you have enough bull**** in you to convince anyone here
otherwise.

--
Ed Huntress

Are you saying that the parents are responsible for their childrens
actions?

No. I'm saying that many SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES make that claim. And McCain's
campaign operatives would have picked up on it in a New York minute if the
shoe had been on the other foot.

"[Minnesota] House Minority Leader Marty Seifert spoke of the importance of
the veto pen: "We are working day in and day out to protect our values.
There are people upstairs who will boil the frog of undoing the family, of
undoing our traditions, of building up government piece by piece, while
tearing down parental responsibility piece by piece. It is our job to make
sure we are the defenders of freedom, defenders of personal responsibility,
defenders of family values "

The conservative literature is loaded with references to it.

And therefore we should say anyone with a child that does
something wrong, should be castigated? Or should people be judged on
what they do? Not what their parents do, or children do, or
associates do.

Again, we're talking about a long-time talking point of conservative
thought, which is that parents bear responsibility to raise their children
according to socially conservative principles. That includes not getting
pregnant out of wedlock.

During the '90s, conservative legislators passed parental responsbility laws
in over 20 states. Many of them concerned parents' responsibility for their
childrens' violations of laws but the language of many of them made it clear
that the motivation was broader than that. And it's a common topic from the
pulpits of conservative churches.

BTW, the ACLU managed to get most of the parental responsibility laws
overturned.

--
Ed Huntress

"RB" wrote: Speaking of integrity, why don't you cite an example where
conservatives
en-masse condemned a Democrat with a pregnant teenage daughter?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
First, I think you are distorting the facts when you suggest that Democrats,
*en masse* are condemning a Republican with a pregnant teen-age daughter.

Second, it is not the isolated fact that the Palin daughter is pregnant. It
is the fact that Palin wants to limit sex education to abstinence. "Just
say no." We can see how that worked.

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 17:07:40 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
The issue is a pretty good integrity test for this group right here. There
are a few who don't seem to have much of it.
snip
=========
I don't know about the group's integrity, but this points up a
major problem with the entire conservative/neo-con mindset, that
is the inability to tell when the conditions and circumstances
have changed sufficiently to require reevaluation and possibly
revision of their socio-economic and diplomatic policies. Just
because I wear a heavy coat to go outside in the winter does not
mean that I need to wear a heavy coat to go outside in the
summer.

It's inherent in the foundational ideas of conservatism. Despite all the
complications that have been added to it, the basic principle is still
"don't change anything."


In this case it is their attempt to impose "Victorian" social
mores/norms on a very different society. [And even they this
applied only to the select social strata and wanna-bees]
Victoria was the Queen of the UK from 1837 to 1901, and it is
time we move on. [FWIW she had 9 children]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victori...United_Kingdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorianism
http://www.isis.aust.com/stephan/wri...ality/vict.htm
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~UG97/blues/simmons.html

You may also find these articles of interest
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/...ne/7595871.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/wo...html?ref=world


Peggy Noonan put an interesting spin on it in here WSJ column yesterday. She
can spin anything and make it sound almost plausible. Now it appears that
conservatives, according to her, are mellow types who don't really get upset
about family values. At least, not this week. It's been a rough week for
individual responsibility and for the straight-and-narrow.

The way conservatives have flipped on premarital sex, it almost makes you
want to invest in a condom company.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sep 4, 2:57 pm, Ignoramus17332

Parents are responsible for being bad parents and not giving kids
enough attention when they need it most, not providing age appropriate
sex advice, etc.

So your parents are still responsible for your behavior?

Dan

On 2008-09-05, wrote:
On Sep 4, 2:57 pm, Ignoramus17332

Parents are responsible for being bad parents and not giving kids
enough attention when they need it most, not providing age appropriate
sex advice, etc.

So your parents are still responsible for your behavior?


They are responsible for their parenting. As it happens in life, more
than one person is responsible for certain outcomes.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

On Sep 4, 4:48 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

No. I'm saying that many SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES make that claim. And McCain's
campaign operatives would have picked up on it in a New York minute if the
shoe had been on the other foot.


--
Ed Huntress

A lot of this is posturing. Both sides do that.


I wish you would use " religious right " instead of " conservative ".
I consider myself a conservative, but not religious.

Dan

Shrugging off?!? It ain't any of our business.
Actually, the young people are doing the "right thing" and getting
married.

Pre martital sex is now taboo in the eyes of the Left but extra
marital
sex
by politicians is forgivable?!?

The foaming rabid lefties (MSM included) are searching so hard to find
something wrong with this fine experienced (and Washington outsider)
candidate..........and finding squat.

Y'all embrace the "Change" candidate that picks the longest serving
senator
to help him "change"

And when the R party gets a "honest" breath of fresh air as a running
mate-
it's a scramble to rake as much irrelevant muck as possible.

Y'all should be ashamed.

Mark

BRAVO!

I'll second that. Bravo!

Don't be so quick to judge the "breath of fresh air." You're jumping much
too early for reason.


I just got off the Washington Post Votes Database site. It was
overwhelming. I'd become quite angry at Joe Biden's 30% missed votes
until I saw Obama's 45% missed votes. My heart flipped when I saw
McCain's 64% missed votes in this session of CONgress. Gawd, no wonder
everyone hates politicians. Overpaid and underworked.

Interesting. The candidate for -change- votes 95% with his party line.

The hero candidate only followed his party line 79%. From this angle,
I'd probably have voted the way he did. Screw party lines.

McCain voted with his party 88.3% of the time in the current Congress.
Obama
has only been *in* the current Congress. So they're pretty close to being
the same.

And they're both pandering, with the same votes, on the earmarks issue
(check out what percentage that is of the federal budget for an
eye-opener)
and several others. It's clear they've both voting this term for a record
on
which to run for president.

--
Ed Huntress


You should take a look at McCain's voting record over the last two decades.
What you'll find is that notwithstanding that maverick label what you really
have, at least as a republican senator, is a guy who is a solid vote for all
the republican issues. Over the years there are a few things he has not
agreed with the party on but he's a completely right wing republican
senator. He's nowhere near moderate. Right wing all the way. Too bad he has
a record we can look at instead of just taking his word for his moderation.

Hawke

=========
I don't know about the group's integrity, but this points up a
major problem with the entire conservative/neo-con mindset, that
is the inability to tell when the conditions and circumstances
have changed sufficiently to require reevaluation and possibly
revision of their socio-economic and diplomatic policies. Just
because I wear a heavy coat to go outside in the winter does not
mean that I need to wear a heavy coat to go outside in the
summer.

It's inherent in the foundational ideas of conservatism. Despite all the
complications that have been added to it, the basic principle is still
"don't change anything."

I like the even shorter version, "stand pat".



In this case it is their attempt to impose "Victorian" social
mores/norms on a very different society. [And even they this
applied only to the select social strata and wanna-bees]
Victoria was the Queen of the UK from 1837 to 1901, and it is
time we move on. [FWIW she had 9 children]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victori...United_Kingdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorianism
http://www.isis.aust.com/stephan/wri...ality/vict.htm
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~UG97/blues/simmons.html

You may also find these articles of interest
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/...ne/7595871.stm

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/wo...html?ref=world


Peggy Noonan put an interesting spin on it in here WSJ column yesterday.
She
can spin anything and make it sound almost plausible. Now it appears that
conservatives, according to her, are mellow types who don't really get
upset
about family values. At least, not this week. It's been a rough week for
individual responsibility and for the straight-and-narrow.

Noonan is truly a right wing nut. She does write a nice speech though.


The way conservatives have flipped on premarital sex, it almost makes you
want to invest in a condom company.


Don't worry, as soon as the hullabaloo over Palin passes they will go back
to their standard position on anything relating to sex. In other words,
don't have any unless you are married and only use the missionary position
and don't do it for fun, you only to do it to procreate. What a bunch of
anal retentive weirdos.

Hawke

wrote in message
...
On Sep 4, 2:57 pm, Ignoramus17332

Parents are responsible for being bad parents and not giving kids
enough attention when they need it most, not providing age appropriate
sex advice, etc.

So your parents are still responsible for your behavior?

Dan

Why don't you put that question to a police officer? He'll tell you the
answer is yes. Until a child reaches majority the parents are responsible
for the behavior and actions of their children.

Hawke