"RB" wrote in message
...
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?

Why don't you cite an example of a Democratic candidate or high official
with an unmarried, pregnant teenage daughter? Someone who will attract
comment like Palin, so it will be recorded somewhere on the web. You do
that -- if you can -- and then I'll go look up what the conservatives said
about him or her. Fair enough?

Meantime, we can only take them at their word. And they've laid on plenty of
words. Like ideologues of all stripes, they aren't talking about
individuals, they're talking about abstractions -- strawmen -- in whom
they've invested all their hatred and resentment. Take a look around here.
You'll find plenty of examples. I just commented about Michael's
generalizations, for example.

Here are some of the words. Here's the posturing you see from the social
conservatives, this one from Jonathan Lindvall, a broadcast minister and
speaker:

==================================
One day each father and mother will be called to give an account of their
parenting. We will not be held accountable for our children's decisions, but
for the influences we allowed to shape those decisions. Imagine your
children appearing before you at the judgment and God saying, "Here is how
your children turned out. Why did you let them go to the places they went,
see the things they saw, hear the things they heard, and do the things they
did?"

What types of excuses do you suppose will be acceptable in that moment? "But
Lord, everybody else was doing those same things."

What do you imagine the Lord will say? Something like, "I didn't give your
children to everyone else. I gave them to YOU!"
==================================

James Dobson believes that women entering the workforce has created dangers
for their children, mostly of the moral kind, which is to say the sexual
kind, and he's frequently alluded to the "liberal" attitudes that have
brought this all about. And he's equated Democrats and liberals; he warned
evangelicals through his radio addresses of the moral consequences of a
Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006. He must have had a big change of
heart in several ways to embrace Palin.

And he's far from the most zealous of the "social conservatives." In fact,
he's one of the more moderate voices.


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.

Really? If it is, I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding a few for me to
check out. Frankly, I don't know of any. Vice presidential candidates,
governors or even congressional candidates with pregnant teenage daughters
are probably a lot more rare than you think.

But I'm not doubting you. If a Democratic candidate shows up with a pregnant
unmarried daughter every week or so, you'll find them for sure. Just let us
know what you find.

It's a non-issue, unless there are no other issues.

The conservatives surely wish it would become a non-issue. Maybe it will.
Maybe they'll just get the idea that their "family values" schtick just got
a big hole blown in it, and they'll cool their accusations about others. Or
maybe not.

Your pontifications are bloated with generalities and opinions, and
very scant on facts.

Well, yours definitely are short of facts. We'll see, for example, if you
can come up with a single Democratic candidate for a high office with a
pregnant, unmarried daughter.

I'll bet you have a mirror in front of your monitor so you can admire your
sage visage as you type.

Not on my monitor, pard'. Is that something you do yourself?

There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around, and you certainly have your
share.

Really? And what hypocrisy are you speaking about? I'm talking about the
hypocrisy of the right-wing social conservatives, and they're swimming in it
up to their ears.

--
Ed Huntress

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

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.

Of course. But don't try to tell that to a "family values" social
conservative. As I quoted in another message, they take a dim view of the
"liberal" lack of parental responsibility. As radio evangelist Jonathan
Lindvall says, God ain't going to go for any excuses for parents who were
too busy for their kids. James Dobson and other right-wing nutbags say the
liberal morality is going to destroy the country.


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.

What a phony. You, of all people, complaining about someone else in that
regard. You've set yourself up as a superior being on frequent occasions,
Michael. Just from current posts on the board, there's this: "Liberals make
me want to puke..." Self-described liberals make up 17% of the US adult
population, more than the social conservatives (11%) or pro-government
conservatives (9%). Almost one in five of your fellow Americans make you
want to puke, they're so inferior to you.

That's a stinking attitude. You have no respect for anyone but people who
agree with you. If you're going to start throwing around accusations about
others passing judgment, start with yourself.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , RB wrote:

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.

One reason nobody can cite such an example is that when that happens to a
Democrat's teenage daughter, she has an abortion before the news media ever
find out she was pregnant.

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

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.

Of course. But don't try to tell that to a "family values" social
conservative. As I quoted in another message, they take a dim view of the
"liberal" lack of parental responsibility. As radio evangelist Jonathan
Lindvall says, God ain't going to go for any excuses for parents who were
too busy for their kids. James Dobson and other right-wing nutbags say the
liberal morality is going to destroy the country.


OK, Ed. Let's say that you're in your '60s and your oldest kid who
is in their 40s robs a convenience store, then kills the clerk. By your
logic you would have to be sentenced, along with your kid. You can give
a child all the attention in the world, and have them turn into the
biggest loser in the world. You can only teach, you can't force them to
listen. Your attitude is proof of this. I suppose you want to sone the
kids to death in front of city hall? Or is it just becasue they have
taken the political spotlight off Obama? They said on the news last
night they were even in some polls, and I'm sure that galls you.


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.

What a phony. You, of all people, complaining about someone else in that
regard. You've set yourself up as a superior being on frequent occasions,
Michael. Just from current posts on the board, there's this: "Liberals make
me want to puke..." Self-described liberals make up 17% of the US adult
population, more than the social conservatives (11%) or pro-government
conservatives (9%). Almost one in five of your fellow Americans make you
want to puke, they're so inferior to you.


There you go, trying to put you words in my mouth. It is you who
needs to feel superior. You can't seperate the person's views from the
person.


That's a stinking attitude. You have no respect for anyone but people who
agree with you.


Another of your ignorant lies, Ed.

If you're going to start throwing around accusations about
others passing judgment, start with yourself.


Hate the sin, love the sinner. That includes you.


--
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 4, 11:02 pm, "Hawke" wrote:


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

Hmmmm I thought that you and Iggy were adults.

Dan

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 21:15:36 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
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."
snip
----------
Close, but no cigar.

One of the 19 century Tory [UK] prime ministers astutely observed
"When it is not necessary to act, it is necessary not to act,"
which is a sentiment I fully agree with.

The problem is that it is indeed vital/critical to act from time
to time, and our society/culture/financial systems/etc. are now
changing with increasing rapidity, with many novel/unique
situations resulting, rendering much experience and conventional
wisdom less than useless, i.e. actually harmful.

The neo-con effort to roll back times to a simpler era is doomed
to failure, largely because they want to have their [largely
economic] cake and eat it too. "Mass consuming proletariat" is
just as much an oxymoron as "military intelligence" and "postal
service."

On the other hand "don't just stand there -- *DO SOMETHING*" is
very poor advice/policy for an individual, a company or a
country, and continually confuses activity with accomplishment.

So what does the American electorate get in response to the
current situation? Celebrity mud wrestling, political slogans,
ad hominem attacks, witch hunts, "splendid little foreign wars,"
"economic voodoo," etc., etc.

Where is the hard data? Where is the rigorous analysis? Where
are the closely argued and tersely written "White papers"
supporting existing and proposed policies and procedures? For
that matter, what are the policies and who is setting them,
logical or not?

This is not a political campaign, it is a punch-and-judy show,
and a poor one at that.

wrote in message
...
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.

Sure. The whole thing is a matter of posturing. As for what beliefs lie
beneath the postures, I don't think you'll get a clear picture about that in
regard to politicians. Their whole careers are based on postures. When the
actions agree with the postures, that's all that matters in terms of
results.



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

Dan

I'm still searching for a non-pejorative, uninsulting term for it. g But
it isn't just the highly religious ones. A lot of paleoconservatives take
those starkly moralistic positions as well.

--
Ed Huntress

Leo Lichtman wrote:
"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.

I am suggesting nothing of the sort.
You claimed that conservatives hounded Democrats when their teenage
daughters became pregnant.
Give an example.

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.

How do you know Bristol Palin did not get that detailed sex education in
school? Or at home, where Palin probably believes it should be taught?

Just because Mom does not believe the government should teach something
doesn't make it so, even if Mom happens to be the Governor.
Ask Rick Perry about that HPV vaccine thing last year.

Ed Huntress wrote:


Why don't you cite an example of a Democratic candidate or high official
with an unmarried, pregnant teenage daughter? Someone who will attract
comment like Palin, so it will be recorded somewhere on the web. You do
that -- if you can -- and then I'll go look up what the conservatives said
about him or her. Fair enough?


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.

Really? If it is, I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding a few for me to
check out. Frankly, I don't know of any. Vice presidential candidates,
governors or even congressional candidates with pregnant teenage daughters
are probably a lot more rare than you think.

But I'm not doubting you. If a Democratic candidate shows up with a pregnant
unmarried daughter every week or so, you'll find them for sure. Just let us
know what you find.


Can't be done. Democrats with unwanted pregnancies have abortions, not
babies.

RB wrote:
Leo Lichtman wrote:
"RB" wrote: Speaking of integrity, why don't you cite an example
where conservatives
en-masse condemned a Democrat with a pregnant teenage daughter?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

How do you know Bristol Palin did not get that detailed sex education
in school? Or at home, where Palin probably believes it should be
taught?

It's either that or she didn't respect her teacher.
She could as easily have contracted HIV instead of becoming pregnant you
know.
What would your pathetic excuse be for that?

I watched a focus group of 25 fourteen to eighteen year olds this morning
that was doen yesterday afternoon.
Without exception the kids were unanimous in saying that their parents were
the front line of moral upbringing and they sarcastically mocked any peer
that would be uneducated, ignorant or foolish enough not to be using condoms
in this day and age. All of the sexually active females in the group stated
that they did not rely on their partners to be prepared and carried condoms
in their purses 24/7.

Sarah Palin my not believe in glogal warming but I gaurantee you that she
will have a change of heart about education once she's lived long enough to
encounter the results of STD a few times. Especially if one or more of those
encounters is with one of her own kids or their friends.



--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

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
Iggy started this thread by revealing that the VP CANDIDATE may
have been pregnant when SHE got married. This has nothing to do
with Sarah Palin's daughter. (It is also possible that Track
Palin was born about a month premature, which would let her off
the hook. Anbody know?)

As for right to privacy, this has all been handed over to the
media, so it isn't too private, anymore. I really don't think
her daughter's pregnancy is such a big deal, except for
overtones of hypocrisy. But, her OWN unwed pregnancy starts to
make it a bigger deal, since she has made all this noise as
governor about abstinance, no sex ed. and on and on. I think it
is pretty funny.

I'm still waiting for the sheep-like media to pick up on Iggy's
brilliant deduction. It may take them a couple weeks, but I'm
sure SOMEBODY in the media can do a simple subtraction. Well,
maybe not!

Jon

RB wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:


Why don't you cite an example of a Democratic candidate or high
official with an unmarried, pregnant teenage daughter? Someone who
will attract comment like Palin, so it will be recorded somewhere on
the web. You do that -- if you can -- and then I'll go look up what
the conservatives said about him or her. Fair enough?


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.

Really? If it is, I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding a few for
me to check out. Frankly, I don't know of any. Vice presidential
candidates, governors or even congressional candidates with pregnant
teenage daughters are probably a lot more rare than you think.

But I'm not doubting you. If a Democratic candidate shows up with a
pregnant unmarried daughter every week or so, you'll find them for
sure. Just let us know what you find.


Can't be done. Democrats with unwanted pregnancies have abortions, not
babies.

Then you will have no difficulty producing the list of minor children of
Democratic officeholders of candidates who have had abortions preformed.
The "Lambs of God" have been photographing and identifying patients for
years. Start with them.
They used to publish a list.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , RB
wrote:

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.

One reason nobody can cite such an example is that when that happens to a
Democrat's teenage daughter, she has an abortion before the news media
ever
find out she was pregnant.

Cites?

More likely, they're smart enough to use condoms. That was the first thing
that struck me about Palin's daughter. Is she dumb as a stick, or what?

--
Ed Huntress

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

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.

Of course. But don't try to tell that to a "family values" social
conservative. As I quoted in another message, they take a dim view of the
"liberal" lack of parental responsibility. As radio evangelist Jonathan
Lindvall says, God ain't going to go for any excuses for parents who were
too busy for their kids. James Dobson and other right-wing nutbags say
the
liberal morality is going to destroy the country.


OK, Ed. Let's say that you're in your '60s and your oldest kid who
is in their 40s robs a convenience store, then kills the clerk. By your
logic you would have to be sentenced, along with your kid.

No, you don't get it. The issue here is that one group, the social
conservatives, feel they're morally superior to another group, the liberals,
and they get their rocks off telling the liberals what's wrong with them,
how they're destroying the country, and how they ought to change their ways.

Nobody is talking about sentencing people to prison. The social
conservatives seem to be perfectly happy to bitch and look down their noses
at the "liberals," the "medial elite," the "Eastern elitists," and any other
strawmen and scapegoats they can identify.

You can give
a child all the attention in the world, and have them turn into the
biggest loser in the world. You can only teach, you can't force them to
listen.

Of course. Practically everyone is well aware of this. The left side of the
equation isn't telling the right side how to behave. They're pointing out
that the right wing prescribes "morality" for everyone else, and then when
one of their own slips up, they make excuses for it. My point is that, given
the evidence of their prescriptions and their criticisms of the "inferior"
morality of the left, if the shoe was on the other foot they'd be howling
like banshees. And everyone knows it, except for a few deniers here.

That's what's going on here. It's ALL that's going on here. The lefties are
gloating about it, and the righties are steaming and fuming. That's the
whole story.

Your attitude is proof of this. I suppose you want to sone the
kids to death in front of city hall?

Michael, will you wise up? How many times to I have to tell you this for it
to sink in? Those aren't MY attitudes, nor those of most of the
non-social-conservatives. The point is what transparent phonies the social
conservatives are. As for teenage kids screwing and getting pregnant, that
happens, and we as parents are responsible to do what we can to teach them
how to keep it from happening. But that doesn't mean it won't happen.

The point is that it's enormously ironic that it happened to the daughter of
a "family values" conservative. It looks like one of life's little paybacks
for being a self-righteous prig. That's why it's funny, and that's why the
left is getting a hoot out of it.

Or is it just becasue they have
taken the political spotlight off Obama? They said on the news last
night they were even in some polls, and I'm sure that galls you.

You must have been watching the same bubble-headed blond I was watching. g
The press loves a tie, or any kind of drama, and she was quoting the CBS
poll completed on the 3rd -- one of several that's current. You can't look
at one poll. The politicos use RealClearPolitics to keep a running tab on
the polls:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

Obama has a five-day running average of +3.2.

Now, as for it galling me that one poll shows a tie, no, it doesn't gall me.
If McCain didn't get some bounce out of Palin, he'd might as well toss in
the towel right now. He'd better have a plus figure from convention bounce
within two or three days or he's in deep trouble. The race has another two
months to go.



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.

What a phony. You, of all people, complaining about someone else in that
regard. You've set yourself up as a superior being on frequent occasions,
Michael. Just from current posts on the board, there's this: "Liberals
make
me want to puke..." Self-described liberals make up 17% of the US adult
population, more than the social conservatives (11%) or pro-government
conservatives (9%). Almost one in five of your fellow Americans make you
want to puke, they're so inferior to you.


There you go, trying to put you words in my mouth.

Put words in your mouth?? THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS THAT I CUT AND PASTED FROM
YOUR OWN MESSAGE! Did you forget what you said already? You just said that
liberals make you want to puke. Then you criticize me for "wanting to feel
superior" to other people. My God, man, don't you read your own material?

Did I ever say that some group makes me want to puke? No. I may disagree
with various political groups, but they don't make me want to puke.

You're the one with the problem, Michael, not me. And you appear to be
oblivious to it, besides.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

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.

Of course. But don't try to tell that to a "family values" social
conservative. As I quoted in another message, they take a dim view of the
"liberal" lack of parental responsibility. As radio evangelist Jonathan
Lindvall says, God ain't going to go for any excuses for parents who were
too busy for their kids. James Dobson and other right-wing nutbags say
the
liberal morality is going to destroy the country.


OK, Ed. Let's say that you're in your '60s and your oldest kid who
is in their 40s robs a convenience store, then kills the clerk. By your
logic you would have to be sentenced, along with your kid.

No, you don't get it. The issue here is that one group, the social
conservatives, feel they're morally superior to another group, the liberals,
and they get their rocks off telling the liberals what's wrong with them,
how they're destroying the country, and how they ought to change their ways.

Nobody is talking about sentencing people to prison. The social
conservatives seem to be perfectly happy to bitch and look down their noses
at the "liberals," the "medial elite," the "Eastern elitists," and any other
strawmen and scapegoats they can identify.

You can give
a child all the attention in the world, and have them turn into the
biggest loser in the world. You can only teach, you can't force them to
listen.

Of course. Practically everyone is well aware of this. The left side of the
equation isn't telling the right side how to behave. They're pointing out
that the right wing prescribes "morality" for everyone else, and then when
one of their own slips up, they make excuses for it. My point is that, given
the evidence of their prescriptions and their criticisms of the "inferior"
morality of the left, if the shoe was on the other foot they'd be howling
like banshees. And everyone knows it, except for a few deniers here.

That's what's going on here. It's ALL that's going on here. The lefties are
gloating about it, and the righties are steaming and fuming. That's the
whole story.

Your attitude is proof of this. I suppose you want to sone the
kids to death in front of city hall?

Michael, will you wise up? How many times to I have to tell you this for it
to sink in? Those aren't MY attitudes, nor those of most of the
non-social-conservatives. The point is what transparent phonies the social
conservatives are. As for teenage kids screwing and getting pregnant, that
happens, and we as parents are responsible to do what we can to teach them
how to keep it from happening. But that doesn't mean it won't happen.

The point is that it's enormously ironic that it happened to the daughter of
a "family values" conservative. It looks like one of life's little paybacks
for being a self-righteous prig. That's why it's funny, and that's why the
left is getting a hoot out of it.

Or is it just becasue they have
taken the political spotlight off Obama? They said on the news last
night they were even in some polls, and I'm sure that galls you.

You must have been watching the same bubble-headed blond I was watching. g
The press loves a tie, or any kind of drama, and she was quoting the CBS
poll completed on the 3rd -- one of several that's current. You can't look
at one poll. The politicos use RealClearPolitics to keep a running tab on
the polls:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

Obama has a five-day running average of +3.2.

Now, as for it galling me that one poll shows a tie, no, it doesn't gall me.
If McCain didn't get some bounce out of Palin, he'd might as well toss in
the towel right now. He'd better have a plus figure from convention bounce
within two or three days or he's in deep trouble. The race has another two
months to go.



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.

What a phony. You, of all people, complaining about someone else in that
regard. You've set yourself up as a superior being on frequent occasions,
Michael. Just from current posts on the board, there's this: "Liberals
make
me want to puke..." Self-described liberals make up 17% of the US adult
population, more than the social conservatives (11%) or pro-government
conservatives (9%). Almost one in five of your fellow Americans make you
want to puke, they're so inferior to you.


There you go, trying to put you words in my mouth.

Put words in your mouth?? THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS THAT I CUT AND PASTED FROM
YOUR OWN MESSAGE! Did you forget what you said already? You just said that
liberals make you want to puke. Then you criticize me for "wanting to feel
superior" to other people. My God, man, don't you read your own material?

Did I ever say that some group makes me want to puke? No. I may disagree
with various political groups, but they don't make me want to puke.

You're the one with the problem, Michael, not me. And you appear to be
oblivious to it, besides.


Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.


--
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.

Ed Huntress wrote:
(snip)
Cites?

More likely, they're smart enough to use condoms. That was the first thing
that struck me about Palin's daughter. Is she dumb as a stick, or what?

Are you aware that condoms have a failure rate?

http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/2219.html

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

snip

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.

What a phony. You, of all people, complaining about someone else in
that
regard. You've set yourself up as a superior being on frequent
occasions,
Michael. Just from current posts on the board, there's this: "Liberals
make
me want to puke..." Self-described liberals make up 17% of the US
adult
population, more than the social conservatives (11%) or pro-government
conservatives (9%). Almost one in five of your fellow Americans make
you
want to puke, they're so inferior to you.


There you go, trying to put you words in my mouth.

Put words in your mouth?? THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS THAT I CUT AND PASTED FROM
YOUR OWN MESSAGE! Did you forget what you said already? You just said
that
liberals make you want to puke. Then you criticize me for "wanting to
feel
superior" to other people. My God, man, don't you read your own material?

Did I ever say that some group makes me want to puke? No. I may disagree
with various political groups, but they don't make me want to puke.

You're the one with the problem, Michael, not me. And you appear to be
oblivious to it, besides.


Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

What about that "putting words in your mouth" accusation? Are you such a
freaking degenerate that you aren't even going to apologize?

--
Ed Huntress

Todd Rich wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
(snip)
Cites?

More likely, they're smart enough to use condoms. That was the first
thing that struck me about Palin's daughter. Is she dumb as a stick,
or what?

Are you aware that condoms have a failure rate?

http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/2219.html


Are you aware that STD's can kill ya'?
"As long as we're on the subject of effectiveness, it should be noted that
condoms are also highly effective in preventing HIV transmission. Studies
done on heterosexual sero-discordant couples - where one partner is
HIV-positive and the other HIV-negative - show that HIV was transmitted in
zero to two percent of couples who correctly and consistently used male
condoms for both vaginal and anal sex."

The Palin kid and her mother are lucky that she ended up pregnant instead of
infected.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

"Todd Rich" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
(snip)
Cites?

More likely, they're smart enough to use condoms. That was the first
thing
that struck me about Palin's daughter. Is she dumb as a stick, or what?

Are you aware that condoms have a failure rate?

http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/2219.html

Yes, but mostly the *users* have the failure rate, not the condoms. I've
researched this as a medical editor when I was studying two low-hormone
birth control pills. The stories have to be read carefully to recognize just
how much of the "failure" is due to inconsistent use.

I like your article, though. The instructions for proper use, including not
using your teeth, sound like they'd frustrate the hell out of me. I'm more
inclined to pull the pin with my teeth, count to two, toss the package over
the hill, and duck. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

John R. Carroll wrote:
Todd Rich wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
(snip)
Cites?

More likely, they're smart enough to use condoms. That was the first
thing that struck me about Palin's daughter. Is she dumb as a stick,
or what?

Are you aware that condoms have a failure rate?

http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/2219.html


Are you aware that STD's can kill ya'?

Yes, and the condoms still have a failure rate for that too.

(snip)
HIV-positive and the other HIV-negative - show that HIV was transmitted in
zero to two percent of couples who correctly and consistently used male
condoms for both vaginal and anal sex."

Note that in the part of the article that you didn't quote, the 'correctly
and consistently' portion is not typical of human error.

You haven't proved that she didn't use birth control. And short of a
statement from her, or the father, that she didn't, you aren't going to be
able to.

Todd Rich wrote:
John R. Carroll wrote:
Todd Rich wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
(snip)
Cites?

More likely, they're smart enough to use condoms. That was the
first thing that struck me about Palin's daughter. Is she dumb as
a stick, or what?

Are you aware that condoms have a failure rate?

http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/2219.html


Are you aware that STD's can kill ya'?

Yes, and the condoms still have a failure rate for that too.

(snip)
HIV-positive and the other HIV-negative - show that HIV was
transmitted in zero to two percent of couples who correctly and
consistently used male condoms for both vaginal and anal sex."

Note that in the part of the article that you didn't quote, the
'correctly and consistently' portion is not typical of human error.

You haven't proved that she didn't use birth control. And short of a
statement from her, or the father, that she didn't, you aren't going
to be able to.

I can't but I'm willing to believe that this is the case because her mother
is adamantly opposed to any birth control method beyond abstinence and is on
the record. It's more than unlikely that mom taught her daughter that
condoms or medical intervention were the devil's brew for birth control on
the one hand and a good idea for disease prevention on the other.

Maybe in a year the kid will write a book. She has a story to tell an she'll
need the money.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

"Todd Rich" wrote in message
...
John R. Carroll wrote:
Todd Rich wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
(snip)
Cites?

More likely, they're smart enough to use condoms. That was the first
thing that struck me about Palin's daughter. Is she dumb as a stick,
or what?

Are you aware that condoms have a failure rate?

http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/2219.html


Are you aware that STD's can kill ya'?

Yes, and the condoms still have a failure rate for that too.

(snip)
HIV-positive and the other HIV-negative - show that HIV was transmitted
in
zero to two percent of couples who correctly and consistently used male
condoms for both vaginal and anal sex."

Note that in the part of the article that you didn't quote, the 'correctly
and consistently' portion is not typical of human error.

You haven't proved that she didn't use birth control. And short of a
statement from her, or the father, that she didn't, you aren't going to be
able to.

sigh Read the real clinical studies instead of this self-help stuff, if
you want to get the real picture. Here's the result of a recent one:

"The combined six-cycle consistent-use pregnancy rate was 1.0% (95%
confidence interval 0.0-2.1). PSA was detected in only 1.2% of postcoital
vaginal samples collected after the first use of an intact study condom.
There were no differences in performance or efficacy among the three latex
brands tested. CONCLUSIONS: The male latex condoms rarely broke or slipped
off during intercourse and provided high contraceptive efficacy, especially
when used consistently. Risk of semen leakage from intact condoms was very
low."

The bottom line on condom use is that you have to either 1) be a complete
moron about use, or 2) **** like a bunny for a couple of years, before you
have any reasonable chance of pregnancy with proper use of a condom. That
is, unless you're buying Chinese condoms by the case to save money, in which
case they have another problem. d8-)

How old is this girl? 17? So how old was she when all this was going on? And
she lives at home? How many excuses do you think she could come up with to
go screw her boyfriend?

Give it a break. The chances that she was being responsible about condom use
and *still* got pregnant are about the same as the chance of an Alaskan
snowball surviving in hell.

Excuses, excuses...you guys are just full of excuses, wild-ass imagination,
and denial. Chances are she just didn't use her head. Maybe she should have,
instead.

--
Ed Huntress

Todd Rich wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
(snip)
Cites?

More likely, they're smart enough to use condoms. That was the first thing
that struck me about Palin's daughter. Is she dumb as a stick, or what?

Are you aware that condoms have a failure rate?

http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/2219.html


Just like Ed. He quotes out of context to troll people, then gets
****ed when you don't agree with his lies.


--
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.

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

snip

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.

What a phony. You, of all people, complaining about someone else in
that
regard. You've set yourself up as a superior being on frequent
occasions,
Michael. Just from current posts on the board, there's this: "Liberals
make
me want to puke..." Self-described liberals make up 17% of the US
adult
population, more than the social conservatives (11%) or pro-government
conservatives (9%). Almost one in five of your fellow Americans make
you
want to puke, they're so inferior to you.


There you go, trying to put you words in my mouth.

Put words in your mouth?? THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS THAT I CUT AND PASTED FROM
YOUR OWN MESSAGE! Did you forget what you said already? You just said
that
liberals make you want to puke. Then you criticize me for "wanting to
feel
superior" to other people. My God, man, don't you read your own material?

Did I ever say that some group makes me want to puke? No. I may disagree
with various political groups, but they don't make me want to puke.

You're the one with the problem, Michael, not me. And you appear to be
oblivious to it, besides.


Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

What about that "putting words in your mouth" accusation? Are you such a
freaking degenerate that you aren't even going to apologize?


Apologize? What for? You quote things of context, or can't
comprehend what they mean. I'm beginning to think you've had a stroke,
or you've gone over to the trolls full time. I've had email from others
on the group wondering what the hell has happened to you. You have had
a wild hair up your ass, since yo didn't get one of my jokes, and
continue to make an idiot of yourself. If anyone owes an apology, it is
you, and it is to the entire newsgroup.


--
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.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

snip

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.

What a phony. You, of all people, complaining about someone else in
that
regard. You've set yourself up as a superior being on frequent
occasions,
Michael. Just from current posts on the board, there's this:
"Liberals
make
me want to puke..." Self-described liberals make up 17% of the US
adult
population, more than the social conservatives (11%) or
pro-government
conservatives (9%). Almost one in five of your fellow Americans
make
you
want to puke, they're so inferior to you.


There you go, trying to put you words in my mouth.

Put words in your mouth?? THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS THAT I CUT AND PASTED
FROM
YOUR OWN MESSAGE! Did you forget what you said already? You just said
that
liberals make you want to puke. Then you criticize me for "wanting to
feel
superior" to other people. My God, man, don't you read your own
material?

Did I ever say that some group makes me want to puke? No. I may
disagree
with various political groups, but they don't make me want to puke.

You're the one with the problem, Michael, not me. And you appear to be
oblivious to it, besides.


Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

What about that "putting words in your mouth" accusation? Are you such a
freaking degenerate that you aren't even going to apologize?


Apologize? What for? You quote things of context, or can't
comprehend what they mean.

Listen asshole, you said I put words in your mouth, when I quoted your words
EXACTLY. As for the context, here's the rest of it:

"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."

So, did you really mean that liberals are just as good as you are, and that
you make yourself want to puke, too? Or was it something else?

Michael, you're frequently disparaging other people, and then you turn
around and deny it. You're full of crap.

I'm beginning to think you've had a stroke,
or you've gone over to the trolls full time. I've had email from others
on the group wondering what the hell has happened to you.

Hahaha! Right. You're getting e-mail from "others" who want to ask *you*
what's happened to *me*. You're the expert everyone is consulting. Jeez, you
should see the e-mail people send to me about *you*. It's like the e-mail
you're getting about me, only moreso. d8-)

I've had enough of your bull****, Michael. I'd say that phonies make me want
to puke, but that would be unfair to the phonies. They need love, too...

--
Ed Huntress

"RB" (clip) You claimed that conservatives hounded Democrats when their
teenage
daughters became pregnant.
Give an example. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Show me where I ever said such a thing. This is worse than a straw man
argument, since even the straw man does not exist.

You're the one with the problem, Michael, not me. And you appear to
be
oblivious to it, besides.


Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

What about that "putting words in your mouth" accusation? Are you such
a
freaking degenerate that you aren't even going to apologize?


Apologize? What for? You quote things of context, or can't
comprehend what they mean.

Listen asshole, you said I put words in your mouth, when I quoted your
words
EXACTLY. As for the context, here's the rest of it:

"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."

So, did you really mean that liberals are just as good as you are, and
that
you make yourself want to puke, too? Or was it something else?

Michael, you're frequently disparaging other people, and then you turn
around and deny it. You're full of crap.

I'm beginning to think you've had a stroke,
or you've gone over to the trolls full time. I've had email from others
on the group wondering what the hell has happened to you.

Hahaha! Right. You're getting e-mail from "others" who want to ask *you*
what's happened to *me*. You're the expert everyone is consulting. Jeez,
you
should see the e-mail people send to me about *you*. It's like the e-mail
you're getting about me, only moreso. d8-)

I've had enough of your bull****, Michael. I'd say that phonies make me
want
to puke, but that would be unfair to the phonies. They need love, too...

--
Ed Huntress


Hey Ed, do you remember the movie Cool Hand Luke? Strother Martin had the
one memorable line in that movie that was, "what we have here is a failure
to communicate". Remember that? Well, that's what we have here. No matter
how well you present the facts Mr. Bonehead isn't going to get it. It's like
that sig line about Bush, like a rock...only dumber. That's what you are
dealing with. You can lead this fool to water, metaphorically, but he's not
going to drink no matter what you do. So not only can't you get through but
you get to learn that since you have gone to the dark side (middle of the
road) no one here knows you any more. Welcome to the club, Lefty.

Hawke

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , RB
wrote:

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.

One reason nobody can cite such an example is that when that happens to
a
Democrat's teenage daughter, she has an abortion before the news media
ever
find out she was pregnant.

Cites?

More likely, they're smart enough to use condoms. That was the first thing
that struck me about Palin's daughter. Is she dumb as a stick, or what?

--
Ed Huntress


Obviously, she's been neglected. You know what happens when mothers that
work are never home to watch the kids. It's the devil's playground. Palin's
got the other kids doing her job by looking after the defective kid already.
I don't care what anyone says to the contrary, you can't work full time and
raise a family of 5 and not have things you neglect to do because there just
isn't enough time in the day to do it all. How many times have we heard of
the dads that are never around to even see their kids because they spend
their life at their jobs? Palin's running the governor's office in Alsaka
and there is still plenty of time for the family? You have to be completely
stupid to believe that.

Hawke

"Todd Rich" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
(snip)
Cites?

More likely, they're smart enough to use condoms. That was the first
thing
that struck me about Palin's daughter. Is she dumb as a stick, or what?

Are you aware that condoms have a failure rate?


I'll bet that's what happened. The one time she had sex the rubber broke.

Hawke

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 21:15:36 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
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."
snip
----------
Close, but no cigar.

One of the 19 century Tory [UK] prime ministers astutely observed
"When it is not necessary to act, it is necessary not to act,"
which is a sentiment I fully agree with.

The problem is that it is indeed vital/critical to act from time
to time, and our society/culture/financial systems/etc. are now
changing with increasing rapidity, with many novel/unique
situations resulting, rendering much experience and conventional
wisdom less than useless, i.e. actually harmful.

The neo-con effort to roll back times to a simpler era is doomed
to failure, largely because they want to have their [largely
economic] cake and eat it too. "Mass consuming proletariat" is
just as much an oxymoron as "military intelligence" and "postal
service."

On the other hand "don't just stand there -- *DO SOMETHING*" is
very poor advice/policy for an individual, a company or a
country, and continually confuses activity with accomplishment.

So what does the American electorate get in response to the
current situation? Celebrity mud wrestling, political slogans,
ad hominem attacks, witch hunts, "splendid little foreign wars,"
"economic voodoo," etc., etc.

Where is the hard data? Where is the rigorous analysis? Where
are the closely argued and tersely written "White papers"
supporting existing and proposed policies and procedures? For
that matter, what are the policies and who is setting them,
logical or not?

This is not a political campaign, it is a punch-and-judy show,
and a poor one at that.


I can't think of anything that would be more appealing to the ignorant
masses. After all, they're the ones who are the deciders on what the outcome
of our presidential selection process will be. Sad isn't it?

Hawke

Hawke wrote:
"Todd Rich" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
(snip)
Cites?

More likely, they're smart enough to use condoms. That was the
first thing that struck me about Palin's daughter. Is she dumb as a
stick, or what?

Are you aware that condoms have a failure rate?


I'll bet that's what happened. The one time she had sex the rubber
broke.


Maybe that's what they will call the kid.
Broken Rubber Palin.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 16:16:35 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
om...

Apologize? What for? You quote things of context, or can't
comprehend what they mean.

Listen asshole, you said I put words in your mouth, when I quoted your words
EXACTLY. As for the context, here's the rest of it:

"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."

So, did you really mean that liberals are just as good as you are, and that
you make yourself want to puke, too? Or was it something else?

Michael, you're frequently disparaging other people, and then you turn
around and deny it. You're full of crap.

I'm beginning to think you've had a stroke,
or you've gone over to the trolls full time. I've had email from others
on the group wondering what the hell has happened to you.

Hahaha! Right. You're getting e-mail from "others" who want to ask *you*
what's happened to *me*. You're the expert everyone is consulting. Jeez, you
should see the e-mail people send to me about *you*. It's like the e-mail
you're getting about me, only moreso. d8-)

I've had enough of your bull****, Michael. I'd say that phonies make me want
to puke, but that would be unfair to the phonies. They need love, too...

Ed, why not just plonk him like many of us have? Why lower yourself?
Why do so many people here continue to battle with trolls and morons?
sigh

--
Who is wise? He that learns from every One.
Who is powerful? He that governs his Passions.
Who is rich? He that is content.
Who is that? Nobody.
-- Benjamin Franklin

"Hawke" wrote in message
...


You're the one with the problem, Michael, not me. And you appear to
be
oblivious to it, besides.


Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

What about that "putting words in your mouth" accusation? Are you such
a
freaking degenerate that you aren't even going to apologize?


Apologize? What for? You quote things of context, or can't
comprehend what they mean.

Listen asshole, you said I put words in your mouth, when I quoted your
words
EXACTLY. As for the context, here's the rest of it:

"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."

So, did you really mean that liberals are just as good as you are, and
that
you make yourself want to puke, too? Or was it something else?

Michael, you're frequently disparaging other people, and then you turn
around and deny it. You're full of crap.

I'm beginning to think you've had a stroke,
or you've gone over to the trolls full time. I've had email from
others
on the group wondering what the hell has happened to you.

Hahaha! Right. You're getting e-mail from "others" who want to ask *you*
what's happened to *me*. You're the expert everyone is consulting. Jeez,
you
should see the e-mail people send to me about *you*. It's like the e-mail
you're getting about me, only moreso. d8-)

I've had enough of your bull****, Michael. I'd say that phonies make me
want
to puke, but that would be unfair to the phonies. They need love, too...

--
Ed Huntress


Hey Ed, do you remember the movie Cool Hand Luke? Strother Martin had the
one memorable line in that movie that was, "what we have here is a failure
to communicate". Remember that? Well, that's what we have here. No matter
how well you present the facts Mr. Bonehead isn't going to get it. It's
like
that sig line about Bush, like a rock...only dumber.

He gets it. He just doesn't like what he gets.

--
Ed Huntress

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , RB
wrote:

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.

One reason nobody can cite such an example is that when that happens to
a
Democrat's teenage daughter, she has an abortion before the news media
ever
find out she was pregnant.

Cites?

More likely, they're smart enough to use condoms. That was the first
thing
that struck me about Palin's daughter. Is she dumb as a stick, or what?

--
Ed Huntress


Obviously, she's been neglected. You know what happens when mothers that
work are never home to watch the kids. It's the devil's playground.
Palin's
got the other kids doing her job by looking after the defective kid
already.
I don't care what anyone says to the contrary, you can't work full time
and
raise a family of 5 and not have things you neglect to do because there
just
isn't enough time in the day to do it all. How many times have we heard of
the dads that are never around to even see their kids because they spend
their life at their jobs? Palin's running the governor's office in Alsaka
and there is still plenty of time for the family? You have to be
completely
stupid to believe that.

Hawke

I agree.

--
Ed Huntress

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 16:16:35 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
news:GtednSsQccTYElzVnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@earthlink. com...

Apologize? What for? You quote things of context, or can't
comprehend what they mean.

Listen asshole, you said I put words in your mouth, when I quoted your
words
EXACTLY. As for the context, here's the rest of it:

"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."

So, did you really mean that liberals are just as good as you are, and
that
you make yourself want to puke, too? Or was it something else?

Michael, you're frequently disparaging other people, and then you turn
around and deny it. You're full of crap.

I'm beginning to think you've had a stroke,
or you've gone over to the trolls full time. I've had email from others
on the group wondering what the hell has happened to you.

Hahaha! Right. You're getting e-mail from "others" who want to ask *you*
what's happened to *me*. You're the expert everyone is consulting. Jeez,
you
should see the e-mail people send to me about *you*. It's like the e-mail
you're getting about me, only moreso. d8-)

I've had enough of your bull****, Michael. I'd say that phonies make me
want
to puke, but that would be unfair to the phonies. They need love, too...

Ed, why not just plonk him like many of us have? Why lower yourself?
Why do so many people here continue to battle with trolls and morons?
sigh

Michael is neither a troll nor a moron. He's just...well, self-absorbed with
his world view. But there is little reason to discuss things with him
anymore.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 09:24:07 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Hawke" wrote in message
. ..

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , RB
wrote:

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.

One reason nobody can cite such an example is that when that happens to
a
Democrat's teenage daughter, she has an abortion before the news media
ever
find out she was pregnant.

Cites?

More likely, they're smart enough to use condoms. That was the first
thing
that struck me about Palin's daughter. Is she dumb as a stick, or what?

--
Ed Huntress


Obviously, she's been neglected. You know what happens when mothers that
work are never home to watch the kids. It's the devil's playground.
Palin's
got the other kids doing her job by looking after the defective kid
already.
I don't care what anyone says to the contrary, you can't work full time
and
raise a family of 5 and not have things you neglect to do because there
just
isn't enough time in the day to do it all. How many times have we heard of
the dads that are never around to even see their kids because they spend
their life at their jobs? Palin's running the governor's office in Alsaka
and there is still plenty of time for the family? You have to be
completely
stupid to believe that.

Hawke

I agree.

If that's the case, and it probably is:

With their mother as VP, all of her children will have all sorts of
guidance and supervision from then on.

Why worry?

--
Who is wise? He that learns from every One.
Who is powerful? He that governs his Passions.
Who is rich? He that is content.
Who is that? Nobody.
-- Benjamin Franklin

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 09:24:07 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Hawke" wrote in message
.. .

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , RB
wrote:

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.

One reason nobody can cite such an example is that when that happens
to
a
Democrat's teenage daughter, she has an abortion before the news
media
ever
find out she was pregnant.

Cites?

More likely, they're smart enough to use condoms. That was the first
thing
that struck me about Palin's daughter. Is she dumb as a stick, or what?

--
Ed Huntress


Obviously, she's been neglected. You know what happens when mothers that
work are never home to watch the kids. It's the devil's playground.
Palin's
got the other kids doing her job by looking after the defective kid
already.
I don't care what anyone says to the contrary, you can't work full time
and
raise a family of 5 and not have things you neglect to do because there
just
isn't enough time in the day to do it all. How many times have we heard
of
the dads that are never around to even see their kids because they spend
their life at their jobs? Palin's running the governor's office in
Alsaka
and there is still plenty of time for the family? You have to be
completely
stupid to believe that.

Hawke

I agree.

If that's the case, and it probably is:

With their mother as VP, all of her children will have all sorts of
guidance and supervision from then on.

Why worry?

I'm not worried about her kids. They have a large family for support and
enough money to buy their way out of troubles.

I'm just not happy with the judgment or values of people who have five kids
and then take on one of the world's most demanding jobs. It's the antithesis
of how my wife and I arranged our lives, so I'm looking at it from the other
end of the telescope.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 09:24:07 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Hawke" wrote in message
. ..

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...

In article , RB
wrote:


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.

One reason nobody can cite such an example is that when that happens
to

a

Democrat's teenage daughter, she has an abortion before the news
media
ever
find out she was pregnant.

Cites?

More likely, they're smart enough to use condoms. That was the first
thing
that struck me about Palin's daughter. Is she dumb as a stick, or what?

--
Ed Huntress


Obviously, she's been neglected. You know what happens when mothers that
work are never home to watch the kids. It's the devil's playground.
Palin's
got the other kids doing her job by looking after the defective kid
already.
I don't care what anyone says to the contrary, you can't work full time
and
raise a family of 5 and not have things you neglect to do because there
just
isn't enough time in the day to do it all. How many times have we heard
of
the dads that are never around to even see their kids because they spend
their life at their jobs? Palin's running the governor's office in
Alsaka
and there is still plenty of time for the family? You have to be
completely
stupid to believe that.

Hawke

I agree.

If that's the case, and it probably is:

With their mother as VP, all of her children will have all sorts of
guidance and supervision from then on.

Why worry?


I'm not worried about her kids. They have a large family for support and
enough money to buy their way out of troubles.

I'm just not happy with the judgment or values of people who have five kids
and then take on one of the world's most demanding jobs. It's the antithesis
of how my wife and I arranged our lives, so I'm looking at it from the other
end of the telescope.

--
Ed Huntress



I think Sarah is still married and has a husband to help with the kids.
Kids should help take care of their younger siblings, its good
training for being future parents.

I have to laugh at some of the criticism that has been brought up about
the kids being used when they were all at the republican convention. To
be there and see history taking place or sit home and watch it on the
tube, where would rather have been, Ed.

If I hire a roofer to do a job, I'm not going to go into his family
history to make a decision to hire him, I'm going to ask how he has
done past jobs, did they leak? I see here that there is little
examination of what these people running for office have done regarding
their past government experience.

I wondered why Hillary was so well liked. What did she actually do?
While first lady, she spend time trying to get something done with
health care but never got to first base with it. Her election as
senator in NY was on her husbands coattails. NY is as solidly
democratic as they come so it was a cake walk. In the primary she just
did nothing and let Obama run right over her and then cried foul. I am
happy she did not win.

Obama has demonstrated that he can get things done at least by the way
he ran his primary. I think he is more intelligent and has the ability
to make an intelligent decision using all the information at hand. His
speeches are more in depth than McCains's and they make more sense.
McCain and his flip flop on the tax cut bill has me wondering. He speaks
in generalities and hasn't come out with any specifics of what he will do.

What worries me about Biden is that he as well as McCain has been in
Congress for too long and has lost touch with reality. They both have
too maybe favors they owe to outside interests.

Palin is an outsider, but from her track record she has done well for
the people of Alaska that she served. Her roof doesn't leak. She has
demonstrated an ability to get things done.

I would really like to see an Obama/ Paulin ticket but that would never
happen.


John

http://www.gov.state.ak.us/archive-59841.html

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 10:16:47 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

If that's the case, and it probably is:

With their mother as VP, all of her children will have all sorts of
guidance and supervision from then on.

Why worry?

I'm not worried about her kids. They have a large family for support and
enough money to buy their way out of troubles.

I'm just not happy with the judgment or values of people who have five kids
and then take on one of the world's most demanding jobs. It's the antithesis
of how my wife and I arranged our lives, so I'm looking at it from the other
end of the telescope.

Perhaps, but, had you been tapped for the job during your childraising
years, would you have turned your country down?

--
Music washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life.
---- --Unknown