On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:08:17 -0400, "Notabot"
wrote:

The Black Goat With A Thousand Young wrote:

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 18:17:52 -0400, Cliff fixed me with a beady eye,
and foamed wildly:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:54:06 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:07:12 -0500, Ignoramus15296 wrote:

Another question to ponder. If my memory serves me right, Bristol
Palin was 5 months pregnant at the time when Sarah was nominated.
Sarah said that Bristol was getting married and that she will
marry the guy who got her pregnant.

By now, Bristol is in her 6th or even 7th month and I have not
heard any wedding announcement.

At the time of nomination, I saw a link to this guy's myspace
webpage, which I posted here, and said that he was a loser and
that if I was in Sarah's shoes, I would not be pushing too hard to
get Bristol to marry him.

Apparently, either Sarah also thinks so, or there is something
else, but the time is running out and her daughter isn't marrying
anyone.

Ill be sure to have the wedding planner check with you before the
bans are announced.

Or do you want their phone number and bypass the middle man?

Just so you can give approval of course.

Perhaps they want to see what or who the baby looks like first.

If there's still no wedding announcement as of Oct. 22nd, will Gunner
still be backing McCain & Palin? Ten bucks Cdn says he'll pretend
Sarah never said anything about it, if the kids still aren't married
when Bristol's up to 7 or 8 months.

The issue isn't whether or not the child is born out of wedlock. The issue
(if there even is one, which there isn't except to the extreme left) would
have come into play had she had an abortion, which obviously, she has not.
Having babies out of wedlock knows no political bounds. Abortion does. In
fact, I'd be willing to bet at least as many (if not more) people who vote
the democratic line have had children out of wedlock than their republican
counterparts. So whether or not she's married at the time the child is born
is neither here nor there, unless you're an extremeist hypocrite.

If pressed I'd say I'm open-minded, but slightly to the right of center
politcally. Where I part company with republicans for the most part is
surprise on abortion. I believe that everyone should have the right to
do with their bodies as they wish, so long as it does not directly effect me
physically or financially.

I also notice that some of the political pundits are now starting to say
what I've been thinking for months now. IF McCain wins this election, the
demand for recounts will make the whole 'dangling chad' thing look like a
drop in the bucket. Why? Because the exit polls are going to be FUBAR due
to people claiming to have voted for Obama, when they couldn't really bring
themselves to do it. Why? Somewhat because he's inexperienced, but mostly
just because he's black, and old habits die hard.

Time will tell.



Who cares, first thing that comes to mind is that she must not
communicate with her youth very well. Sure it happens, but ...

Hey, if we must have a chick in chagre might as well have one worth
watching. Nice smile saying chicken in every pot.

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Sunworshipper
Sunworshipper wrote on Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:27:43 -0500 in
rec.crafts.metalworking :



Who cares, first thing that comes to mind is that she must not
communicate with her youth very well. Sure it happens, but ...

What comes to mind is that how ever much Sarah might have talked
with her daughter, her daughter figured that _she_ was special, in
love, and nothing was going to go 'wrong'. Bristol Palin isn't the
first woman to have to change her life because she took serious what
was poked in fun. Happens to a lot of wives, too.


pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
Never pass up a change to kiss a Beeping Sleauty.
Especially if you are a Hung and Pransome Yince.

Sunworshipper wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:08:17 -0400, "Notabot"
wrote:

The Black Goat With A Thousand Young wrote:

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 18:17:52 -0400, Cliff fixed me with a beady eye,
and foamed wildly:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:54:06 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:07:12 -0500, Ignoramus15296 wrote:

Another question to ponder. If my memory serves me right, Bristol
Palin was 5 months pregnant at the time when Sarah was nominated.
Sarah said that Bristol was getting married and that she will
marry the guy who got her pregnant.

By now, Bristol is in her 6th or even 7th month and I have not
heard any wedding announcement.

At the time of nomination, I saw a link to this guy's myspace
webpage, which I posted here, and said that he was a loser and
that if I was in Sarah's shoes, I would not be pushing too hard to
get Bristol to marry him.

Apparently, either Sarah also thinks so, or there is something
else, but the time is running out and her daughter isn't marrying
anyone.

Ill be sure to have the wedding planner check with you before the
bans are announced.

Or do you want their phone number and bypass the middle man?

Just so you can give approval of course.

Perhaps they want to see what or who the baby looks like first.

If there's still no wedding announcement as of Oct. 22nd, will Gunner
still be backing McCain & Palin? Ten bucks Cdn says he'll pretend
Sarah never said anything about it, if the kids still aren't married
when Bristol's up to 7 or 8 months.

The issue isn't whether or not the child is born out of wedlock. The
issue
(if there even is one, which there isn't except to the extreme left)
would
have come into play had she had an abortion, which obviously, she has
not.
Having babies out of wedlock knows no political bounds. Abortion does.
In
fact, I'd be willing to bet at least as many (if not more) people who
vote
the democratic line have had children out of wedlock than their
republican
counterparts. So whether or not she's married at the time the child is
born
is neither here nor there, unless you're an extremeist hypocrite.

If pressed I'd say I'm open-minded, but slightly to the right of center
politcally. Where I part company with republicans for the most part is
surprise on abortion. I believe that everyone should have the right
to
do with their bodies as they wish, so long as it does not directly effect
me
physically or financially.

I also notice that some of the political pundits are now starting to say
what I've been thinking for months now. IF McCain wins this election,
the
demand for recounts will make the whole 'dangling chad' thing look like a
drop in the bucket. Why? Because the exit polls are going to be FUBAR
due
to people claiming to have voted for Obama, when they couldn't really
bring
themselves to do it. Why? Somewhat because he's inexperienced, but
mostly
just because he's black, and old habits die hard.

Time will tell.



Who cares, first thing that comes to mind is that she must not
communicate with her youth very well. Sure it happens, but ...

Hey, if we must have a chick in chagre might as well have one worth
watching. Nice smile saying chicken in every pot.

The problem is that they are either wrong about what they say or they are
liars. In Palin's case I don't think she's a liar. I think she's just wrong
in what she thinks and does. Take her advocacy of abstinence only sex
education. I'm sure she taught her daughter that abstaining from sex before
marriage was the right thing to do. Unfortunately, as we have seen from the
statistics, kids who get abstinence only sex education are more likely to
engage in premarital sex than those who get regular sex ed. So what Palin
believes and advocates about sex ed is wrong. I could go down the line of
many other things she's wrong about but the point is she's advocated
positions that are not borne out by the facts. That disqualifies her for
higher office in my book. Besides, I'm still waiting to hear her say whether
she thinks the world was created 6000 years ago or not.

Hawke