ot: Governor of where???

[Aecetia]

People often say you can’t pick your parents. I know you can influence your children, but after a certain point unless you keep them in the cellar and home school them, they are on their own. In other words, stick to the policy issues as ur said above. These are not clones or designer children from a test tube, these are human beings, flawed and imperfect. If you do not want to vote for McCain because you prefer Obama, nothing wrong with that. I am singularly unimpressed with the mud slinging going on by both sides. I wanted Romney, but for the life of me I could not understand why anyone would want to be President of VP for that matter, with all the crass and demeaning dirt that is heaped upon the candidates.

Regardless of the continued campaign to impugn the Republicans, I would not vote for Obama. It is not his race, it is about taxes and the economy for me. That may not play well to all the high minded folk on the site, but it is a bottom line issue for me, because it impacts my future and the future of my family. If he was more of a centrist and not a product of liberal brain washing, then I would be considering him. I also admire Hillary for her gumption. I think the tone of the personal attacks against Palin show the fear of the left. I never heard Hillary criticized for being a working Mom and now that kind of criticism is being leveled at Palin. The double standard is alive and well in politics and she is being savaged by women as much as men. So much for the sisterhood!

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=afx114][quote=urbanrealtor]Still, I don’t have a great amount of respect for discounting her based on anything other than actual policy.[/quote]

@urban: But this is her actual policy. Abstinence only eduction in schools. Anti-contraception. This is a perfect example of why her policies don’t work.[/quote]

No its not her actual policy.
It is her personal life.

Having there be a disparity between public and personal lives is nothing new. Pointing out the failure in her public policy is the domain of studies and evidence. Her personal case does nothing but add irony to her statements.

I think its fair to point out a disagreement between public and personal but saying you are pro-life and supporting a daughters decision to carry a baby to term are only peripherally in disagreement. Basically, as I understand it, much of her camp is of the opinion that premarital sex is a bad idea (and therefore sex-ed and contraception are not acceptable) but that abortion (which is not technically contraception) is far worse.

So she humped while in highschool. I don’t think this is really a huge scandal. While being undesirable in that it deviates from “traditional” families (I guess because she is 17), and her mother’s public line, they are addressing it in a way that is very much in keeping with the policies she espouses. The kid is being carried and dad and mom are getting married.

On a side note:
I can’t believe you have me coming to the defense of the right. And on my own satire thread. Ugh.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=afx114][quote=urbanrealtor]Still, I don’t have a great amount of respect for discounting her based on anything other than actual policy.[/quote]

@urban: But this is her actual policy. Abstinence only eduction in schools. Anti-contraception. This is a perfect example of why her policies don’t work.[/quote]

No its not her actual policy.
It is her personal life.

Having there be a disparity between public and personal lives is nothing new. Pointing out the failure in her public policy is the domain of studies and evidence. Her personal case does nothing but add irony to her statements.

I think its fair to point out a disagreement between public and personal but saying you are pro-life and supporting a daughters decision to carry a baby to term are only peripherally in disagreement. Basically, as I understand it, much of her camp is of the opinion that premarital sex is a bad idea (and therefore sex-ed and contraception are not acceptable) but that abortion (which is not technically contraception) is far worse.

So she humped while in highschool. I don’t think this is really a huge scandal. While being undesirable in that it deviates from “traditional” families (I guess because she is 17), and her mother’s public line, they are addressing it in a way that is very much in keeping with the policies she espouses. The kid is being carried and dad and mom are getting married.

On a side note:
I can’t believe you have me coming to the defense of the right. And on my own satire thread. Ugh.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=afx114][quote=urbanrealtor]Still, I don’t have a great amount of respect for discounting her based on anything other than actual policy.[/quote]

@urban: But this is her actual policy. Abstinence only eduction in schools. Anti-contraception. This is a perfect example of why her policies don’t work.[/quote]

No its not her actual policy.
It is her personal life.

Having there be a disparity between public and personal lives is nothing new. Pointing out the failure in her public policy is the domain of studies and evidence. Her personal case does nothing but add irony to her statements.

I think its fair to point out a disagreement between public and personal but saying you are pro-life and supporting a daughters decision to carry a baby to term are only peripherally in disagreement. Basically, as I understand it, much of her camp is of the opinion that premarital sex is a bad idea (and therefore sex-ed and contraception are not acceptable) but that abortion (which is not technically contraception) is far worse.

So she humped while in highschool. I don’t think this is really a huge scandal. While being undesirable in that it deviates from “traditional” families (I guess because she is 17), and her mother’s public line, they are addressing it in a way that is very much in keeping with the policies she espouses. The kid is being carried and dad and mom are getting married.

On a side note:
I can’t believe you have me coming to the defense of the right. And on my own satire thread. Ugh.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=afx114][quote=urbanrealtor]Still, I don’t have a great amount of respect for discounting her based on anything other than actual policy.[/quote]

@urban: But this is her actual policy. Abstinence only eduction in schools. Anti-contraception. This is a perfect example of why her policies don’t work.[/quote]

No its not her actual policy.
It is her personal life.

Having there be a disparity between public and personal lives is nothing new. Pointing out the failure in her public policy is the domain of studies and evidence. Her personal case does nothing but add irony to her statements.

I think its fair to point out a disagreement between public and personal but saying you are pro-life and supporting a daughters decision to carry a baby to term are only peripherally in disagreement. Basically, as I understand it, much of her camp is of the opinion that premarital sex is a bad idea (and therefore sex-ed and contraception are not acceptable) but that abortion (which is not technically contraception) is far worse.

So she humped while in highschool. I don’t think this is really a huge scandal. While being undesirable in that it deviates from “traditional” families (I guess because she is 17), and her mother’s public line, they are addressing it in a way that is very much in keeping with the policies she espouses. The kid is being carried and dad and mom are getting married.

On a side note:
I can’t believe you have me coming to the defense of the right. And on my own satire thread. Ugh.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=afx114][quote=urbanrealtor]Still, I don’t have a great amount of respect for discounting her based on anything other than actual policy.[/quote]

@urban: But this is her actual policy. Abstinence only eduction in schools. Anti-contraception. This is a perfect example of why her policies don’t work.[/quote]

No its not her actual policy.
It is her personal life.

Having there be a disparity between public and personal lives is nothing new. Pointing out the failure in her public policy is the domain of studies and evidence. Her personal case does nothing but add irony to her statements.

I think its fair to point out a disagreement between public and personal but saying you are pro-life and supporting a daughters decision to carry a baby to term are only peripherally in disagreement. Basically, as I understand it, much of her camp is of the opinion that premarital sex is a bad idea (and therefore sex-ed and contraception are not acceptable) but that abortion (which is not technically contraception) is far worse.

So she humped while in highschool. I don’t think this is really a huge scandal. While being undesirable in that it deviates from “traditional” families (I guess because she is 17), and her mother’s public line, they are addressing it in a way that is very much in keeping with the policies she espouses. The kid is being carried and dad and mom are getting married.

On a side note:
I can’t believe you have me coming to the defense of the right. And on my own satire thread. Ugh.

[afx114]

@urban: I mostly agree with what you’ve said above. I only have this one retort: the reason why I didn’t care about Bill’s blowjobs is because he wasn’t trying to pass legislation to ban blowjobs. Now, I’m a full supporter of blowjobs, but if Willie was trying to get one while trying to ban them, that’s a whole new ballgame, mind the pun.

[afx114]

@urban: I mostly agree with what you’ve said above. I only have this one retort: the reason why I didn’t care about Bill’s blowjobs is because he wasn’t trying to pass legislation to ban blowjobs. Now, I’m a full supporter of blowjobs, but if Willie was trying to get one while trying to ban them, that’s a whole new ballgame, mind the pun.

[afx114]

@urban: I mostly agree with what you’ve said above. I only have this one retort: the reason why I didn’t care about Bill’s blowjobs is because he wasn’t trying to pass legislation to ban blowjobs. Now, I’m a full supporter of blowjobs, but if Willie was trying to get one while trying to ban them, that’s a whole new ballgame, mind the pun.

[afx114]

@urban: I mostly agree with what you’ve said above. I only have this one retort: the reason why I didn’t care about Bill’s blowjobs is because he wasn’t trying to pass legislation to ban blowjobs. Now, I’m a full supporter of blowjobs, but if Willie was trying to get one while trying to ban them, that’s a whole new ballgame, mind the pun.

[afx114]

@urban: I mostly agree with what you’ve said above. I only have this one retort: the reason why I didn’t care about Bill’s blowjobs is because he wasn’t trying to pass legislation to ban blowjobs. Now, I’m a full supporter of blowjobs, but if Willie was trying to get one while trying to ban them, that’s a whole new ballgame, mind the pun.

[urbanrealtor]

And similarly I would agree with you if Palin was trying to criminalize sex or having her daughter get an abortion.

I think a better question would be how she addresses the question of sex-ed and pregnancy in the future.

Do you think she will oppose sex ed now?

[urbanrealtor]

And similarly I would agree with you if Palin was trying to criminalize sex or having her daughter get an abortion.

I think a better question would be how she addresses the question of sex-ed and pregnancy in the future.

Do you think she will oppose sex ed now?

[urbanrealtor]

And similarly I would agree with you if Palin was trying to criminalize sex or having her daughter get an abortion.

I think a better question would be how she addresses the question of sex-ed and pregnancy in the future.

Do you think she will oppose sex ed now?

[urbanrealtor]

And similarly I would agree with you if Palin was trying to criminalize sex or having her daughter get an abortion.

I think a better question would be how she addresses the question of sex-ed and pregnancy in the future.

Do you think she will oppose sex ed now?

[Author]

Posts