[urbanrealtor]

As someone who grew up on Bay Area punk music I find it ironic that you spell your handle like a Riotgrrl. Ironic because I am not used to Grrls spouting out racism and sexism (other than “this pit is female only!”).

It impresses me that you say the kind of ignorant things below and still condescend regarding our discourse. Hey kettle, you’re black too.

[quote=condogrrl]Obama will be our first affirmative action president. The less qualified candidate is promoted to president because of his color. No wonder people don’t want to entrust the country to him. Would you want an affirmative action doctor to operate on you? Would you even want an affirmative action mechanic to work on your car? No, I want a truly qualified person. Obama’s credentials are weaker than mine. And I’m not so arrogant to think that I could run this country successfully.[/quote]

[quote=condogrrl]She doesn’t need a nanny for the kids. Her husband can take care of them – he won’t have anything else to do in Washington. Men need to start taking resonsibility for the sperm they spread around.[/quote]

[urbanrealtor]

As someone who grew up on Bay Area punk music I find it ironic that you spell your handle like a Riotgrrl. Ironic because I am not used to Grrls spouting out racism and sexism (other than “this pit is female only!”).

It impresses me that you say the kind of ignorant things below and still condescend regarding our discourse. Hey kettle, you’re black too.

[quote=condogrrl]Obama will be our first affirmative action president. The less qualified candidate is promoted to president because of his color. No wonder people don’t want to entrust the country to him. Would you want an affirmative action doctor to operate on you? Would you even want an affirmative action mechanic to work on your car? No, I want a truly qualified person. Obama’s credentials are weaker than mine. And I’m not so arrogant to think that I could run this country successfully.[/quote]

[quote=condogrrl]She doesn’t need a nanny for the kids. Her husband can take care of them – he won’t have anything else to do in Washington. Men need to start taking resonsibility for the sperm they spread around.[/quote]

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]For those of us who grew up in NorCal, “The City” is San Francisco.[/quote]

Crap.
That’s why we read the same stuff.

Please tell me your not from the North Bay.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]For those of us who grew up in NorCal, “The City” is San Francisco.[/quote]

Crap.
That’s why we read the same stuff.

Please tell me your not from the North Bay.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]For those of us who grew up in NorCal, “The City” is San Francisco.[/quote]

Crap.
That’s why we read the same stuff.

Please tell me your not from the North Bay.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]For those of us who grew up in NorCal, “The City” is San Francisco.[/quote]

Crap.
That’s why we read the same stuff.

Please tell me your not from the North Bay.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]For those of us who grew up in NorCal, “The City” is San Francisco.[/quote]

Crap.
That’s why we read the same stuff.

Please tell me your not from the North Bay.

[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?

[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]

[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.

[Author]

Posts