Post by The Big Dog on Sept 22, 2008 15:46:19 GMT -5
Breaking my self imposed silence to rebut a few key points.
Big Dog, what if the age of consent was 13, is it ok for GIRLS to get pregnant then too? Geez, legal at the age of 16, what a moronic law.
As was pointed out by me in another thread, 16 is the age of consent in an overwhelming majority of the several states. Whether you like it or not, each state is free to set it's laws as it sees fit in this area. California is 18, but few other states are as I've pointed out, in detail, elsewhere.
Because Bristol Palin had reached the operative legal age of consent, she was free to make her own decisions concerning her body... which is EXACTLY[/b] what pro-abortion activists and the stridently militant feminist minority holler incessantly in favor of.
Until now, when it doesn't seem to fit their larger political agenda. When treated to such outright and blatant hypocrisy I am entitled and within my free speech rights to call BS, and so I did.
Please show me where I advocated in favor of abstinence only? Remember me? The whore with a heart of gold otherwise known as a pro-choice conservative Republican? What people teach their children is their responsibility, alone, and they live with the consequences. And what those children choose for themselves once they are old enough in the eyes of society and the law to make their own decisions is not the responsibility of the parents, but rather of the children themselves.
Given the rates of teen pregnancy, and the fact that younger and younger kids seem to be engaging in sex with each passing day, and passing STDs at an alarming rate, I think it can be argued that the public schools have done a damned poor job in their government mandated role as surrogate parent.
But, poor job or not, that never kept Senator Obama from standing for a bill that mandated sex ed from grade 12 all the way down to "K". Presuming that the curricula was no different what different outcome do you suppose we would have with five and six year olds learning about blowjobs and condoms?
Again the hypocrisy of the left, and those suffering from "Palin Derangement Syndrome" comes out with a broadside of identity politics at their worst, carving on a 17 year old girl. It is reprehensible, utterly and completely reprehensible.
And for the record I don't want anyone telling me they know best regarding sex ed..... period. It is not government's job, through the public schools, to take the role of parent on. It's up to parents to teach their children. If the children don't get it, too bad. But the point still remains that this is an issue that really has absolutely NOTHING to do with Palin's ability to govern. It is an issue solely because the left thinks it is and that they can attack her with it.
Because they have NOTHING of real substance to attack her with, so down into the gutter we go.
And you seem to be following.
So you admit that you brought up a matter completely irrelevant to Sarah Palin's ability to govern, in a completely off topic manner. To what purpose?
Did I name anyone? Did I name you? I wonder... are you having an attack of conscience for playing disengenous identity politics? Because there really should be no other reason for you to think that I meant you.
Oh come now. I am willing to debate issues of all stripe, you should know that.
What I am no longer willing to do is sit back and watch political candidates, or more particularly their families, be put through a grinding machine of BS that is completely irrelevant to the candidate's ability to serve in the office that the candidate is seeking.
Those who are using Bristol Palin, and her father, as cannon fodder to go after Sarah Palin are the worst form of political animal that is known to exist. The most charitable descriptive that comes to mind is "asshole". If that offends you, then I apologize. But I would add that it might be worth some self examination to determine why it does.
In closing, if you want to bring the family of these candidates into play, be very, very careful. You might not like what you find, or what happens.
Good night, and good luck.
As was pointed out by me in another thread, 16 is the age of consent in an overwhelming majority of the several states. Whether you like it or not, each state is free to set it's laws as it sees fit in this area. California is 18, but few other states are as I've pointed out, in detail, elsewhere.
Because Bristol Palin had reached the operative legal age of consent, she was free to make her own decisions concerning her body... which is EXACTLY[/b] what pro-abortion activists and the stridently militant feminist minority holler incessantly in favor of.
Until now, when it doesn't seem to fit their larger political agenda. When treated to such outright and blatant hypocrisy I am entitled and within my free speech rights to call BS, and so I did.
If you think Sarah Palin's daughter is a fine example of abstinence only teaching because she was 16 when she got pregnant, then I just don't even have a response to that it is so ridiculous, most especially since she wants to be VP.
Please show me where I advocated in favor of abstinence only? Remember me? The whore with a heart of gold otherwise known as a pro-choice conservative Republican? What people teach their children is their responsibility, alone, and they live with the consequences. And what those children choose for themselves once they are old enough in the eyes of society and the law to make their own decisions is not the responsibility of the parents, but rather of the children themselves.
Given the rates of teen pregnancy, and the fact that younger and younger kids seem to be engaging in sex with each passing day, and passing STDs at an alarming rate, I think it can be argued that the public schools have done a damned poor job in their government mandated role as surrogate parent.
But, poor job or not, that never kept Senator Obama from standing for a bill that mandated sex ed from grade 12 all the way down to "K". Presuming that the curricula was no different what different outcome do you suppose we would have with five and six year olds learning about blowjobs and condoms?
Again the hypocrisy of the left, and those suffering from "Palin Derangement Syndrome" comes out with a broadside of identity politics at their worst, carving on a 17 year old girl. It is reprehensible, utterly and completely reprehensible.
And, for the record, I do not want anyone telling me they know best regarding sex ed/abstinence only teaching when their own children can't adhere to the plan. Personally, I think the bar should be raised WAY higher than that for young girls/women.
And for the record I don't want anyone telling me they know best regarding sex ed..... period. It is not government's job, through the public schools, to take the role of parent on. It's up to parents to teach their children. If the children don't get it, too bad. But the point still remains that this is an issue that really has absolutely NOTHING to do with Palin's ability to govern. It is an issue solely because the left thinks it is and that they can attack her with it.
Because they have NOTHING of real substance to attack her with, so down into the gutter we go.
And you seem to be following.
When I brought up Todd Palin's DUI in was in response to that ATLAH nut job in the Obama's mama thread.
So you admit that you brought up a matter completely irrelevant to Sarah Palin's ability to govern, in a completely off topic manner. To what purpose?
Now, for you to call people assholes, I am astounded and pretty disappointed since I have always had nothing but complete respect for you.
Did I name anyone? Did I name you? I wonder... are you having an attack of conscience for playing disengenous identity politics? Because there really should be no other reason for you to think that I meant you.
You know the old advice that when going to a party one should never speak of religion and politics? I guess that applies in all situations, well, unless you're in a forum where people are expected to share differing opinions and respectfully debate them...
Oh come now. I am willing to debate issues of all stripe, you should know that.
What I am no longer willing to do is sit back and watch political candidates, or more particularly their families, be put through a grinding machine of BS that is completely irrelevant to the candidate's ability to serve in the office that the candidate is seeking.
Those who are using Bristol Palin, and her father, as cannon fodder to go after Sarah Palin are the worst form of political animal that is known to exist. The most charitable descriptive that comes to mind is "asshole". If that offends you, then I apologize. But I would add that it might be worth some self examination to determine why it does.
In closing, if you want to bring the family of these candidates into play, be very, very careful. You might not like what you find, or what happens.
Good night, and good luck.
