This isn’t the first time Palin has feigned offense at a fictional attack on her children to whore for media attention an sympathy. This is like the only trick she has. She adores playing the outraged mother. It allows her to simultaneously attack and immunize herself from any scrutiny or cross examination. The outrage is opportunistic, self-serving and fake. She really is a despicable person. Worse than Cheney, even.
Glad somebody actually read that.
That’ll do, pig.
(Thanks.)
Oh, please. Dick Cheney is a jackass with power. Sarah Palin is a whiny toad with designs on britches much bigger than the waders she wears. 
The girls are all harlots and Jezebels; you know who you are! But boys will be boys…
Supporting Abstinence Only does not make her a whore and little slut, although many of the more rabid posters here seem to think it does.
It’s ironic that Barck Obama, whom they back so fervidly, would be the first to disown these gutter attacks on family and would despise the cretins who resort to them.
I think that those kinds of reprobations should be applied not to sexual activity per se, but to sexual irresponsibility. To me, a “whore” is not someone who has sex, but a person (male or female) who shows no responsibility in terms of birth control or disease protection. People who habitually reproduce outside the confines of some sort of stable relationship or financial situation should be shamed. The guys who have five kids with four different babymamas and never send any of them a dime, or the woman with four kids by three different daddies who STILL doesn’t use birth control – those people do deserve some kind of a word akin to “whore” that carries the same sort of social stigma, but without any gender connotations or reprovals of sex in itself.
It makes her a hypocrite.
No. And I never said that. It does, however, make her hopelessly naive. It also makes her a target for ridicule as long she poses on the front of People magazine, and gives interviews about how well Abstinence Only education works … most of the time … except for when it was her.
A really good breakdown of Palin’s non-sensical position, not only as a politician but also as an allegedly “concerned” mother:
No, just more likely to get “knocked up,” as alluded to in the original teapot.
The reason that the joke was made in the first place is because certain people dedicate so much time to the promotion of the dogmatic belief that instruction on the benefit and proper use of various prophylactics does make whores and little sluts.
Attacks on family? The guy made an admittedly tasteless joke about the Church Lady’s less-than-abstinent daughter. The Church Lady is deliberately twisting it to make Letterman look like a kiddie diddler. She’s too hell-bent on creating a bigger political issue (at the expense of her daughter…again) to see that she’s cutting her own throat.
HE’S A COMEDIAN. He makes his living this way, and flirts with the line less often than 90% of the people out there. Palin could have (and should have) let it go.
Where does that cynically self-serving behavior rate next to going to a church for 20 years for political reasons alone only to sever ties with it when it is politically convenient? What makes one despicable and the other a winning strategy worthy of admiration?
Whoa, you just broke my non-sequitur meter.
Name one person who was harmed by Obama severing those ties. Name one innocent bystander whose name was dragged through the mud as much as Willow’s has been (almost exclusively by her parents) in the Jeremiah Wright imbroglio.
Obama didn’t attack anybody or exploit his own children. Anyway, his church going wasn’t so much self-aggrandizing or attention seeking (as Palin’s behaviour is), but prophylactic. It was done to protect against attacks, not to foment them.
I also don’t think that his religious faith in itself is compltetely phony. From what I’ve read of his views on religion, my impression is that he has a genuine belief in God (or in some kind of transcendent truth), but isn’t dogmatic on the specifics. His writings show an ecumenical, “all roads lead to Rome” kind of an outlook. In other words, I think he believes in some sort of God, but doesn’t necessarily buy into Christianity as the One True Faith. From what he’s written (and I’m talking about writings long before he was a Presidential candidate), the primary things that attracted him to the church were the community, and the church’s committments to social and community services.
By the way, all those allegedly hateful sermons that Obama sat through for all those years are available on videotape and have been gone through microscopically by the media and by Obama’s political enemies. So far, no one’s found a single thing that Wright said while Obama was in the pews that was even mildly objectionable. The popular contention that Obama Listened to Wright’s ravings," and the like are belied by the fact that every sermon Obama sat through is preserved and accesible to the public, yet no one seems to have been able to find anything Obama listened to that he should have been upset about.
Actually, in this thread they have been calling Willow a whore.
So, to briefly recap, calling a thirteen year old a dog is horrible. Calling a fourteen year old a whore is acceptable.
Depending on party affiliation, of course.
Regards,
Shodan
:rolleyes: Cite to one single person who has said this.
Cite?
ETA: Beaten to the punch.
I was just going to ask for a cite as well. A cursory look through the thread showed no such statement as far as I can tell.
Hey, I think I found one!