Posted on 09/02/2008 5:42:53 AM PDT by suspects
ST. PAUL, Minn. - And you thought the Clinton-Obama convention was a soap opera.
Enter stage (far) right: The Sarah Palin Chronicles.
John McCain’s VP choice was already the fastest-breaking curveball American politics had seen in a generation before this Reuters report:
“The 17-year-old daughter of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is pregnant, Palin said on Monday in an announcement intended to knock down rumors by liberal bloggers that Palin faked her own pregnancy to cover up for her child.”
“Faked” pregnancies. Teen sex. Government cover-ups. It’s like a bad episode of “Desperate Housewives,” except Gov. Palin is much hotter than Marcia Cross.
And she’s been the nominee for less than a week.
For normal people who don’t surf the fever swamps of the DailyKos and other liberal Web sites, the reference to faking a pregnancy has to do with a story invented by some lefty blogger that Trig Palin - Sarah’s newborn son who has Down syndrome - is actually the illegitimate son of the governor’s oldest daughter.
This idiotically offensive slur was demonstrably false - it took me less than 60 seconds to find a photo of a painfully-pregnant Gov. Palin from earlier this year - but pro-Obama activists like Andrew Sullivan and even some mainstream media outlets jumped on it.
And now, with the news of Bristol Palin’s pregnancy, the 2008 presidential campaign officially has more plot twists than an episode of “Lost.” It also has two legitimate stars: Barack Obama, descended from the heavens to heal our souls and deliver our nation; and Sarah Palin, who wandered in from the Alaska wilderness with a rifle under one arm and a baby in the other.
The Republicans figured out a strategy to deal with Oba-Messiah: the power of positive mockery. It worked so well that...
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...
This is what I mean by lowering the bar. How about, "premarital sex is a sign of social decline"?
Oh, yeah, right. ok. So sex outside of marriage is now “ok.” This is what I mean by lowering the bar. BTW, I think the stats on people marrying at that age and staying married are incredibly poor.
Well, a lot of people are going to see it that way. Feminists hate it, of course, but there is some truth to it.
Palin will bring a LOT of votes to the ticket, but the media firestorm---Rush has already spent his entire monologue on this---has crushed all the bump McCain got out of naming her.
No, to be consistent she should have followed the “abstinence only” program, which, BTW, her mother endorses.
It was hard to tell since some freepers really have said the same thing and not been sarcastic.
First, your #6 I was replying to seemed to be maikng a moral argument.
Second, educate yourself. Alaska is NOT an abstinence only State. Regardless of the Governor’s desires for abstinence only education, her daughters are being taught current sex education.
So, if the teachings her daughter has been under are to blame, it is the teachings of current sex education that are to blame, not abstinence only.
But logical thinking is not the forte of lib’rul reporters and politicians. I’m surprised you’ve fallen into their hole, though.
So you are ok with sex outside of marriage. Good to know. That’s what I call lowering the bar-—if it’s “our guy,” it’s not wrong.
I have a book of medieval love poetry. I call it my "dirty" book.
From what I have been hearing they were engaged BEFORE she got pregnant, not because of it.
Now I see that logic isn’t your forte either.
Sex outside of marriage is NOT the issue here. The Palins have dealt with that issue. and it is THEIR place to deal with it.
It’s wrong behavior, but it isn’t my place to deal with wrong behavior in the Palins’ family. Nor is it yours. IMO, few voters will change their votes because of this issue. There is NO hypocrisy involved in the Palins’ handling of the thing.
BTW, God said that if a man has sexual relations with a woman before she is married, the man MUST marry her, and he is never allowed to put her away. That’s the ‘punishment’, if you will. If either of them is already married, then it is adultery, which is a different issue.
We are no longer ‘under’ the law, but it remains a good guide for behavior. IMO, the Palins have handled it perfectly.
It is their decision and their business---you got that right. And that's the proper answer. What is NOT the proper answer is to say, "Oh, that's really not so bad." or, "Oh, that's really not immoral."
Once again, you're lowering the bar, and the gymnastics you are going through to justify this is beyond silly.
The only answer needs to be, "This is up to the family, and not a public matter." But for Freepers to twist and turn and say that pregnancy outside of marriage is moral is another lowering of the bar.
Wrong. You apparently don’t understand the difference between adultery and fornication. What occurred in the Palin family was fornication, not adultery.
But I never said it was good, or right, or moral, and I am not justifying it. If you think I am, then please quote my words saying any of those things.
But in the meantime, open up your Bible and study the difference between adultery and fornication. And the remedies for each in the so-called Old Testament.
Listen, you wrote a book. That means you’re a researcher. So, do yourself a favor, put your research skills to work and find out what you’re talking about before you talk about this again. Frankly, you’re embarrassing yourself with your lack of knowledge on this subject.
You are precisely justifying it when you attempt to argue that this does not lower the bar. It absolutely does. It is one thing to say, "It's the family's business." But that's not what many here are saying. The response is, "illicit sex is ok as long as it's on our side." But if your Bible distinguishes morally between adultery and fornication, it must be a new edition I'm not aware of.
You're an author, and you don't know the difference between inference and implication?
If adultery and fornication mean the same thing "by inference", then it is you drawing that inference, not Jesus. He made it clear the two are different. (And he didn't IMPLY anything - he made direct, clear statements.)
No, you are wrong. Adultery and fornication are two different sins. But because you are too vain or lazy to accept my challenge to research in the Bible, you have failed in this debate.
You don't know that adultery is having sexual relations with someone else's wife? Or that fornication is sexual intercourse with either a woman who is not betrothed or a divorced woman?
You are precisely justifying it when you attempt to argue that this does not lower the bar
When and where did I do that? Please quote me where I said that.
LOL. Now we’re “measuring” sins. You win. You’ve made my point.
No, I’m differentiating sins.
So far, you haven’t been able to quote anything I’ve said that you’ve accused me of saying. Your last post doesn’t disappoint. You are still making charges you can’t support.
And you’re wrong on the facts.
Now, one last challenge: In your last post, you appear to be accusing me of measuring sins. Please quote my words saying or intimating that.
Addendum: Here’s one more challenge. Earlier you said that Jesus had spoken of fornication and adultery as if they were the same thing. Please quote Jesus saying that.
Nonsense, just the standard usage of the word "illegitimate."
If you meant something else, then use another word.
This is what I mean by lowering the bar. How about, "premarital sex is a sign of social decline"?
OK. If this is the sort of thing that points up "social decline" to you, then knock yourself out.
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.