Dobbs 3K Posted March 13, 2009 Report Posted March 13, 2009 I don't think they were ever really going to get married. I don't think they even had a date set or anything. I'm sure Palin's people just convinced the kids to go along with the story so it wouldn't make the situation look any worse for conservative voters.
The Ghost of bps21 Posted March 13, 2009 Report Posted March 13, 2009 If McCain would have won, I bet they'd have been married by inauguration day. Ambition trumps all.
Art Sandusky Posted March 13, 2009 Report Posted March 13, 2009 Sooooo... one of the bearers of the mantle for the retarded wing of the GOP is going to have an unwed teenage daughter with a baby? This means that there won't be any bullshit on that particular front regarding "family values," right? ... right? Fuck, it's going to happen anyway, isn't it.
ZGangsta Posted March 13, 2009 Report Posted March 13, 2009 Sooooo... one of the bearers of the mantle for the retarded wing of the GOP is going to have an unwed teenage daughter with a baby? This means that there won't be any bullshit on that particular front regarding "family values," right? ... right? Fuck, it's going to happen anyway, isn't it. No, the GOP doesn't care about 'Family Values' anymore. Sure they'll use 'Family Values' at the drop of a hat to try and hurt the Democrats, but within the party it doesn't matter. All that matters is the fact that this teenage girl DID NOT get an abortion, thus her family is a shining beacon of family values. Abortion trumps all.
Big Green Posted March 13, 2009 Report Posted March 13, 2009 Sooooo... one of the bearers of the mantle for the retarded wing of the GOP is going to have an unwed teenage daughter with a baby? This means that there won't be any bullshit on that particular front regarding "family values," right? ... right? Fuck, it's going to happen anyway, isn't it. No, the GOP doesn't care about 'Family Values' anymore. Sure they'll use 'Family Values' at the drop of a hat to try and hurt the Democrats, but within the party it doesn't matter. All that matters is the fact that this teenage girl DID NOT get an abortion, thus her family is a shining beacon of family values. Abortion trumps all. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if Todd and Sarah Palin officially adopt the baby sometime soon. You know, so they can show America that they're there for their daughter and will help raise her child if she needs it.
Art Sandusky Posted March 14, 2009 Report Posted March 14, 2009 That's a little beyond helping, isn't it? Doesn't that contradict the personal responsibility mantra? I just realized that I'm trying to find logic in the wingnut Bushie/Palinite platform.
SuperJerk Posted March 16, 2009 Author Report Posted March 16, 2009 The "personal responsibility mantra" of the modern American right has never had an consistency or internal logic, other than as a means to rationalize making the behaviors they condone legal, and the behaviors they do not condone illegal. It is a corrupt, self-serving philosophy that resembles their intellectual forebearers William Buckley and Barry Goldwater in only the most superficial ways.
Art Sandusky Posted March 16, 2009 Report Posted March 16, 2009 I just figured these days it was the alternative to "sitting on your ass and waiting for a check from the gov'ment."
SuperJerk Posted March 16, 2009 Author Report Posted March 16, 2009 You are probably right, but their disdain for the lower class never seems to be limited to the unemployed. Corporations always get a more sympathetic ear from them than the working poor, despite the fact that corporate subsidies and special tax "incentives" are in no way morally righteous than things like food stamps and the earned-income tax credit, no matter what logic you use. I'm not trying to contradict you at all, just using your comment as an opportunity to grind an axe.
NoCalMike Posted March 16, 2009 Report Posted March 16, 2009 Speaking of Republicans and family values, I hear one of the ®'s that was listed on the DC Madam list is trying to get a "defense of marriage" bill written up; of the irony.
Art Sandusky Posted March 17, 2009 Report Posted March 17, 2009 You are probably right, but their disdain for the lower class never seems to be limited to the unemployed. Corporations always get a more sympathetic ear from them than the working poor, despite the fact that corporate subsidies and special tax "incentives" are in no way morally righteous than things like food stamps and the earned-income tax credit, no matter what logic you use. I'm not trying to contradict you at all, just using your comment as an opportunity to grind an axe. Oh, no contradiction taken from it. The current GOP mould of "conservatism" despises the working poor as well as the unemployed. Won't stop the white working poor who live in rural areas from voting for them though! Refer to my answer to AoO's Question of the Day on "who would you kill?" for more details.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now