Sarah Palin??

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your conclusion is wrong. The best parents in the world still have children who do what they want to do. It has nothing to do with "house in order".

Me wrong? Hahahaaaahah.

Would you let a mechanic who couldn't properly fix his own car work on yours?

Edit: But more to the point, sex-ed and condom availabilty is a good thing.

Originally posted by Robtard
Me wrong? Hahahaaaahah.

Would you let a mechanic who couldn't properly fix his own car work on yours?

Edit: But more to the point, sex-ed and condom availabilty is a good thing.

A 17 year old girl/woman is not a car. If you think you can tell a 17 year old girl/woman not to have sex when she want too, then you are really clueless. 😆

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A 17 year old girl/woman is not a car. If you think you can tell a 17 year old girl/woman not to have sex when she want too, then you are really clueless. 😆

Are you acting like a retard on purpose?

Originally posted by Robtard
You're right though, kids will be kids, so this just further solidifies that sex education and making condoms available is probably a good idea. Because if she was going to rebel and spread her legs in the snow even under the care of a mother like Palin, a condom would have both protected her from STDs and probably prevented the pregnancy.

Originally posted by Robtard
But more to the point, sex-ed and condom availabilty is a good thing.

Originally posted by Robtard
Are you acting like a retard on purpose?

Do you like to beat your wife?

Now can we get back on topic before you start just insulting me because you have no argument?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you like to beat your wife?

Now can we get back on topic before you start just insulting me because you have no argument?

Never have and I do love the "you have no argument" tactic, it's cute.

You're using a strawman, I never claimed a 17 year old girl could be kept in check, I in fact argued it's the reason why sex-ed and condom availability is a good thing. The fact that you avoid those post, despite me reposting them for you and continue to act like a retard is the reason why I asked.

Would you like me to repost them again? Or you can just look two post above this one.

Edit: For the third time now. copy/paste

Originally posted by Robtard
You're right though, kids will be kids, so this just further solidifies that sex education and making condoms available is probably a good idea. Because if she was going to rebel and spread her legs in the snow even under the care of a mother like Palin, a condom would have both protected her from STDs and probably prevented the pregnancy.

Originally posted by Robtard
But more to the point, sex-ed and condom availabilty is a good thing.

Originally posted by Robtard
Never have and I do love the "you have no argument" tactic, it's cute.

You're using a strawman, I never claimed a 17 year old girl could be kept in check, I in fact argued it's the reason why sex-ed and condom availability is a good thing. The fact that you avoid those post, despite me reposting them for you and continue to act like a retard is the reason why I asked.

Would you like me to repost them again? Or you can just look two post above this one.

Edit: For the third time now. copy/paste

Originally posted by Robtard
You're right though, kids will be kids, so this just further solidifies that sex education and making condoms available is probably a good idea. Because if she was going to rebel and spread her legs in the snow even under the care of a mother like Palin, a condom would have both protected her from STDs and probably prevented the pregnancy.

Originally posted by Robtard
But more to the point, sex-ed and condom availabilty is a good thing.

Then you cannot call Palin a hypocrite because her daughter got pregnant. To do that is to say that parents have control over 17 year old girls. Sorry you did not follow me on that. How you feel about birth control is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then you cannot call Palin a hypocrite because her daughter got pregnant. To do that is to say that parents have control over 17 year old girls. Sorry you did not follow me on that. How you feel about birth control is irrelevant.

More strawman, I said:

Originally posted by Robtard
The point: She's an advocate of both "family values" and "abstinence only", it's funny that she can't keep her own house in order.

Originally posted by Robtard
More strawman, I said:

That does not matter. Her beliefs cannot extent to her daughter. For all we know her daughter could be free sex hippie. I have known Christians who are very strict, and in rebellion, their daughters go wild and get pregnant at young ages. You cannot call the parent of a child who get pregnant a hypocrite because it goes against their beliefs. What do you want them to do? Kick the kid out on her butt?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That does not matter. Her beliefs cannot extent to her daughter. For all we know her daughter could be free sex hippie. I have known Christians who are very strict, and in rebellion, their daughters go wild and get pregnant at young ages. You cannot call the parent of a child who get pregnant a hypocrite because it goes against their beliefs. What do you want them to do? Kick the kid out on her butt?

FFS, the strawman continues. I said it was funny.

Edit:

For the third time:

Originally posted by Robtard
Sarah Palin's 17 year old unwed daughter is pregnant... hahahahahaahahaaaahhhahaaaa. Family values my ass.

Originally posted by Robtard
The point: She's an advocate of both "family values" and "abstinence only", it's funny that she can't keep her own house in order.

Originally posted by Robtard
FFS, the straw-man continues. When in the **** did I call her a hypocrite? I said it was funny.

For the third time:
Originally posted by Robtard
The point: She's an advocate of both "family values" and "abstinence only", it's [b]funny that she can't keep her own house in order. [/B]

Originally posted by Robtard
Sarah Palin's 17 year old unwed daughter is pregnant... hahahahahaahahaaaahhhahaaaa. Family values my ass.

Edit: Just saw it was already brought up in the Election thread a couple hours ago, still a LoL though.

Sure you didn't use the word "hypocrite", and if you had not intended to insinuate that she was a hypocrite, then what did you find so funny?

Now who has the straw-man?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sure you didn't use the word "hypocrite", and if you had not intended to insinuate that she was a hypocrite, then what did you find so funny?

Now who has the straw-man?

That an "abstinence only" supporter has an unwed pregnant teen daughter, that's funny. Because obviously, "abstinence only" education failed, while sex-ed and a condom would have prevented the unwed teen pregnancy.

That would be you, you're claiming I said something that I clearly didn't and then attacking that. That is classic strawman.

Originally posted by Robtard
That an "abstinence only" supporter has an unwed pregnant teen daughter, that's funny. Because obviously, "abstinence only" education failed, while sex-ed and a condom would have prevented the unwed teen pregnancy.

That would be you, you're claiming I said something that I clearly didn't and then attacking that. That is classic strawman.

I don't find that to be funny unless the person you are talking about is a hypocrite. I find that to be tragic. So, you claim that there was no hint of "hypocrite" in that "funny"?

I don't believe you... enough said.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't find that to be funny unless the person you are talking about is a hypocrite. I find that to be tragic. So, you claim that there was no hint of "hypocrite" in that "funny"?

I don't believe you... enough said.

You don't have, humor is subjective. No, hypocrisy would be if she publicly put on a show for "abstinence only" education and then secretly gave her daughter condoms, lube and hooked her up with dates. That would be hypocrisy; I happen to know what it is.

So that's it? You use a straw-man, when it fails, you claim I'm a liar? Good show, Shaky, very mature of you.

Originally posted by Robtard
You don't have, humor is subjective. No, hypocrisy would be if she publicly put on a show for "abstinence only" education and then secretly gave her daughter condoms, lube and hooked her up with dates. That would be hypocrisy; I happen to know what it is.

So that's it? You use a straw-man, when it fails, you claim I'm a liar? Good show, Shaky, very mature of you.

I never thought you were a liar, just delusional. 😉

Originally posted by Robtard
The point: She's an advocate of both "family values" and "abstinence only", it's funny that she can't keep her own house in order.

You're right though, kids will be kids, so this just further solidifies that sex education and making condoms available is probably a good idea. Because if she was going to rebel and spread her legs in the snow even under the care of a mother like Palin, a condom would have both protected her from STDs and probably prevented the pregnancy.

Originally posted by lord xyz
None of the Republicans can keep their own house in order. Like I said, Bush senior was thoroughly against using drugs, yet his own son used those drugs.

Democrats cannot keep their house in order ether. Children grow up and rebel. That is natural.

This is why I stay away from these discussions. There is always one of these ready to pop out and nitpick.

Originally posted by Robtard
In what ways?

One way would be that this will revive that bad blood left from the Obama/Clinton between two groups. Black voters and feminists. It kept the democratic party divided for a period of time. That favors the Republican party. We already seen the liberal minions targeting Paulin...this will just feed the fire. Mark my words. I'll keep watching this circus from the stands.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Democrats cannot keep their house in order ether. Children grow up and rebel. That is natural.

Originally posted by lord xyz
The Democrats don't chant and masturbate to family values, that's the difference.

How is that?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
This is why I stay away from these discussions. There is always one of these ready to pop out and nitpick.

One way would be that this will revive that bad blood left from the Obama/Clinton between two groups. Black voters and feminists. It kept the democratic party divided for a period of time. That favors the Republican party. We already seen the liberal minions targeting Paulin...this will just feed the fire. Mark my words. I'll keep watching this circus from the stands.

It's rather assholish of you to post something that is the topic and debatable and then classify someone asking questions about it as "nitpicking". It's simple, if you either don't want to discuss the topic or are unable to, do not post in a debate board, go post something here.

How will Palin keep the Democrat "Black and feminists" voters divided? Being "targeted" is a known occurrence for a political nominee, anyone who McCain picked would have come under scrutiny, just as Biden has when Obama nominated him.