No Monty that was NOT what I meant.... I said the OLD days had a stigma built in with the peer pressure so we had LESS unwed mothers.

then in another vein (or it was mean as another one) that I had two nephews born out of wedlock (in another generation). I would NEVER turn a child away in MY family and hope to the powers that be that no one else would either.

I have a black nephew also. We're a very ecumentical family. We ACCEPT whatever comes along and that's how it should be because we are a FAMILY.

But I think she accomplished what she intended last night - she pulled the focus away from McCain by turning it on her. Did that one time myself in a Mayor's race and it worked pretty good - we got a new mayor (my candidate). We'll see how this one plays out.

Hugs BD

BarbaraD wrote on Sep 4^th, 2008 at 5:30pm:


Ok - I don't disagree with any of that.  It definitely is a rational and decent response compared to the people who disown an out of wedlock relative or someone in an interracial union.  

My point was that stigmas (to mark or brand someone, aka "The Scarlet Leter") reduced some activity that led to unwanted pregnancies (good), but it increased shotgun weddings and illegal abortions (not so good).  And the stigma comes at a psychological cost - it wouldn't be a deterrent if it wasn't a real penalty for the families who 'transgressed'.  My post had a wink because I didn't really think that you were in favor of it - even though you were harking back to the good ole days.  Or I am still not getting it?      

Sarah Palin scares me almost as much as Obama does.  Her stance on abortion, the fact that she thinks the war in Iraq is *blessed* and that our soldiers are *fighting for Jesus*, and let us not forget that ID should be taught in school and sex education should not

I'm beween Barb and Mel and my mama damned sure didn't tell me about sex (her mama died when she was a kid, so she wasn't taught anything).  Luckily enough, the majority of my friends were older.  My daughter has known from a very early age about sex, std's and everything else. She went to parochial school and they started sex ed in the 2nd grade.  They did emphasize abstinence, BUT, students in the higher grades were taught about birth control, still iwth the emphasis on abstinence.   In fact, when they were going over the sect on std's in Home EC (didn't talk about having sex, just the diseases), she had to correct the teacher!

Teaching kids about birth conrol is not tantamount to giving them free reign to have sex.  Hopefully, those that do choose to have sex, will do so with precautions in place.

BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote on Sep 4^th, 2008 at 6:12pm:


Brian,
I can tell that your daughter is still small.  What do you plan to do when she gets older?  Go on every date with her?  Not let her date at all?  Not let her go out with friends?  Go to sleepovers?  Prom? Dances?  Still going to send her to daycare when she gets 16?

I'm sorry Mel, that was probably insensitive of me to ask that.

What I was asking was regarding parents and school for sex ed.  You said you knew all the technical stuff, but your mom did not teach you about the scope of what it means to be a parent.  I was just wanting to chat about that subject.

It's ok.  I'm sorry.  I'll shut up now.


Jenn,
If that is what it takes, yes.  Isn't that a much better idea than having a drugged out, drunk, pregnant 15 year old? 
Just because it might be seen as a 'drag' doesnt mean I am not going to parent my kid.

Quote:

Whoops.  I dont know why I thought PollyPocket wrote that.  I think I am getting senile.

I agree with what you say.  I am certainly not going to keep stinky in a bubble until she goes off to join Delta Sigma Theta Sorority. 
I agree with letting kids make some mistakes so they learn.  But things like drugs and pregnancy will change the person's life.  Let them make mistakes with smaller stuff that wont permanently alter their life.

deltadarlin wrote on Sep 4^th, 2008 at 9:09pm:


She should have left that comment out.  At least she didn't say it was a crusade.    I'll bet it twirrled Osamma's turbin.

-P.

They showed a clip of 9/11?

Wow.  I didn't think they were gonna go with the fear tactics this election.

We'll see if the next President re-kindles the war on terror. 
Of course it's not gone.  Bush's decision to help the Iraqis elect a leader rather than attack terrorists has only made more terrorists.   
C'mon Brew.  You know as well as I do it is nothing more than a scare tactic and a photo op.  It's disgusting.  Makes me want to puke.

Why does the right wing keep flashing images of death and destruction, but they don't have any sort of plan to DO anything?  Scare tactics.  Nobody is even TALKING about a plan.

I guess some of you folks just want to forget what was done to this country and our people......Thats fucking sad!

Well, anyways, my point was this: the fact that Sarah is for teaching abstinence as the ONLY method of birth control in schools, while she has a pregnant underage daughter, shows how delusional the far right can be. If she, as the 2nd best example of a candidate for the religious party, cannot make that position work, how does she think that is going to actually do anything to solve the problem? But instead of saying “wow, that sure didn’t work the way I though it would, maybe I should try to listening to someone else on the issue and try some compromise” she spins it as a blessing and uses it to make her conviction to the proven flawed concept even less movable. Just what this country needs; another wrong but completely inflexible person in charge. If she wins I hope she says “Mission Accomplished”.

How is it that any unfavorable truth spoken about a republican candidate isn’t welcome here? Sarah’s situation is clearly is incongruent to me, so I bring it up. BTW it wasn’t me who opened this door. Her daughter chose to have sex, Sarah chose to be a candidate, and her supporters started this thread – the door was opened and I walked through. Or are these threads for those who fall in line only? Any deviation from the Alpha group leaves “offense” and so-called “speechless-ness”.

Is there anyone here who would doubt for a second that if Chelsea Clinton got knocked up at 17 and still in school during Bill’s term there wouldn’t be 20 pages of Republican’s bashing her on here? “Speechless” would be the one thing NOT present here I think.

And all from the party that preaches “personal accountability” and whose members where ready to lynch someone’s husband for 1 DUI in 20 years in a recent thread. So treating life willy-nilly with a DUI is so horrible we need to make sure there is no “coddling” but creating life willy-nilly (and on the tax-payer dime I might add) is a good opportunity to show family bonds? Introducing kids to condoms is no more giving them permission to have sex than showing them how to use a seat belt is permission to take the family car for a joy ride. BTW, I find it SUPER humorous that those who are defending Palin on this point and were for “not coddling” this posters husband didn’t have the same response when our current president was busted for lying about HIS DYI! Anyone here from that side get THAT upset at Bush when a copy if his ticket was found and displayed and he said he “forgot” he got arrested? Talk about incongruent.

Bill, in answer to your question, I do not know if the sex act is the mistake or the choice to carry the result to term is the mistake. I am not a religious right republican. You’ll have to ask some of those, but you’ll not get a straight answer depending on which ones you’ll ask. I do know they use that word for people in this situation. I am used to it followed up by talk about bad or absent parenting but I suppose there will be none of that now here. My point is that Palin’s position couldn’t be more wrong on the subject and if she can’t make it work in her own life how the hell should I accept her telling me what is right in my life?

And of course the terror threat isn’t gone – it is worse than ever. While we could have been looking for Bin Ladin with the record amount of money wasted in Iraq, we are busy finding no WMD, no terrorist camps, and no economy for our country.

Which bring me to McSame’s speech. He used the word “change” a lot. And I noticed that Cheney was again in a “undisclosed location”.

If we need so much change is he saying what Bush did / is doing is wrong? Seems that way to me. If Bush did such a good job wouldn’t the speech be about continuing to do that same good job?

So then to the McCain supports here: If you think McCain is gonna be so great and you’re voting for him, are you admitting you were wrong about Bush? Should we get nutty and have me bump up every-single post from 9-11 until today and lets see what all you guys really said back then about our soon to be ex-pres. If you are someone who supported Bush and thinks he was doing what was/is right, I don’t see how you can vote for someone who is for such sweeping “change” and not also be incongruent.

And McSame is the same. Bush was going to “reach across the isle” and McCain is going to “welcome anyone from any side who wants to fix this country”. Bush did nothing he said he was gonna do and there is no reason to think that McCain will either. And the simple fact that people who labeled him RINO and chastised him in the past are now championing him really says a lot about what American politics is all about.

Anyone here better off now than 8 years ago (thanks Ronnie for that one!)? Anyone here feel safer now than 8 years ago?

Speaking of Ronnie, reminds me of a women who would have made a GREAT VP – Nancy! Nancy practiced what she preached and lived her life accordingly. Even democrats respected her. Instead of someone like that I get this holier-than-thou hypocrite person who talks for God. She sure is pretty thou….