If you're defending Sarah Palin, you're on the wrong website.

Fucking Christ. We get it. Jokes bad. Exploiting your children for political gain good.

I'm tired of self-described Democrats doing the GOPs work for them.

:rofl:

Why do you ask?

The other one from Alaska... ummmm... not so much.

Time to take a stand. Sarah Palin represents everything that is wrong with America.
That trumps anything a comedian says about her, her family or her religion or values.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You betcha!

Thanks Mods!

Oh well.x(

:hi:

She murders and supports the murder of innocent wild animals in her state. She preaches abstinence only sex ed, which contribues to unwanted pregnancy, which leads to more abortions, more STD's, and more single parent households that can't afford to raise their children properly. She denies that CO2 emmissions contribute to global warming and promotes the exploitation of the environment to the detriment of the earth and many wildlife species.

She ruined Wasilla, Alaska by building an unnecessary sports complex and invited WalMart into her community. A once beautiful town was transformed into a huge parking lot with a huge debt burden.

She is an uninformed, uneducated, stupid, vapid, moron that has no problem approaching a podium and spewing her nonsense ad nauseum to a gullible public that accepts her opinions based on her status as a public figure. She is an arrogant, selfish, and greedy person that will do anything to promote herself, including bringing her family into the public debate.

She is evil personified. She is the paragon of evil in the 21st century in the same way that Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Barbara Bush, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Roger Ailes, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reily, Anne Coulter and many others are. She is a supreme idiot with a megaphone; just like Adolf Hitler, except now most people don't listen, thankfuly. Yeah, she's evil.

Raaar!




/sarcasm

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

She'd definitely look good in fur, maybe an iron-crown, with some open pit bonfires, Harley dudes playing kettle drums.

And people would eat it up like it's ice cream!

Or Ride of the Valkyries, Kill Da Wabbit type stuff. She's riding with the angels too, methinx (as in Hell's)--or 'skins. Imagine if St. FZ or HS Thompson were still around to poke some phunn at her and her ilk. A bit beyond Letterman's yuks

great post

She also whipped up crowds into a hateful, violent frenzy against Obama.
She is at minimum a narcissist and possibly a sociopath.
And she is a Dominionist.

....of the evil one,Palin. There is not one thing to respect about this 'waste of skin'. Her enjoyment of murdering animals and gutting them to show off, mostly for men, makes me sick...among ALL her other 'flaws'. She is the the worst example of any human being, male or female.

Her ignorance for another.

I love it when someone I alert gets TSed.

Makes me feel like such a good citizen.

much really.... oh yeah, she is also pretty incompetent, uneducated, and her IQ rivals the one of a bags of rocks. And I forgot, she used the same child, who she is so protective of now, as a political prop during the campaign.

So, as I said... not much. Letterman is clearly in the wrong here, god knows if there is something worse than a bad joke... it is joke that may offend the sensitivities of the people who would have no problem sending most liberals in this country marching to the gas chambers.

Obviously, it is not like there are any more pressing issues than anyone on late night making an off color joke about the offspring of a family of degenerates. Oh noes!

Defending the indefensible is nuts. And refusing to accept an explanation and an apology is worse. It's Palinesque.

Unreal.

...Letterman's joke writers screwed up, they didn't realize which daughter was at the ball game with mom and dad.
To Letterman's credit he didn't blame the writers and more or less apologized for the joke. End of story.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2009/06/under-fire-for-a-risque-joke-last-week-david-letterman-has-apologized-to-gov-sarah-palin-and-her-supporters-but-a-group-ur.html
<snip>
"I told a bad joke," Letterman told viewers at an afternoon taping. "I told a joke that was beyond flawed, and my intent is completely meaningless compared to the perception. And since it was a joke I told, I feel that I need to do the right thing here and apologize for having told that joke. It's not your fault that it was misunderstood, it's my fault."

He concluded, "I'm sorry about it and I'll try to do better in the future."
<snip>
----------------

As you said...End of story.

and jiu-jitsu'd the whole thang. Dave: "And regarding this whole Palin daughter thing, I would like to most humbly apologize to Alex Rodriguez for joking that he had impregnated a Palin girl during the 7th inning stretch. Clearly, clearly, A-Rod would never disrespect the game of baseball in such a heinous fashion."

good manners of a Letterman. And if only Bill Clinton was a man and had beat the snot out of McCain.

Just curious as I am following this way after the fact.

When I first heard the joke the next day, I assumed it was about Bristol. She's 18 years old and an unwed mother. I didn't give it a second thought. Only Mooselini jumped to the conclusion that Letterman was talking about Willow and she made a huge fuss over absolutely nothing and of course our corporate media stirred the shit... Who gives a rats ass what Sarah Palin says or does? I sure as hell don't care. :puke: :puke:

Just a theory... :shrug:

In fairness to them, it is easier to adopt a simple identity than to develop a complex personality

Even say you do believe it is sexist etc., why don't these people find some actual women's issues that they can get this POed about :eyes:. For a lot of them it is about the drama. Posting on DU is mostly about drama anyway.
(To be honest I have no idea if people have been having a fit about the Palin thing ;). This website has become too dumb, tabloidy and focused on trivial nonsense, personal dust-ups etc. to be vey interesting for most actual politics junkies I suspect. But, I check in here occasionally and the first thing I thought when I saw this thread was-"Ah yes! I know exactly the sort of 24/7 DUer who is OUTRAGED over this bullshit story."

Seriously....to all serious political junkies, stick to LBN here and move over to places like TalkingPointsMemo for actual important stuff. This place is to politics what the National Enquirer is to news. Its mostly a bunch of not very bright people with too much time on their hands projecting their personal problems here. Move to TPM or Kos lurkers. This place is shit. No fault of the admins/mods. Something about the format attracts the worst kind of faux politics junkie here.)

Finding and working on actual issues would be hard work. It's much easier, more melodramatic, hence a lot more fun to get one's skivvies in a twist over a non issue.

Strange how the divide-and-conquer identification of 'groups' is adopted by the divided. The insanity of accepting the same 'categories' (objectification of human beings) and eagerly going to 'war' based on the battle lines drawn by bigots is beyond reprehensible.

As an independent liberal, I have NEVER had to check my crotch, my skin, or my sexual orientation to figure out right from wrong or what 'side' to take. Thank doG.

and would be outraged if such comments were directed at them?

Or, is it more important to everybody, your daughter(s) included, to point out that when you are openly hypocritical, you risk public humiliation? My parents taught me that my actions have consequences. I'd choose the hard lessons learned any day over ignorance through over-protection.

Which is why I find the notion of politicians "voting their consciences" against abortion or against marriage rights absurd at best and repugnant at worst. Also why, even though I'm ambivalent on the death penalty, I think the argument of "What if it was *your* loved one killed?" is a weak justification for the DP.

Is is unreasonable to believe that we can have society where crude sexual jokes aimed at young girls are not considered prime time entertainment? Or is that not a goal worth pursuing?

Somehow, that strikes me as more misogynistic than acknowledging an 18 year old woman's right to the privileges and the responsibilities of adulthood.

I've said it before, but if she's adult enough to tell the rest of us how to raise our kids, she's adult enough to be held accountable.

or do crude and insulting jokes apply only to women? Where do you draw the line?

I'm sorry, I should have said two silly, illogical reaches. My fault.

Why don't we teach rational thought in elementary school? I'm constantly surprised for the need to teach fully-functioning adults how to take facts and translate them into argument.

Let's start with your Obama analogy. I'll label everything for clarity's sake.

1. The Analogy.

Bristol Palin having sex - Decision.
Barack Obama's race - Not a decision.

I'd argue that suffering as a result of a decision, an action, a choice is much more reasonable than suffering as a result of an uncontrollable, unalterable circumstance of birth. Wouldn't you agree? Good. Let's move on:

Bristol Palin advocating abstinence-only education - Decision.
Barack Obama still being African American - Not a decision.

Now, let's look back on all that. Bristol getting pregnant to begin with doesn't make her fodder for ridicule. She was legally a child. But Bristol, the adult, advocating the same useless religious doctrine that didn't convince her to use a condom in the first place makes her open for ridicule. She is taking a paycheck to put other teenage girls at higher risk of STDs and pregnancy. It's not just a decision, it's a horrible decision.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, still being black (and still not having had any choice in the matter) has enormous positive global impact for the better. Other countries have more respect for us, our African American children have one hell of a role model. Should he be made fun of for that? No. That's silly.

2. Do crude and insulting jokes apply only to women? Where do I draw the line?

Nope. Where the hell did that come from? I don't believe women should be singled out for sexual ridicule, and I can't imagine where you came up with the idea that I might.

First of all, the sex was incidental to the joke. Had she been mauled by somebody's pet chimp and then advocated keeping chimps as pets, Letterman would have made a joke about it. It's the hypocrisy, not the sex.

Secondly, had the joke been about Levi knocking up Madonna (who's reportedly had dalliances with A-Rod), I can't imagine that I would have been offended in any way. In fact, I'd guess a lot of the people on DU who are ranting about Letterman's joke wouldn't have been offended either.

Which brings me to this point - I don't think Bristol should be singled out because she's female, nor do I think she should be afforded special protection because she's a female. In "As Good as it Gets," Jack Nicholson as Melvin gets asked how he writes women so well and he says "I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability." Of course I don't find that globally true, but I think it's what we're supposed to expect of Bristol - that she remain wrong in her views, but shouldn't be forced to confront them either.

Is your daughter having unprotected sex? Is your daughter pregnant? Do you advocate abstinence and preach moral purity to others based on an assumed moral higher ground?

Unless the answer to all those question is YES. Those comments were not directed to your daughter, or anybody else's.... not a hard concept to understand, is it? Unless you were fishing for red herring....

I don't want my daughter to live in a misogynistic society where young girls are the butt of crude sexual jokes. So as much as that "joke" fosters such an atmosphere, then yes - I have the right to comment about it.

I cannot believe the knots so called progressives are tying themselves into trying to justify this shit.

I would love for her to live in a society where most people who throw accusations of "misogyny" around, actually know what the term means and are able apply it to the correct context. I know it is a dream...

that's a pretty weak debating tactic.

Sarah Palin's miserable parenting skills and hypocrisy.

Her children are just babies and aren't responsible for their actions yet, even if one of them IS 18 or whatever. Bristol might think she's "grown up"...just like most of us did at that age...but from where I'm at, she's a baby.

Her mom is responsible for any wrong choices they've made in the past.

Joke was directed more toward her than anyone.

But, that's just my opinion...

a smeared democrat. Maybe one or two faux denouncements when cornered in an interview, but that's it! I'd bet the house on that!

Their dicks. Why be like them? Should King have been like the Klan? Should Ghandhi have been like the British? Should He-Man have been like Skelator? That's all I'm saying.

Retaliating evil with evil validates evil. I'm not with you on that.

That is my point. Y'all said the man was wrong (I don't necessarily agree and think the joke was way too overanalyzed). But it is what it is. Let it go! Why are we still making shrill posts condemning Letterman and giving Palin airtime?!

I'm not saying we fight evil with evil--I'm saying that if someone makes a mistake, acknowledge it and move on don't dwell on it for days and days.

And said that his mom was an unmarried teenage mother and that as a country and a party we can do better than attacking them.

Letterman's "joke" about the daughter was stupid and offensive, as he has now admitted.

but i like having my ass kissed.

who makes herself ridiculous every time she opens her mouth.

I only wish she was triplets.

:rofl:

*&)(^ their way to the top when I was working, thereby making the working environment harder for the rest of who refused.

I don't have any kids to exploit, and I will hold my breath. I know what I've taught them, but if they become teenaged fathers, I don't think that I would parade them around. Why isn't Caribou Barbie more concerned that her own daughter was having sex underage and pressing charges against Levy?

Wait, I know, it furthered her political goals at the time. Family values and all that.

without actually chain smoking while she pulls from a flask.

lol

but Levy wasn't guilty of anything. Age of consent here is 16, so there was no problem, especially given that she's the same age as him.

This happens on both sides. The same people that are now saying that it was just a joke were calling for Don Imus to be fired.

Both sides have got to stop being so sensitive or were not going to have any free speech at all. It'll be like walking on eggshells, it already is.

are a trashy, Jerry Springer (type) Show family that love the spotlight, love drama and haven't got a lick of class. They always have to be in a personal feud with someone (in-laws, Couric, Letterman.)

There was nothing inappropriate about Dave's joke. It might not have been all that funny, but even if it was tasteless, it wasn't inappropriate for late night tee-vee. And anyone who thinks he was referring to the 14-year-old isn't familiar with Letterman.

I'm a long-time reader and first-time poster.

and I totally agree with you......

We have to recognize that, in fact, Palin was there at the Yankees baseball game with her younger (14-year-old) daughter, not her older daughter. Even though Letterman clearly didn't realize it when he told the joke (since it was the older daughter who got knocked up), its easy to see why there was (faux) outrage by Palin, after the fact.

but there seems to be no indication that she was even at the game. She doesn't appear in any videos or photos nor in any of the local media reports.

This is a ploy, proving that she can still move the media. "Letterman Makes Tasteless Joke About Politician." Yeah, like that's really newsworthy.

SHE paraded her brood around like props for months, any fallout that the kids get from that is totally the fault of Mr.&Mrs. Sara. Fuckem' all.

I think the joke made sense too; she did get "knocked up". And I think you could take that to have a double meaning that she got hit be a baseball. In that way it was pretty clever. I think him calling Palin slutty is where he went a little overboard. I don't like to hear any woman called that, maybe thats just me though.

I'm just saying there's hypocrisy by people that always seem to be offended by stuff thats politically incorrect that are now saying this is just a joke. They either need to be consistent and condemn this or stop whining when something offends THEM.

It said she was fostering a slutty look. Very different.

I think you're spot-on with that. Of course, to share your opinion, the Chicken Little Wailing Team would have to stop freaking out for a minute and think.

I'm not sure that will happen. But I have hope that it might.

it was still misogynist. Getting "knocked up" shouldn't make any young woman national fodder for inappropriate jokes. I, too, had my first child at 18 (he's 38 now and posts on DU, too) after being knocked up by my 18 year old boyfriend. There was nothing "funny" about it and ridiculing Bristol (or me or any young, single mother) about presumed promiscuity crosses too many lines (and who gets that power to define the moment that a woman's sexual behavior become promiscuous).

And why has it become acceptable on a liberal board to label flight attendants as slutty - or to sustain a culture that tries to control women's sexuality with labels such as slut or whore.

I happen to like Letterman (which makes this situation all the more painful) and abhor Palin. But liking Letterman doesn't make the "joke" funny or these cultural constructions of good girl/bad girl right.

You'll never be treated as an independent adult as long as you're having the vapors.

I love the irony of people who reinforce one set of stereotypes while attempting to fight another. Sexist jokes are wrong becoause they offend the weak delicate constitutions of women, huh?

calling Palin slutty was going overboard. Another guy mentioned that it was about her appearance, and thats true, but still I think its too ugly a word even in referring to that. He should have said sexy, if he said anything at all.

I think the knocked up joke is more complicated than you think. I think people react to it in different ways and think it means different things. For example, I never thought of it as ridiculing or making fun of Bristol or girls in her situation. That never crossed my mind. I don't think of "knocked up" as a pejorative. I just thought of it more as making light of the situation and just joking about something thats been in the news. I can see how some people (neanderthals) may have reacted to it that way though but I doubt there are many like that, maybe there were decades ago but not any more. But I'm sure there are still some people like that so I can see now why its offensive to you and girls in Bristol's situation and to Bristol herself.

seemed a bit tame, really. He should have gone for something a bit more earthy, along the lines of the Sarah Palin and the Alpha Wolf joke (watch out where the huskies go.....). Let's not forget some Fearless Leaders of the Left were not afraid to get a bit ribald at times. Zappa. Hunter S. Thompson. JW Gacy. Ah homie, J-dub

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

winks and behaves like she's in some beauty pagaent instead of a vice presidential debate, does she not know what she's doing?

One of the reasons why she bombed so hard with Couric is that Couric is a woman and she couldn't get away with all the flirty shit.

I agree...

Hope you'll weigh in on more worthy subjects. :hi:

as blatant racism.

Imus is not racist. Thats like calling Letterman a pervert. You prove my point, youre no different than Palin.

BOTH were just jokes.

made a stock joke about a public figure.

There is no comparison at all.

about a teenager.

Imus just attempted to make fun of the language rappers use.

You're right, theres no comparison.

was both misogynistic and racist at the same time. It was disgusting.

Letterman's joke was in bad taste, and he has admitted so. I will give him a great deal of credit for his - now several - apologies. He was showing some class last night.

But what was that prattle that came from Palin....Even JOE SCARBOROUGH, of all people, wondered this morning why she wasn't able to just accept the apology and leave it at that....Even HE said she made it into yet another political statement when she brought the troops fighting for our freedom of speech into it.

'Nappy headed ho's..' vs 'knocked up'

And add to that that the girls' basketball team did absolutely nothing to bring on such a description, while Palin paraded her daughter who became pregnant out of wedlock while touting the failed Christian value of abstinence. In other words, Palin, like the Christian Church insists that birth control is a sin, but then they act as if young women are bad if they get pregnant before they get married. Note that young men aren't sinful. Your hypocrisy is as great as theirs.

Yup. You got it. It's all the same.

:sarcasm:

There are those in the church who claim this just as there are those in the church who deny this.

Stereotyping is never a good thing.

I've never heard of the Christian Church promoting birth control, even for married people. It's considered something akin to abortion. You may be a Christian with different views but otherwise in general the Christian Church likes its women to be obedient and subservient to their husbands. In other words, pregnant.

There may be denominations of the Christian Church with the views you describe, but it is hardly all of them. I am a Methodist, and we are FAR from that viewpoint. Birth control IS encouraged to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I don't have my Book of Discipline handy...I'm at work...but I will try to remember to look it up.

As far as your "stereotype" of "in general" the Christian Church likes its women to be obedient and subservient to their husbands....wrong again......As a matter of fact, the vast majority of mainline Protestant denominations have full ordination rights for women. Now, how would that be keeping them subservient to the men?

Get over it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And no, women college basketball players don't count as "public figures."

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and the joke that Letterman made. Your user name seems to be an oxymoron.

I don't recall that coming up in the discussion. But then again, I don't give a flying fuck about Imus.

The Rutgers basketball team didn't choose their ethnicity or race. Can't say the same about getting pregnant.

Please stop using the Imus situation as an analogy.

on the other hand, sarah palin uses her children for her own twisted ambition. still, i believe children should be off limits.

Some people just buy right into anything.

That's all.

The joke was about Bristol, who is 18. Any anyone who says otherwise is purposely ignoring the truth.

It was Willow at the baseball game, not the elder Bristol.

Even though it was obvious Letterman meant to be speaking about the one already got knocked up (Bristol) the fact remains that Palin was there at the game with her younger daughter. Thats whats provided the rallying-cry behind Palin's (faux) sense of outrage.

While I hold little sympathy for Palin, you have to admit that Letterman made the joke in a bad way...

that Willow was at the game. According to all photographs, videos and news reports, it was the two couples who were at the game.

not a child anymore... old enough to go to war with a gun... old enough to vote for who becomes the President.

Grow up! Get Over it!

Too young to go to war.
Too young to be subjected to public ridicule over one's sexuality.

And she got paraded around as such.

when pregnant unmarried young women were sent off to be hidden from view (which was not that long ago)? Families used to do that. Then forced the young mothers to put the newborns up for adoption. For that matter, pregnant married women were forced to quit their jobs, too, once the pregnancy became visible. Was she being paraded or simply living her life?

Liberals can be so conservative when they think it benefits them.

He made fun of the one 18 year old mother who gets paid to get up in front of a national audience to advocate abstinence-only education.

Should we ignore the damage Bristol is doing to other lives just because she's young?

who, AFTER FUCKING LIKE RABBITS REPEATEDLY, WITH UNPROTECTED SEX, THEN DECECIDE TO GO AROUND AS SPOKESPERSONS FOR ABSTENENCE!!!

WHY DO YOU INSIST ON GOING AROUND CONVENIENTLY CONTINUALLY IGONORING THE MAIN POINT OF ALL THIS!!!


AND YES I'M FUCKING YELLING AT YOU!!!

Letterman's joke took one second to tell, and didn't name anyone-- except A-rod. Is A-rod Palin's daughter? It's only Palin who has made this a week-long mediafest. Without her-- and the whack-jobs who defend her-- no one would have thought a thing of it.

Now, get your mind out of the gutter.

How in Heaven's name is a woman supposed to become a CEO or POTUS if we're seen as constantly whining? This flap has set feminism back at least 40 years.

Bristol's advocacy of abstinence-only education is an attack on every girl who will get pregnant or contract an STD because they have been mis-educated through religious doctrine rather than practicality.

If she's old enough to pay taxes on the paycheck she earns destroying other people's lives, she's old enough to be ridiculed in public for her hypocrisy.

that people are no longer capable of self control, so lets not even suggest it:eyes:

If Bristol is a hypocrite for promoting abstinance after she failed at it,

What does that make an ex-con who speaks against crime, or the ex-drug user who

speaks against drug abuse? They are hypocrites too..

But actually, very few people know the true definition of "hypocrite"

Organized religion? That's not self-control, it's damaging, outdated theocratic hogwash from a time when low reproductivity meant less warriors, less farmers and more of a chance of passing on the patriarch's genetic material.

And here's why your drug user analogy breaks down under scrutiny -- an ex drug user is somebody who has lived as an addict, then experiences life without using drugs. Bristol Palin has never, and will never live as a teenager who makes it to marriage before having sex. A drug user can talk about being off drugs because he/she knows what it's like. Bristol Palin is a hypocrite. She's advocating a life that she can't ever live. Acting in contradiction to your stated beliefs is the very definition of hypocrisy.

I see no hypocrisy in saying "I had sex before marriage. It was a bad decision. I would not recommend anyone doing it" Sounds just like saying "I used drugs. It was a bad decision. I would not recomend anyone doing it".

As for self-control, You dont need religion to justify it. I think a little self-control goes a long way. But now we as a society are saying we are no more than dogs in heat, and should feel free to be selfish and copulate as such and the hell with the consequences...And the consequences are

Explosion of VD's
Aids
Abortions
Kids with no fathers around
Depedency on the State

But those who prefer to act like alley cats want to remedy these consequences with sex education ONLY, which is just as stupid as abstinance ONLY, when the simple fact that keeping your legs crossed and the penis in ones pants works 100% of the time. But they dont want to
hear this truth for obvious reasons.

Who brainwashed you? Never mind, I have a pretty good idea. The anger-tinged sex-guilt makes it fairly obvious.

I'd buy your drug analogy if drug use were one of the fundamental biological and emotional drives of the species. Or, it were one of the fundamental drives of a great majority of species on the planet. That you equate something biologically beneficial and necessary with something destructive worries me.

Everything in our DNA tells us to reproduce. 3.8 billion years of evolution has seen to that. To facilitate cultural and social development, we have put up all sorts of healthy restrictions and boundaries. For instance, we insist that you have the other person's permission to copulate. I think that's a huge step forward. We wait past biological childhood to increase the chances of survival for both baby and mother. I can support that wholeheartedly.

But this absolute crap that we need to wade through our hormone surge, past puberty well into our twenties when we're married is outdated. According to a quick bit of research, the average age for Americans to get married is 27.7 years for men and 25.6 years for women. That's, what 13-19 years after the puberty driven hormone surge for boys? And about the same for women?

Not waiting to meet a fundamental human drive for 13 years is "self-control"? That's not self-control, that's emotional extortion. It's behavioral modification through fear. But, if you can control when and how people have sex, you can control anything, right? Like how they vote, how they spend their money. It's typical cult manipulation.

"To facilitate cultural and social development, we have put up all sorts of healthy restrictions and boundaries." Those who came before us thousands of years ago were on to something when they figured sex between two MARRIED individuals was an appropriate "restriction and boundries" The sexual revolution is all about giving in
to ones desires and to hell with appropriate "restriction and boundries". And guess what? the "sexual revolution" has been a societal disaster. The statistics dont lie.

And you know what? the generations before us where able to muster a little self-control not give in to selfish desires and stuck to those boundries to a whole a lot better degree than today. Why cant we now? Cause its all about ME!!!

While I appreciate your crotchety old yell from the porch about the @#$@#$!! sex-crazed teens outside of your fence and their @#$@$!! miscreant, hoodlum "me only" sex, it's just not true.

Teens are actually more conservative about sex than they used to be.

"Today, fewer than half of all high school students have had sex: 47.8 percent as of 2007, according to the National Youth Risk Behavior Survey, down from 54.1 percent in 1991.

A less recent report suggests that teenagers are also waiting longer to have sex than they did in the past. A 2002 report from the Department of Health and Human Services found that 30 percent of 15- to 17-year-old girls had experienced sex, down from 38 percent in 1995. During the same period, the percentage of sexually experienced boys in that age group dropped to 31 percent from 43 percent.

The rates also went down among younger teenagers. In 1995, about 20 percent said they had had sex before age 15, but by 2002 those numbers had dropped to 13 percent of girls and 15 percent of boys."

(See the NY Times article "The Myth of Rampant Teenage Promiscuity" for more information.)

Unfortunately, what has changed is their likelihood to use condoms. According to one researcher, “This creeping up of teen pregnancy is not because so many more kids are having sex, but most likely because more kids aren’t using contraception.” And according to another “This whole moral panic thing misses the point, because research suggests kids who don’t use contraception tend to be kids who are feeling lost and disconnected and not doing well.”

So, teens are having sex. Just like they always have. But now they're being asked to wait even longer to have the sex that they couldn't wait to have to begin with. And, when Bristol Palin and her ilk win out, they're not being taught how to have safe sex when they do, inevitably, decide to have sex. That seems like a great idea.

Encouraging them NOT to have sex is not bad policy.

And BTW, I'm not just talking about teenagers.

My Dad's advice was very simple: "Sex is for married people, so until then keep it in your pants" Served me well, I had opportunities, but as I was taught to think with my brain and
not my penis, I knew the consequences could be devasting for my future...Simple risk/benefit
anaylsis told me it was a stupid thing to do...

So I know from personal experience that abstinance until marriage is the intelligent, forward thinking, responsible and in this day and age, enlightened thing to do.

As for my daughters, they will get the sex education they need in regards to contraception, STD's etc. But I will also share with them my experience. In particular, if they have a boyfriend who pressures them for sex, expecially if they use that bullshit line "If you really love me.." then I will advise them that that boyfriend is thinking with his penis, and
really doesnt respect you and your wishes.

Tom

Paaa-leeese.

every time she uttered "hocky mom."

(like the Obamas) I would agree with you.

Because remember Bristol is in pretty much the same position Obama's mom was in about 50 years ago.

Wow, Caribou Barbie is fair game. Her children aren't. Defending this isn't defending Sarah Palin, it's defending decency.

bullshit abstinence only "education" on the rest of America's teens. She is absolutely fair game.

Nobody should get the rights of adulthood without the responsibility.

:eyes:

Palin should have simply wondered aloud if Letterman has kids. That would have been the end of it.

I might also mention that Letterman has NEVER used that child for any kind of political gain, either. Too bad we can't say the same thing about Palin.

It would have been a reminder to Letterman that his kid is on deck.

Harry Letterman isn't even ten. Furthermore, Letterman and his wife have gone out of their way to shield him from the press, live quietly, etcetera. They're not whoring out their kid to whatever media outlet will print anything about them.

This isn't even the same thing, and the Palin apologists might want to reflect on that fact.

Letterman's kid is on deck and will be portrayed as a serial killer when he starts a food fight or gets a traffic ticket.

Dave will enjoy his dotage.

till after the child was born. Shall we now call the child names?

Again: David Letterman did not set himself up to be the arbiter of all that is moral and correct.

Bible Spice did.

Therefore, she is going to be criticized for her and her family's moral failings.

If you want to continue defending her, be my guest. Bristol Palin has now made herself the story; she's 18. She is open season, whether you like it or not.

world. In my world it's never open season on children.

Bristol Palin ceased to be a child when she turned 18.

She also ceased to be a child when she appeared on the cover of a national magazine with her baby in her arms. Voluntarily.

The Palins can't have it both ways. They decided to use their children as publicity props; now they're horrified when a late-night comedian makes a tacky joke about one of them?

She is only 18 - she is Palin's child. 'bye

Now, take it to heart.

Thank you.

:rofl:

From time to time people will say, "Don't underestimate her; a lot of people will vote for Palin."

But I'm not seeing it.

She is startlingly vacuous. Her husband is a thick-headed, scheming jerk. They use their kids as theater props. They're on record urging secession from the union. She shoots wolves from the sky.

If the more sturdy contenders for the GOP nom in 2012 want it badly enough, they will toss Sarah Palin over the highest cliff in the land, chuckle over it, and clear the field so it's just a small handful of folks vying for the nomination.

Palin's biggest issue to date is that she took offense at a joke David Letterman told on tv. There are no other toys in the bag.

There'll be thousands, even millions of people heading to the primary polls armed with no more knowledge than passing glances at the Today Show or People magazine...guess whose name they'll recognize first? I'll bet more people already would recognize her name and face more than Newt Gingrich's. And even Dubya's, by 2012.

wiener until it just collapsed of its own pretension. He was Mr. Big in the polls and wound up losing badly, forced to pick Florida as his last battle. He led for a solid year or more in opinion polls on his 9/11 hero recognition, and it got him no place.

Hillary Clinton, as huge a political celeb as they come, finished third in the Iowa caucus.

Sometimes the brand name is a huge plus, agree. But Palin would need many more toys in that bag for an electoral Christmas.

that history will repeat itself.

:thumbsup: :hi:

BWAH!!

and always will be.

:popcorn:

I can often be found being outraged. And I will stack my unlimited supply of righteous indignation up against anyone. Gotta go, my hunger strike for beleaguered, decidedly non-promiscuous flight attendants is about to begin. Free Willow Palin! Let my people go!

as long as they are directed at Michael Steele, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Alan Keyes or Clarence Thomas.

If sexist jokes directed at Republicans are okay, then racist ones must be okay too, and we really don't care about racism or sexism, we just trot them out to make political hay with the rubes.

:banghead:

edited to fix smilie

Cmon'. That stretches all credulity.

How is this a crack on AR?

"One awkward moment though during the game, maybe you heard about it, maybe you saw it on one of the highlight reels. One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game, during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked-up by Alex Rodriguez."


Let's not pretend, shall we?

Letterman is doing the right thing by apologizing. Now Palin needs to do the right thing and STFU with her manufactured fauxrage and stop using her daughter to get facetime.

about Steele, Powell, Rice, Keyes, and Thomas have *nothing* to do with their race and *everything* to do with their incompetence, hypocrisy, and the general nonsense they have spewed.

And I would pull Powell out of that group. What he did at the UN was a disgrace and a dishonor that will be very difficult to live down in the remainder of his days.

Democrats and progressive are *not* opposite-but-equal to conservatives and republicans. Racism and sexism have to do with the subjugation of people based on what they are by nature and that is a common practice of conservatives, not progressives. Don't equate joke on the left equals joke on the right. That's lazy thinking and easy cover for a hiding spot from the madness of our politics.

Why would it be not ok to defend a person regardless of the ideology, if the joke or attack aimed at the person is offensive or wrong?

Should be be slaves of our ideologies?

her anti-feminism actions and deeds are horrific. I've posted an article in Editorials which clearly states her "record" and in fact, mentions the many causes Letterman donates to (many of them benefit children) with his charitable foundation.

the frontlines against a late-night comedian.

Pathetic.

Palin and her defenders are shits.

:applause:

I can't believe DU is still discussing it.
:boring:

Hmmm. These rules are hard.

Would it be racism to point out hypocrisy in an African American if the subject is civil rights? Or anti-intellectual to point out hypocrisy in a college professor if the subject is academics? Anti-semitism to point out hypocrisy in a rabbi on scriptural matters? Would it make me pro-Republican to point out hypocrisy in a Democrat when the subject is the DNC?

Because that's going to make it awfully hard to have a conversation.

That shit perpetuates the "they were sluts that were asking for it" excuse for sexual harassment and rape.

Letterman's joke was about a spokesperson for abstinence education being promiscuous. Of course, having sex with A-Rod was an exaggeration, but it was as much a joke on him and his public dalliances.

Of course, it doesn't bother you that A-Rod was being called a slut. Because you've bought into the idea that an adult woman choosing to have sex with a man she just met is "bad." And therefore she was being called "slutty" and it was an insult. Which is exactly what the patriarchal elements in our society want you to think.

Which is more misogynist, putting Bristol Palin in the same category as A-Rod for the duration of a one-liner or assuming that, because she's a female, she's somehow fragile enough to be damaged by it?

does not imply that one is being misogynistic, does it? She's supported rightist and anti-environmentalist causes (and more or less works for BP). Not even a moderate GOPer. I found Letterman's joke a bit tasteless, but Sarah Palin's certainly a legitimate target for satire (as is any politician--even Demos).

if one finds a joke about her daughter tasteless, and is willing to say so on a website.

"defending sarah palin" with "speaking out against sexism" (even when it's under the guise of humor, just as people speak out against racism, even when it's under the guise of humor.)

Nobody here gives a shit about palin or her daughters, I'm sorry if you misunderstood the complaint to be about that.

Some people are tired of women being snickered at or treated like scum because *gasp* they wore sandals with heels, or were sexually active. I work with teens, some of whom get pregnant.

My feeling is: if you are defending shaming young women for getting pregnant, you are on the wrong website.

This loser will do anything to stay in the news.


OH BUT WON'T SOMEONE THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN? It is a joke...jeez :eyes:.

from Alaska. My Mom doesn't like her,though. She keeps winking at my dad...and my older brother...and my dog...

:applause:

Used to be, anyway.

It's one thing to say this is a forum for Democrats and progressives and we expect posters here to support core Democratic values like civil rights or the rule of law. It's an entirely different, and I think unacceptable, matter to insist on a 100% conformity on each issue--especially one as complicated as the kerfluffle over Letterman's joke. Groupthink is not a liberal value. If a strong progressive group like NOW can say Letterman was in the wrong (and for that matter, if now Letterman can say it too), who the hell are you to say anyone not on your side of this ridiculous distraction of a nonissue ought to leave DU?

I get it -- Big Tent. Right?

for fucks sake

I've been asking myself, am I obtuse or is everyone else? The jokes seemed to me to be jabs at Rodriguez and Spitzer, not Palin's daughter.

A-ROD has the rep for banging anything that comes near him. It was a jab at him, an adult, who my not be using the ebst judgement.

Defending sexist jokes calling teenagers prostitutes to get back at their mother is not liberal, ever, no matter who they are directed at. Ideology should transcend personal hatreds.

Their hatred of Palin blinds them.

I loathe her, LOATHE HER. But, you are either against certain speech or attitudes or you're not, whether they are aimed at your mom, Hillary Clinton, Jill Biden, Margaret Thatcher, or Sarah Palin.

So glad we're bringing that philosophy back! :banghead:

Palin's "indignation" reminds me of that Texas election that Rove was involved in where he planted a bugging device in his own office and blamed the opponent (Rove wasn't running for any office, but was an adviser of some sort).

The accusation had no basis in reality and was staged for the sole purpose of making Rove seem like a sympathetic victim of someone else's bad judgment.

Neither of Letterman's jokes were offensive, but Palin had to orchestrate an attack on herself to get back in the public eye and play victim.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_57_KvU-EzL0/SBMWtvCt8RI/AAAAAAAABDI/gPzqzdAjEoY/s400/FREAKING+OUT.gif

JOKE???!?!??!!!

JOKE???!??!?

JOKE??!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!!!!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa



(I'm not sure what that last one is about, either)

Raptor Jesus went extinct for your sins.

she doesn't make a bad governor, though. Not all good, but not all bad either. She's a human who reached beyond her grasp, but this site's hostility towards her is greatly exaggerated.

And Mr. Letterman's apology was for all of it, not just because he thought he was joking about the daughter was 18 (like that makes it okay; it does not but he admitted that.)

I almost respect him a little bit for that. Almost.

She's a BAD governor- quite REMARKABLY bad, in point of fact.
One of the worst ever.

Her term as Governor of AK has been a combination of corruption,
incompetence, and petty vindictiveness such as has seldom
been equalled in US history.

Any overreaction can be attributed to the adrenaline my body pumped out in reaction to the accident we nearly had.

"This sites' hostility towards her?" She was the one trying to incite riots and violence with her "Palling around with terrorists remarks". trying to get the freepers to go off the deep end. She fucking deserves to be ridiculed and blasted. She shouldn't dish it out if she can't take it. She got her feelings hurt. WAAH. The bitch has no feelings when it comes to slaughtering animals or protecting the environment though.

NO THANKS.

who used her looks to get into politics. she's as corrupt as they come, and a terrible governor. the GOP should have been embarrassed to nominate such an imbecile after the last imbecile who played pResident for 8 years.

If no one can cough up the pics, I AM on the wrong website.

I've watched David Letterman for many, many years. He's a comedian, his job is to find things and show us stuff that will make us laugh. Just like a musician that writes a hit song, there are some songs that they write which stink. Poor choice of words? Probably, I heard the jokes and it never occurred to me Dave was talking about the 14 yr old daughter, she was never a national poster-child like Bristol, Willow wasn't blasted across national news programs, so Willow was never beaten into my consciousness, day in and day out like Bristol... So, point being, Sarah is feigning indignation (I seriously don't think she has a genuine emotion in that echo-chamber holding up all that hair, up there, don'cha'know). Why then the media circus? She's got to keep those donations flowing in and the best way to do that is to gin up some false issue and get her team to email blast the republican base for dimes and dollars. Best part is she doesn't have to give any long-winded, gaff-filled speeches, PERFECT! Oh, carefully crafted sit-downs, sure with enough prompting she can handle those.

I suspect there is a Karl Roveian type person guiding this brainless wonder. Heck, it might be the evil master-mind himself. I'm just glad Alaska's stealing the "stupid" spotlight from Texas, I still hesitate when people ask me where I live. With Dallas being solid Blue, I love the fact the dictator-in-retirement has to watch while the state finishes going all the way Blue (oh there will be pockets of resistance, to be sure, but the kids in those areas will get a good education and have great health care so they will out-live their right-wing neanderthal parents).

Palin, she brought this all on herself. She is a public figure, she paraded her children at any campaign whistle-stop she made like some props or hired Hollywood extras, she "didn't blink" when asked to be McLame's running-mate knowing she had "family" issues, again she brought this on herself. No amount of fake boo-hooing is going to change the facts. She chose fame over family, she chose fiction over facts. But that's not really surprising, she IS a Republican, don'cha know...

I keep thinking there must be other issues out there to worry about other than this crap.

And for Palin to be wrong as well for exploiting her children for her own personal gain.

I also hate that Letterman brought her back into the news cycle again. Just ignore her and let her fizzle away like a bad fart.

It really annoys me how DUers assert that an 18 year old kid is "fair game" for public sexual harassment because she's taken a wrong stand on sex education.

Where's the personal accountability? She's content to run around screwing up the lives of other peoples' kids, pretending to know what's best and it's not okay for Letterman to publicly point her out for ridicule?

If Bristol Palin thinks she has the life equity to go around telling other people how their children should be raised, she'd better know that she's opening herself up for derision.

Actions have consequences. My parents taught me that.

She's wrong about abstinence only sex education. For that error in opinion, some people here seem to think it justifies "getting knocked up" jokes. I don't.

It just so happens that she did get knocked up. I don't know how that's a value judgment.

Now she's preaching a doctrine that will get other teenage girls knocked up. A one-liner from David Letterman is an incredibly small punishment for that kind of harmful, misguided arrogance.