PDA

View Full Version : what if.....?



dnf777
08-01-2010, 05:53 AM
Hasn't been a word uttered about the recent matrimonial news items, so I thought I'd pose a hypothetical question regarding family values....that exclusive republican trait.

What if it were Chelsea Clinton, who had a child out of wedlock, then broke off the relationship. Then the guy posed in Playgirl and made talk show rounds criticizing Hillary. Then got engaged again, after all that. Then only to have Chelsea break it off again after finding out dear boyfriend and father of child, impregnated another woman, AND had yet another gal on the side???

Totally hypothetical of course, since the Clintons did their best to keep their kids off the political stage during their tenure in the WH. But interesting to see if family values apply to everyone equally. The Palin's seem to be getting a "pass" on Christian family values by the very vocal supporters of the same.
Maybe Newt and Mitt will shed some opinions on the matter if she challenges them in 2012?

YardleyLabs
08-01-2010, 06:33 AM
Whatever else one may think of the Clinton's, it's pretty clear that being good parents was important to them. Chelsea seems to have grown up very well.

pat addis
08-01-2010, 06:47 AM
my feelings are well known on the way this country is going,i voted for bill the first time but by his secound term i didn't.i hope palin does not run i like her but we have a guy now trying to learn on the job and is making things worse.having said that i don't care what any of there kids do.the people that make a big deal out of how much the wedding costs i wish they would shut up.it's clintons business how much he wants to spend.but he then should not preach to any one else about how they spend their money.the last thing is i hope my daughter will not think she can have a wedding like that

subroc
08-01-2010, 07:00 AM
I don't think the Palin’s got a pass on anything. The indictments on who they are is pretty much free flowing. As a matter of fact one of your left wing radical extremist attack dog buddies rented the house right next door to them so he could write a book full of indictments.



But, if you don't think there is enough indictments against their character feel free to post the ones you know about and show them in any light you want. If you can't find enough legitimate ones, just make em' up. That is the method of the left.

YardleyLabs
08-01-2010, 07:10 AM
I don't think the Palin’s got a pass on anything. The indictments on who they are is pretty much free flowing. As a matter of fact one of your left wing radical extremist attack dog buddies rented the house right next door to them so he could write a book full of indictments.



But, if you don't think there is enough indictments against their character feel free to post the ones you know about and show them in any light you want. If you can't find enough legitimate ones, just make em' up. That is the method of the left.
I don't know. When it comes to video fraud, I don't think the left has any match for Breitbart and O'Keefe.

subroc
08-01-2010, 07:15 AM
who does play the dirtiest politics?

road kill
08-01-2010, 07:23 AM
Hasn't been a word uttered about the recent matrimonial news items, so I thought I'd pose a hypothetical question regarding family values....that exclusive republican trait.

What if it were Chelsea Clinton, who had a child out of wedlock, then broke off the relationship. Then the guy posed in Playgirl and made talk show rounds criticizing Hillary. Then got engaged again, after all that. Then only to have Chelsea break it off again after finding out dear boyfriend and father of child, impregnated another woman, AND had yet another gal on the side???

Totally hypothetical of course, since the Clintons did their best to keep their kids off the political stage during their tenure in the WH. But interesting to see if family values apply to everyone equally. The Palin's seem to be getting a "pass" on Christian family values by the very vocal supporters of the same.
Maybe Newt and Mitt will shed some opinions on the matter if she challenges them in 2012?

Are you serious?
Palin got a PASS from the media?
They didn't go AFTER her family??

Dave, dude, put the kool-aid down.
Please, this is embarrassing..............:oops:




RK

YardleyLabs
08-01-2010, 07:36 AM
who does play the dirtiest politics?
The right. No contest. However, I suspect your impression varies from mine.:D It would be interesting to compare details. The primary point of contention for the right is typically ACORN. However, I have yet to see any evidence of fraudulent votes cast based on activities by ACORN. Efforts by Republicans to exclude questionable registrants, however, have clearly prevented thousands of legitimate voters from voting.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with Chelsea's wedding, Chelsea's character, or DNF's hypothetical. My own experience is that parents influence, but do not control what becomes of their children, and that surface polish may or may not tell you about the substance that lies within. Having said that, however, my impression is that both Chelsea and Bristol reflect their upbringings.

Doc E
08-01-2010, 07:55 AM
the Clintons did their best to keep their kids off the political stage

Chelsea has siblings ?



.

gman0046
08-01-2010, 08:34 AM
Bill set a great example of demeaning Chelseas Mother with Lewinsky and others. Thats great for family values. I don't believe you'll ever hear slick willy talk about family values.

subroc
08-01-2010, 08:37 AM
I have yet to see any evidence of fraudulent votes cast based on activities by ACORN.


would you believe it if you saw it or would you dismiss it out of hand for the mulitude of excuses that you routinely make when evaluating anything that calls the left into question?


ACORN is discredited. O'Keefe and Giles are hero's of the highest order. your dismissal of them is silly. malice or not, the content is valid and stands as a testament to the systemic rot that the organization was and is. your governent stopped funding them, why?

If the O'Keefe and Giles tapes aren't sufficient for you there is no evidence that could possibly be found in the history of mankind that you would accept.

Goose
08-01-2010, 08:38 AM
Whatever else one may think of the Clinton's, it's pretty clear that being good parents was important to them. Chelsea seems to have grown up very well.

Does anybody know if Webster Hubbell gave the bride away?

YardleyLabs
08-01-2010, 09:12 AM
would you believe it if you saw it or would you dismiss it out of hand for the mulitude of excuses that you routinely make when evaluating anything that calls the left into question?


ACORN is discredited. O'Keefe and Giles are hero's of the highest order. your dismissal of them is silly. malice or not, the content is valid and stands as a testament to the systemic rot that the organization was and is. your governent stopped funding them, why?

If the O'Keefe and Giles tapes aren't sufficient for you there is no evidence that could possibly be found in the history of mankind that you would accept.
And yet, despite your character reference, both O'Keefe (with his LA ACORN tapes) and Breitbart (with his Sherrod tape) are proven frauds.

subroc
08-01-2010, 09:32 AM
And yet, despite your character reference, both O'Keefe (with his LA ACORN tapes)...

No!

as I said, there is no evidence you would accept.

I do not hold these folks up in any high esteem or in high regard. But their evidence is real. Would it hold up in court? Who cares. Is the truth of the systemic rot in acorn clear, entrapment and all? For any free thinker it is. There may be room to criticize tactics, legality and the like but the result is telling. Ignore it if you want.

It tells more about you than them.

YardleyLabs
08-01-2010, 09:48 AM
No!

as I said, there is no evidence you would accept.

I do not hold these folks up in any high esteem or in high regard. But their evidence is real. Would it hold up in court? Who cares. Is the truth of the systemic rot in acorn clear, entrapment and all? For any free thinker it is. There may be room to criticize tactics, legality and the like but the result is telling. Ignore it if you want.

It tells more about you than them.
Have you watched the unedited tapes that O'Keefe shot in LA and provided to the LA District Attorney's office after receiving immunity from prosecution? Have you watched the excerpted Sherrod tape and then watched the unedited version from beginning to end? If there is a "truth" behind their tapes, it is of the type learned in fiction.

M&K's Retrievers
08-01-2010, 10:06 AM
I guess Lenin and Marx were taken out of context too.:rolleyes:

subroc
08-01-2010, 10:24 AM
Jeff

I have watched it all.

you have said it all. Your reflex acceptance and defense of acorn for partisan reasons is telling enough.

I really have nothing more to say.

YardleyLabs
08-01-2010, 11:30 AM
I guess Lenin and Marx were taken out of context too.:rolleyes:
In fact, they generally are. I suspect because what they actually say tends to be pretty much rooted in their particular era and not necessarily as damning as most would prefer. Lenin was actually fomenting revolution against a brutal and backward monarchy that was willing to stop at nothing to protect its power and wealth. It was guaranteed that there would be a rebellion in Russia because the only alternative to rebellion for the "masses" was to roll over and die from starvation. The manner in which the revolution evolved in Russia had very little to do with the ideologies of either Lenin or Marx. It had everything to do with Russia's own traditions and the brutal leadership of Josef Stalin. The call for rebellion itself was more than justified, as it was in our country in 1776.

BonMallari
08-01-2010, 11:30 AM
Hasn't been a word uttered about the recent matrimonial news items, so I thought I'd pose a hypothetical question regarding family values....that exclusive republican trait.

What if it were Chelsea Clinton, who had a child out of wedlock, then broke off the relationship. Then the guy posed in Playgirl and made talk show rounds criticizing Hillary. Then got engaged again, after all that. Then only to have Chelsea break it off again after finding out dear boyfriend and father of child, impregnated another woman, AND had yet another gal on the side???

Totally hypothetical of course, since the Clintons did their best to keep their kids off the political stage during their tenure in the WH. But interesting to see if family values apply to everyone equally. The Palin's seem to be getting a "pass" on Christian family values by the very vocal supporters of the same.
Maybe Newt and Mitt will shed some opinions on the matter if she challenges them in 2012?

you know dnf, bringing the kids of politicians into the political fray in itself is a cheap shot...using Chelsea's wedding to take a shot a Bristol Palin, and her troubles is beneath you, even in a hypothetical situation..I don't think anyone on here should even comment on the " Christian family values" of another family...Chelsea is not political fodder, neither should Bush daughters, or the Obama daughters...lets leave the kids out of the mix out of all the politicians ;)

subroc
08-01-2010, 11:37 AM
you know dnf...using Chelsea's wedding to take a shot a Bristol Palin, and her troubles is beneath you...

no, it is not. nothing is...

dnf777
08-01-2010, 11:50 AM
I posed a hypothetical question to see if anyone on the right could see the hypocrisy that has prevailed in right wing media, and the huge double standard applied. It was not meant to take a shot at anyone, nor was it meant to bring personal attacks on me. But have your fun.

Bristol and Levi mean absolutely NOTHING to me, nor does Chelsea Clinton. And since none of the above mentioned players will read this, I don't see how its a shot at them!

After the attacks that the Clintons have received upon their family values, I thought it was ironic to see a beaming proud Dad, a shining Mom, and a happy, successful daughter getting married. Looks like they have something in the "family values" figured out! Maybe the Palins should read the Clintons' books to learn a thing or two.

M&K's Retrievers
08-01-2010, 12:09 PM
...... Lenin was actually fomenting revolution against a brutal and backward monarchy that was willing to stop at nothing to protect its power and wealth. .......

Kinda reminds me of the current Administration and the majority in Congress.

BonMallari
08-01-2010, 12:09 PM
I posed a hypothetical question to see if anyone on the right could see the hypocrisy that has prevailed in right wing media, and the huge double standard applied. It was not meant to take a shot at anyone, nor was it meant to bring personal attacks on me. But have your fun.

Bristol and Levi mean absolutely NOTHING to me, nor does Chelsea Clinton. And since none of the above mentioned players will read this, I don't see how its a shot at them!

After the attacks that the Clintons have received upon their family values, I thought it was ironic to see a beaming proud Dad, a shining Mom, and a happy, successful daughter getting married. Looks like they have something in the "family values" figured out! Maybe the Palins should read the Clintons' books to learn a thing or two.

See that's exactly what I'm talking about, where do you get to judge the Palin's on their family problems, how do you know if they arent good parents,you tend to leave out the glaring fact that Levi doesnt come from a very nice family, his behavior deserves a trip out back and have his sorry butt kicked from here to Anchorage,but guess what they didnt get to choose who their daughter decided to have a baby with...Look at the Gore's , here Tipper goes all family values on the music industry and it looks like their "ideal' marriage wasnt what it appeared to be, sorry to see that but that's between them

You go right ahead and attack Palin about being inept, unqualified and ill advised because I will be right there agreeing with you on each account, but to say the Palins could learn a thing or two from the Clintons about parenting isnt right...I dont tell you how to be a parent nor should you comment on my parenting skills (or lack of them)..stick to the candidate, there is plenty there to be critical of..

M&K's Retrievers
08-01-2010, 12:12 PM
..... Looks like they have something in the "family values" figured out! Maybe the Palins should read the Clintons' books to learn a thing or two.

Like what the definition of "is" is.

YardleyLabs
08-01-2010, 12:16 PM
Kinda reminds me of the current Administration and the majority in Congress.
That is sort of like a guy asked to work an hour of overtime complaining that he is being treated like a slave.:rolleyes: I didn't see the Cossacks riding down tea party demonstrators in Washington and hacking them with swords. In fact, in this country I've never seen anything like that except when the demonstrators were black or leftist.;-)

Just sign me, tear gassed in Washington...

M&K's Retrievers
08-01-2010, 12:19 PM
That is sort of like a guy asked to work an hour of overtime complaining that he is being treated like a slave.:rolleyes: I didn't see the Cossacks riding down tea party demonstrators in Washington and hacking them with swords. In fact, in this country I've never seen anything like that except when the demonstrators were black or leftist.;-)

Just sign me, tear gassed in Washington...

Sound like a good use of gas.

YardleyLabs
08-01-2010, 12:30 PM
Sound like a good use of gas.
Are you suggesting the tea party demonstrators were deprived of their fair share?:rolleyes:

dnf777
08-01-2010, 01:57 PM
It was the little snippid that insinuates only the republican party promotes family values. it was a sarcastic little jab. which is a good indicater of how your mind operates. Sweet words packed with venom.

pete

Sorry. But I don't hear dems going around touting traditional family values to the masses. Or condemning all but nuclear families. You gotta admit, it has been the republicans and their affiliation with conservative-social organizations such as Focus on Family and the 700 Club and Ralph Reids group that has claimed exclusive rights to "family values". Those aren't run by or staffed by democrats, are they? I've heard lots about liberals being godless, lack of virtues, unpatriotic, etc....

Just wondering how the Palin's behavior sits with that crowd, since we haven't heard anything from them, like we would have, had it been a democrat who committed those sins.

I don't want to argue for or against the Palins here. They don't affect me. I know how the left and some of the center feel about them...that's no secret. What I'm curious about is the above.....how does the right feel about this behavior? I anyone willing to condemn it...and state that they are unfit for pubic service like Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards, Larry Craig, Bill Clinton.....or not?

M&K's Retrievers
08-01-2010, 02:05 PM
Are you suggesting the tea party demonstrators were deprived of their fair share?:rolleyes:

Not hardly.:cool:

dnf777
08-01-2010, 02:13 PM
[B]but to say the Palins could learn a thing or two from the Clintons about parenting isnt right...I dont tell you how to be a parent nor should you comment on my parenting skills (or lack of them)..stick to the candidate, there is plenty there to be critical of..

Bon, that was more of a sarcastic jab. It was not my intent to attack anyone, but merely point out the lack of response to the behavior that causes outrages when conducted by democrats. And I certainly don't comment on others' child-rearing skills. That's almost as bad as talking about their dog!

If Sarah and Todd want to preach abstinence-only, and still think it works, hey--that's their business, and I wish them all the best.

that is, if they want to preach it to their own kids.....not mine, and not the entire USA through legislation or executive orders, should she, God forbid, ever become president!

BonMallari
08-01-2010, 03:50 PM
..

Just wondering how the Palin's behavior sits with that crowd, since we haven't heard anything from them, like we would have, had it been a democrat who committed those sins.

I don't want to argue for or against the Palins here. They don't affect me. I know how the left and some of the center feel about them...that's no secret. What I'm curious about is the above.....how does the right feel about this behavior? I anyone willing to condemn it...and state that they are unfit for pubic service like Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards, Larry Craig, Bill Clinton.....or not?

Every time Palin opens her mouth she makes herself look more foolish,uneducated and unpolished, definitely not Presidential material

As far as the "sins" that politicians have committed from the right and the left, IMHO they did those to their families..does it affect their credibility..absolutely..but they dont have to answer to me for their moral transgressions..they have to answer to their family and their conscience..I will leave judgement to the man upstairs...

The only thing they owe the country is to answer to the will of the people and I think most on here agree that our elected officials dont seem to do anything close to that lately, part of that is our fault for putting them in office in the first place...

code3retrievers
08-01-2010, 04:18 PM
That is sort of like a guy asked to work an hour of overtime complaining that he is being treated like a slave.:rolleyes: I didn't see the Cossacks riding down tea party demonstrators in Washington and hacking them with swords. In fact, in this country I've never seen anything like that except when the demonstrators were black or leftist.;-)

Just sign me, tear gassed in Washington...

I guess you did not see the LA riots or the Detroit or the Watts or how about the looting in New Orleans. Maybe if you opened your eyes you would see some of these things.

You see them but make excuses for inexcusable behavior.

code3retrievers
08-01-2010, 04:30 PM
Sorry. But I don't hear dems going around touting traditional family values to the masses. Or condemning all but nuclear families. You gotta admit, it has been the republicans and their affiliation with conservative-social organizations such as Focus on Family and the 700 Club and Ralph Reids group that has claimed exclusive rights to "family values". Those aren't run by or staffed by democrats, are they? I've heard lots about liberals being godless, lack of virtues, unpatriotic, etc....

Just wondering how the Palin's behavior sits with that crowd, since we haven't heard anything from them, like we would have, had it been a democrat who committed those sins.

I don't want to argue for or against the Palins here. They don't affect me. I know how the left and some of the center feel about them...that's no secret. What I'm curious about is the above.....how does the right feel about this behavior? I anyone willing to condemn it...and state that they are unfit for pubic service like Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards, Larry Craig, Bill Clinton.....or not?


What Palin behavior are you speaking of? Her daughter made a mistake and will pay for it the rest of her life. I hope your children (if you have any) will never make a life changing mistake.

For that matter what type of skeletons are in your families closet. I thought everyone agreed that families and children should be off limits. Perhaps you thought you were being cute when you said "hypothetical". Its not cute its pathetic.

Conservatives hold their elected officials to a higher standard then the left. Do they make mistakes and errors of judgement, yes, but we are willing to hold them accountable and either do not relect them or ask them to resign.

What is wrong with seeking good strong family values? Nobody is forcing them on you.

You can choose to raise your kids anyway you like and live in any fashion, but don't tell me I have to accept you thoughts or morals as my own and I will do the same.

Waiting for your next cheap shot reply about a young girl who made an error in judgment.

Hypocritical regards

YardleyLabs
08-01-2010, 04:35 PM
I guess you did not see the LA riots or the Detroit or the Watts or how about the looting in New Orleans. Maybe if you opened your eyes you would see some of these things.

You see them but make excuses for inexcusable behavior.
That is quite a non sequitur. M&K says that the Russian Revolution against the Tsar reminds him of our current situation with Obama and Congress in the role of the Tsar. I suggest, via hyperbole, that he might be exaggerating. You say I obviously haven't been paying attention to the riots. I don't understand the logical connection.

Or maybe you are referring to M&K's suggestion (which I did not take seriously) that tear gassing blacks and liberals was a "good use of gas", but would be inappropriate for a demonstration by conservatives. Even there, however, i fail to see the link to the riots in LA, Watts, Detroit, or looting in New Orleans.

dnf777
08-01-2010, 06:29 PM
What Palin behavior are you speaking of? Her daughter made a mistake and will pay for it the rest of her life. I hope your children (if you have any) will never make a life changing mistake.

For that matter what type of skeletons are in your families closet. I thought everyone agreed that families and children should be off limits. Perhaps you thought you were being cute when you said "hypothetical". Its not cute its pathetic.

Conservatives hold their elected officials to a higher standard then the left. Do they make mistakes and errors of judgement, yes, but we are willing to hold them accountable and either do not relect them or ask them to resign.

What is wrong with seeking good strong family values? Nobody is forcing them on you.

You can choose to raise your kids anyway you like and live in any fashion, but don't tell me I have to accept you thoughts or morals as my own and I will do the same.

Waiting for your next cheap shot reply about a young girl who made an error in judgment.

Hypocritical regards


Your entire post is false accusations. Either that, or you missed the entire point of the post. See all the other discussions for some help.

You then take this high position of stating children are off limits, as if anyone here ever attacked anyone's kids. See my above reply where I already address that. Besides, after stating how wrong that is, you go right ahead and ignore your own advice and ask about my family's skeletons, kids, etc...

Get a clue as to what we're talking about here. Its moral hypocrisy....

And just to reply to another of your off-target comments.....I'll put my family values up against yours any day of the week, including Sunday!! I don't need yours, thank you very much.

code3retrievers
08-01-2010, 07:02 PM
Your entire post is false accusations. Either that, or you missed the entire point of the post. See all the other discussions for some help.

You then take this high position of stating children are off limits, as if anyone here ever attacked anyone's kids. See my above reply where I already address that. Besides, after stating how wrong that is, you go right ahead and ignore your own advice and ask about my family's skeletons, kids, etc...

Get a clue as to what we're talking about here. Its moral hypocrisy....

And just to reply to another of your off-target comments.....I'll put my family values up against yours any day of the week, including Sunday!! I don't need yours, thank you very much.

What is false? Certainly not about your hypothetical being pathetic.

Sorry did not know you even had a point.

code3retrievers
08-01-2010, 07:11 PM
That is quite a non sequitur. M&K says that the Russian Revolution against the Tsar reminds him of our current situation with Obama and Congress in the role of the Tsar. I suggest, via hyperbole, that he might be exaggerating. You say I obviously haven't been paying attention to the riots. I don't understand the logical connection.

Or maybe you are referring to M&K's suggestion (which I did not take seriously) that tear gassing blacks and liberals was a "good use of gas", but would be inappropriate for a demonstration by conservatives. Even there, however, i fail to see the link to the riots in LA, Watts, Detroit, or looting in New Orleans.

Left wing demonstrations are rarely peaceful. Even the AZ demonstrations had the lefties throwing bottles at the counter demonstrators and the police. Perhaps that is why they are tear gassed.

You must still be living in the 60's/70s and having flash backs of Kent State. Move on that was forty years ago.

code3retrievers
08-01-2010, 07:16 PM
Whatever else one may think of the Clinton's, it's pretty clear that being good parents was important to them. Chelsea seems to have grown up very well.

If you base being a good parent on hiring good nannies I guess you would be right.



"Bill and Hillary never raised Chelsea, they didn't have time. They were building their careers. Chelsea was raised by nannies from the time she was born until she turned 18.

Helen Dickey (also known as 'a white house aide') was Chelsea's nanny in the white house but Becky Brown raised Chelsea for the biggest part of her life. Hillary didn't see Chelsea much, and Bill saw her even less.

Here's one excerpt from an interview with Becky Brown:

Becky Brown was on the payroll as an `assistant administrator' in the governor's mansion. In reality, she was Chelsea Clinton's nanny, but the formal title meant that her salary could be paid by the state, thus landing the taxpayers of Arkansas with the financial liability for bringing up Chelsea. The Clintons even managed to claim tax relief for the statefunded nanny.

"I had no problems with Chelsea - she was a bright, nice child," says Mrs Brown. "It's weird to see her all grown up."

Did she get along well with Hillary? "She wasn't the kind of person you could get along real well with," says Mrs Brown. "She was not what you'd call a personable person, but I understood her - she was working so hard and she would get snappy because she worried she wasn't spending enough time with Chelsea."

"Once she kind of flipped and said to me, "Now you be sure to give her a bath and put her to bed by eight," and I'm like, "Well Hillary, that's what I always do." But I didn't take it to heart - I knew that she was just feeling guilty the way working mothers do."

dnf777
08-01-2010, 08:14 PM
Sorry did not know you even had a point.

Well, at least you admit you missed the point.

But for someone who professes that children and family rearing are off-limits, you sure go after Bill, Hilary and Chelsea without hesitation! And that gets back to my original point. If Chelsea had done the things that dear Sarah's daughter have done..........look out! You're airing Chelsea's bathing schedule as a child!!

Thank you for giving us all an example of hypocrisy. The exact brand I was talking about. We can all understand it a little better now.

BrianW
08-01-2010, 09:02 PM
Whatever else one may think of the Clinton's, it's pretty clear that being good parents was important to them. Chelsea seems to have grown up very well.

Again, I suppose that depends on what your definition of "is" is.

After all her liberal upbringing and education, Chelsea works at Avenue Capital Group, the 13th largest hedge fund in the world.
(What would Michelle say about that?)

Avenue’s core strategy is focused on distressed debt and equity securities although the firm also manages investment funds that focus on long-short opportunities. (Gasp, isn't that the root of all evil in the world according to the financial reformists!? ) :confused:
She also just married an investment banker. (Horrors! Not a community activist? )

Sounds like she's succeeded in spite of her parents instead of because of them. ;-)

david gibson
08-01-2010, 09:36 PM
Whatever else one may think of the Clinton's, it's pretty clear that being good parents was important to them. Chelsea seems to have grown up very well.

so getting embarrassed on the world stage by getting blow-jobs in the oval office from a girl just a couple years older than your daughter is good parenting?

you guys are something else. love your family values!

chelsea turned out ok despite her parents, not because of them.

Hew
08-02-2010, 03:31 AM
Totally hypothetical of course, since the Clintons did their best to keep their kids off the political stage during their tenure in the WH.
You're like a bulldog. When an idea gets in your head, no matter how wrong/silly it is, you just won't let it go. You made the very same laughable assertion awhile back about the Clintons being the reincarnation of Ward and June Cleaver. Here's what I told you then:


Something along the lines of 12 year Chelsea's appearance in the "Man From Hope" telling us all what a great dad he was during the 1992 campaign. Or using Chelsea as a photo op prop in the infamous Clinton hand-in-hand walk to the helicopter during the impeachment. Or having Chelsea step in for Hillary as the Official Whitehouse Hostess. Or Chelsea postponing college to hit the campaign trail. You know...those sorts of spotlighty things.

FWIW, Chelsea Clinton, by all accounts, turned out to be the adult her parents wish they could be more like. Most likely, she turned out the way she did despite her dysfunctional parents; not because of them.

Hew
08-02-2010, 03:32 AM
Does anybody know if Webster Hubbell gave the bride away?
LMAO. :):):)

YardleyLabs
08-02-2010, 04:42 AM
If you base being a good parent on hiring good nannies I guess you would be right.



"Bill and Hillary never raised Chelsea, they didn't have time. They were building their careers. Chelsea was raised by nannies from the time she was born until she turned 18.

Helen Dickey (also known as 'a white house aide') was Chelsea's nanny in the white house but Becky Brown raised Chelsea for the biggest part of her life. Hillary didn't see Chelsea much, and Bill saw her even less.

Here's one excerpt from an interview with Becky Brown:

Becky Brown was on the payroll as an `assistant administrator' in the governor's mansion. In reality, she was Chelsea Clinton's nanny, but the formal title meant that her salary could be paid by the state, thus landing the taxpayers of Arkansas with the financial liability for bringing up Chelsea. The Clintons even managed to claim tax relief for the statefunded nanny.

"I had no problems with Chelsea - she was a bright, nice child," says Mrs Brown. "It's weird to see her all grown up."

Did she get along well with Hillary? "She wasn't the kind of person you could get along real well with," says Mrs Brown. "She was not what you'd call a personable person, but I understood her - she was working so hard and she would get snappy because she worried she wasn't spending enough time with Chelsea."

"Once she kind of flipped and said to me, "Now you be sure to give her a bath and put her to bed by eight," and I'm like, "Well Hillary, that's what I always do." But I didn't take it to heart - I knew that she was just feeling guilty the way working mothers do."
Have you ever actually raised a child? It doesn't sound like it. I've known quite a few kids who had nannies and spent almost all their schooling from age 11 on in boarding school. The most important people in their lives were still their parents.


Again, I suppose that depends on what your definition of "is" is.

After all her liberal upbringing and education, Chelsea works at Avenue Capital Group, the 13th largest hedge fund in the world.
(What would Michelle say about that?)

Avenue’s core strategy is focused on distressed debt and equity securities although the firm also manages investment funds that focus on long-short opportunities. (Gasp, isn't that the root of all evil in the world according to the financial reformists!? ) :confused:
She also just married an investment banker. (Horrors! Not a community activist? )

Sounds like she's succeeded in spite of her parents instead of because of them. ;-)
Presumably you noticed that before she became involved in politics, Hillary was a corporate law attorney. Most of the "liberals" that I worked with in government following graduate school went on to work in the private sector as bankers, investment bankers, or business consultants in one of the major consulting firms. In fact, every single analyst in my first office in the NYC Budget Bureau went on to become a senior officer in one of those organizations -- and remained politically liberal. Go figure....

dnf777
08-02-2010, 04:59 AM
FWIW, Chelsea Clinton, by all accounts, turned out to be the adult her parents wish they could be more like. Most likely, she turned out the way she did despite her dysfunctional parents; not because of them.

Wouldn't it be nice if we were ALL so fotunate? (Except for the perfect parents who never make mistakes) :rolleyes:

dnf777
08-02-2010, 05:06 AM
Have you ever actually raised a child? .

I assume he has, after posing the following comment to me:

I hope your children (if you have any) will never make a life changing mistake.

I've only raised seven. That seem to be on their way, God willing, to being well adjusted, successful adults.


Again, my post was aimed at the right-wings hypocritical silence....not the specifics of any one person or their kids. But it was turned into such by those who would rather not answer. Sometimes the truth doesn't match the agenda, so you 1)change the topic 2)twist words, or 3) launch attacks. I just chuckle when the comments imply that only THEY posess family values!! :D

Hew
08-02-2010, 05:54 AM
In fact, they generally are. I suspect because what they actually say tends to be pretty much rooted in their particular era and not necessarily as damning as most would prefer. Lenin was actually fomenting revolution against a brutal and backward monarchy that was willing to stop at nothing to protect its power and wealth. It was guaranteed that there would be a rebellion in Russia because the only alternative to rebellion for the "masses" was to roll over and die from starvation. The manner in which the revolution evolved in Russia had very little to do with the ideologies of either Lenin or Marx. It had everything to do with Russia's own traditions and the brutal leadership of Josef Stalin. The call for rebellion itself was more than justified, as it was in our country in 1776.
I suppose it would be easy to see Lenin out of context if one actually believed the above whitewash of history. The Russian Revolution simply replaced one ruthless and morally bankrupt regime with another (Lenin's). Lenin ordered the murder of tens of thousands, imprisoned as many more and his policies resulted in the starvation of millions. Stealing some of Saddam's thunder, he also poison gassed his own people. The ONLY context that softens Lenin's reputation as a bloody despot is the fact that Stalin came along later and killed even more of his own people.

Lastly, the similarites between the Russian and American revolutions start and stop with the fact that both begin with the letter "r."

YardleyLabs
08-02-2010, 06:21 AM
I suppose it would be easy to see Lenin out of context if one actually believed the above whitewash of history. The Russian Revolution simply replaced one ruthless and morally bankrupt regime with another (Lenin's). Lenin ordered the murder of tens of thousands, imprisoned as many more and his policies resulted in the starvation of millions. Stealing some of Saddam's thunder, he also poison gassed his own people. The ONLY context that softens Lenin's reputation as a bloody despot is the fact that Stalin came along later and killed even more of his own people.

Lastly, the similarites between the Russian and American revolutions start and stop with the fact that both begin with the letter "r."
Lenin returned to Russia from exile in 1917. While he lived for another seven years, the last 1-2 years he was not much of a factor since he was bedridden and unable to speak as a result of a series of three strokes. The revolution, and the counterrevolution that followed, were bloody, as was our own. Where our revolution was against a distant monarchy, theirs was against a monarchy and a ruling class firmly in power and a peasant class living in virtual serfdom. During the first period of the revolution, the sides were not only fighting among themselves, but were also faced with invasion by Germany.

The counter revolutionary period saw brutality on both sides. The "Red Terror" was matched, if not surpassed, by a "White Terror", both killing thousands of people. The Red Terror was planned and managed by Stalin, and following Lenin's strokes, Stalin moved in to take control. While Lenin remained the symbolic father of the revolution, Stalin became its administrator. His interests were focused less on ideology than on complete and total control. He equaled the worst of the monarchs in viewing terror as a weapon of state, and the number of people he had slaughtered may only have been surpassed by Hitler.

Hew
08-02-2010, 06:58 AM
Sorry, it wasn't a good cop/bad cop thing with Lenin and Stalin. It was bloody dictator/bloodier dictator.

"We must... put down all resistance with such brutality that they will not forget it for several decades... The greater the number of representatives of the reactionary clergy and reactionary bourgeoisie we succeed in executing... the better."

V.I. Lenin...right after he had killed 8,000 Greek Orthodox clergy because they opposed him. A real sweetheart, that Lenin.

ducknwork
08-02-2010, 08:01 AM
If Chelsea had done the things that dear Sarah's daughter have done

Do you know for a fact that Chelsea didn't have premarital sex?

YardleyLabs
08-02-2010, 08:12 AM
Do you know for a fact that Chelsea didn't have premarital sex?
I certainly hope she did, but it's actually none of our business.

BrianW
08-02-2010, 08:56 AM
Most of the "liberals" that I worked with in government following graduate school went on to work in the private sector as bankers, investment bankers, or business consultants in one of the major consulting firms. Go figure....

I guess you don't see the irony between what is being said by the current regime/their supporters as the 'proper" path for young people and what the daughter of their SoS is doing with her life?

Since "It Takes a Village" to raise a child according to her mother, "shouldn't" Chelsea be volunteering for something like "United We Serve" not working for a hedge fund on Madison Avenue? How about teaching ballet of behalf of the Clinton Foundation in Harlem, instead of being on the board of ABT?

So much for us "all making sacrifices to help the poor and save the planet"according to PBO . I guess "conspicuous consumption" is only bad when it's done by Wall Street fatcats who contribute to Republican campaigns. Go figure... :rolleyes:

dnf777
08-02-2010, 09:02 AM
Do you know for a fact that Chelsea didn't have premarital sex?

I wouldn't recommend buying a house without a walk-through. I wouldn't buy a car without a test drive. :cool:


But NONE of that, Chelsea's or Bristol's behavior was the point of this thread. It is the quiet acceptance of such immoral behavior by the right wing media (by THEIR standards, not mine) by the Palins, and the outrage exhibited when the clintons did, or in this case, hypothetically, acted in a similar fashion.

Meethinks this is the seventh time I"ve had to point out that I'm not taking issue with Bristol or her actions. I wish her a happy and successful life. My issue was with the RWM and their blatant hypocrisy and double standard.

road kill
08-02-2010, 09:12 AM
I wouldn't recommend buying a house without a walk-through. I wouldn't buy a car without a test drive. :cool:


But NONE of that, Chelsea's or Bristol's behavior was the point of this thread. It is the quiet acceptance of such immoral behavior by the right wing media (by THEIR standards, not mine) by the Palins, and the outrage exhibited when the clintons did, or in this case, hypothetically, acted in a similar fashion.

Meethinks this is the seventh time I"ve had to point out that I'm not taking issue with Bristol or her actions. I wish her a happy and successful life. My issue was with the RWM and their blatant hypocrisy and double standard.
So you would understand if I took her out for a spin??:D



RK

dnf777
08-02-2010, 09:52 AM
So you would understand if I took her out for a spin??:D



RK

That depends. Are you talking Chelsea, Bristol, or Hilary?:shock:

ducknwork
08-02-2010, 10:51 AM
I wouldn't recommend buying a house without a walk-through. I wouldn't buy a car without a test drive. :cool:


But NONE of that, Chelsea's or Bristol's behavior was the point of this thread. It is the quiet acceptance of such immoral behavior by the right wing media (by THEIR standards, not mine) by the Palins, and the outrage exhibited when the clintons did, or in this case, hypothetically, acted in a similar fashion.

Meethinks this is the seventh time I"ve had to point out that I'm not taking issue with Bristol or her actions. I wish her a happy and successful life. My issue was with the RWM and their blatant hypocrisy and double standard.

Thank you for expanding your post beyond your first sentence. You made it easier to get my point across. Chances are, Chelsea and her now husband engaged in premarital sex. (You are correct, Jeff, none of our business) If she did, then she is no less immoral than Bristol Palin. The only thing that makes them any different is that Bristol had a baby. Having a baby is certainly not immoral, just the action that causes it...In that way, there is no difference between the two.

And you didn't have to point that out for the seventh time, I knew your purpose. But thanks anyway.

code3retrievers
08-02-2010, 10:59 AM
Have you ever actually raised a child? It doesn't sound like it. I've known quite a few kids who had nannies and spent almost all their schooling from age 11 on in boarding school. The most important people in their lives were still their parents.



It doesn't sound like I have kids? Did you use your liberal supper powers to deduce that?

Actually I have 3 great kids. They are still making their way through life. I am sure they will make mistakes but I am spending time with them and raising them in a loving family environment with support, discipline and "good" morals taught to them by myself and my wife.

Just breeding does not make you a good parent. Everyone makes choices and Bill and Hillary chose their careers. Is Chelsie a good and well adjust person? I don't know and don't really care but you can't tell me, that is how most people would define a good parent. What you could have said is they made good hiring decisions about the nannies.

code3retrievers
08-02-2010, 11:17 AM
Well, at least you admit you missed the point.

But for someone who professes that children and family rearing are off-limits, you sure go after Bill, Hilary and Chelsea without hesitation! And that gets back to my original point. If Chelsea had done the things that dear Sarah's daughter have done..........look out! You're airing Chelsea's bathing schedule as a child!!

Thank you for giving us all an example of hypocrisy. The exact brand I was talking about. We can all understand it a little better now.

There is no hypocrisy in anything I have written. You rarely make a point. You throw a pathetic hypothetical out, hoping to stir the pot and then when you get a response you claim that everyone on the right is a hypocrite. That is what a coward does.

I have never attacked anyone's children or family, including your own even though apparently you sensitive liberal nature thinks so. I merely pointed out that Hillary and Bill did not raise their child in a traditional sense. When Hillary wrote her book "It Takes a Village to Raise a Child" it made her and Bill a fair target to question "their" child rearing techniques.

What is hypocritical about that?

By the way the media never questioned the fact that Hillary and Bill were not raising their kids in the traditional way. It was understood that in their position that it was necessary. But when Palin was running and Todd was staying home with the kids ( I'm sure they also had help) Sarah was being creamed by the left about her family values, because she was not staying home with Trig (her down-syndrome child)

Talk about hypocritical.

dnf777
08-02-2010, 02:45 PM
There is no hypocrisy in anything I have written. You rarely make a point. You throw a pathetic hypothetical out, hoping to stir the pot and then when you get a response you claim that everyone on the right is a hypocrite. That is what a coward does.

I have never attacked anyone's children or family, including your own even though apparently you sensitive liberal nature thinks so. I merely pointed out that Hillary and Bill did not raise their child in a traditional sense. When Hillary wrote her book "It Takes a Village to Raise a Child" it made her and Bill a fair target to question "their" child rearing techniques.

What is hypocritical about that?

By the way the media never questioned the fact that Hillary and Bill were not raising their kids in the traditional way. It was understood that in their position that it was necessary. But when Palin was running and Todd was staying home with the kids ( I'm sure they also had help) Sarah was being creamed by the left about her family values, because she was not staying home with Trig (her down-syndrome child)

Talk about hypocritical.

I'm not sensitive about anything you say. I don't give a flying f#$%, because I know if you stood face to face with me, you'd be all smiles if you dared talk about my kids.

How's that for liberal sensitive?

Here's another suggestion: I don't say anything about fellow RTFers kids, dogs, or other personal issues. Why don't you try the same unless its complimentery?

YardleyLabs
08-02-2010, 03:48 PM
As a general rule, Presidential and Vice Presidential children do not necessarily fare well under the lights of publicity. Reagan's daughter Patti, went out of her way to embarrass her father, although she saved some of her best moves until after he left the White house.

http://www.nndb.com/people/253/000049106/1994-07-A-lrg.jpg

Amy Carter was the first young child in the White House since the Kennedy's, and her antics were followed avidly by the press. She too saved her worst until Dad left office, when she was arrested during a sit-in at Brown. Later on she flunked out and turned down opportunities to return to finish her studies.

Cheney's daughter Mary is a lesbian, and that clearly had an impact of her parents' views of same sex activities. Of course, we know that George H. W. Bush's youngest had a few embarrassing scrapes until he finally sobered up in his 30's and went on to become a responsible leader.;-) The younger Bush's daughters, however, definitely followed in some of their father's less desirable activities. In the realm of Presidential children, Chelsea comes off looking pretty good. However, Palin's children could enter the White House and know that little that they did would be a first. All things considered, though, I prefer Patti's "spread" to Levi's (or even Scott Brown's).:D

http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID30706/images/Levi_Johnston_playgirl_cover.jpg

road kill
08-02-2010, 04:08 PM
As a general rule, Presidential and Vice Presidential children do not necessarily fare well under the lights of publicity. Reagan's daughter Patti, went out of her way to embarrass her father, although she saved some of her best moves until after he left the White house.

http://www.nndb.com/people/253/000049106/1994-07-A-lrg.jpg

Amy Carter was the first young child in the White House since the Kennedy's, and her antics were followed avidly by the press. She too saved her worst until Dad left office, when she was arrested during a sit-in at Brown. Later on she flunked out and turned down opportunities to return to finish her studies.

Cheney's daughter Mary is a lesbian, and that clearly had an impact of her parents' views of same sex activities. Of course, we know that George H. W. Bush's youngest had a few embarrassing scrapes until he finally sobered up in his 30's and went on to become a responsible leader.;-) The younger Bush's daughters, however, definitely followed in some of their father's less desirable activities. In the realm of Presidential children, Chelsea comes off looking pretty good. However, Palin's children could enter the White House and know that little that they did would be a first. All things considered, though, I prefer Patti's "spread" to Levi's (or even Scott Brown's).:D

http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID30706/images/Levi_Johnston_playgirl_cover.jpg


Which one do YOU like better, Yardley??



RK

YardleyLabs
08-02-2010, 04:13 PM
Which one do YOU like better, Yardley??



RK
I think you'll find the answer in my post, but I will repeat it here:

All things considered, though, I prefer Patti's "spread" to Levi's (or even Scott Brown's).

Now that you've heard the "secular progressive choice," which did you prefer?

road kill
08-02-2010, 04:29 PM
I think you'll find the answer in my post, but I will repeat it here:

All things considered, though, I prefer Patti's "spread" to Levi's (or even Scott Brown's).

Now that you've heard the "secular progressive choice," which did you prefer?

http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww42/sbx1/Sept-10-cover.jpg

Mine would probably bore you.;-)



RK

YardleyLabs
08-02-2010, 04:55 PM
http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww42/sbx1/Sept-10-cover.jpg

Mine would probably bore you.;-)



RK
I recently sold my 1991 Harley FXRS Sport Convertible with custom forks, Screaming Eagle air, and tuned pipes, so I am currently bikeless. The combination of cameras, dogs and time left little for the bike.

code3retrievers
08-02-2010, 09:00 PM
I'm not sensitive about anything you say. I don't give a flying f#$%, because I know if you stood face to face with me, you'd be all smiles if you dared talk about my kids.

How's that for liberal sensitive?

Here's another suggestion: I don't say anything about fellow RTFers kids, dogs, or other personal issues. Why don't you try the same unless its complimentery?

Man, you must be slow on the uptake. When did I ever insult you kids. Here are my qoutes about children.

"I hope your children (if you have any) will never make a life changing mistake.

I thought everyone agreed that families and children should be off limits

You can choose to raise your kids anyway you like and live in any fashion, but don't tell me I have to accept you thoughts or morals as my own and I will do the same."

So where did I insult your kids other then thinking your a Sh$% stirrer? I said I hope they never make any life changing mistakes. Maybe if you actually read the comments you could form a response to my questions.

Now as for standing in front of you I would not be all smiles. I would be happy to oblige you, although it would not be comments about your kids I would be making. I would suggest you place me on your ignore list if your that sensitive that you make things up that did not happen.

M&K's Retrievers
08-03-2010, 12:16 AM
I recently sold my 1991 Harley FXRS Sport Convertible with custom forks, Screaming Eagle air, and tuned pipes, so I am currently bikeless. The combination of cameras, dogs and time left little for the bike.

Who did you hire to ride it for you?:cool:

M&K's Retrievers
08-03-2010, 12:24 AM
I'm not sensitive about anything you say. I don't give a flying f#$%, because I know if you stood face to face with me, you'd be all smiles if you dared talk about my kids.

How's that for liberal sensitive?

Here's another suggestion: I don't say anything about fellow RTFers kids, dogs, or other personal issues Why don't you try the same unless its complimentery?

Chill pill might be in order here, Dave. It is your post, but you might want to lighten up a bit.

dnf777
08-03-2010, 04:49 AM
When did I ever insult you kids.

Never said you did. Just said you'd have a smile on your face if you talked about them. You're a little slow too, I guess.

You can choose to raise your kids anyway you like and live in any fashion, but don't tell me I have to accept you thoughts or morals as my own and I will do the same."

Thank you for letting me raise my kids how I like! We appreciate that. I didn't tell you to accept or do anything.


although it would not be comments about your kids I would be making.

Smartest thing you've said yet!

I would suggest you place me on your ignore list if your that sensitive that you make things up that did not happen.

No need for the ignore list. No need for pills. Just try to stick on topic, and twist words, or divert when you can't answer for the double standard that I pointed out in the RWM. In case you've forgotten again, THAT'S what this thread is about....not anyone's kids or child-rearing abilities.

Don't take this too personal. Maybe its YOUR "liberal sensitivities" that are in play here??

Have a good one, I have better things to do, and I'm sure you do too.

code3retrievers
08-03-2010, 09:58 AM
Sorry. But I don't hear dems going around touting traditional family values to the masses. Or condemning all but nuclear families. You gotta admit, it has been the republicans and their affiliation with conservative-social organizations such as Focus on Family and the 700 Club and Ralph Reids group that has claimed exclusive rights to "family values". Those aren't run by or staffed by democrats, are they? I've heard lots about liberals being godless, lack of virtues, unpatriotic, etc....

Just wondering how the Palin's behavior sits with that crowd, since we haven't heard anything from them, like we would have, had it been a democrat who committed those sins.

I don't want to argue for or against the Palins here. They don't affect me. I know how the left and some of the center feel about them...that's no secret. What I'm curious about is the above.....how does the right feel about this behavior? I anyone willing to condemn it...and state that they are unfit for pubic service like Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards, Larry Craig, Bill Clinton.....or not?

I stuck to the topic. I responded to your quote and even asked you other questions that either you would not or could not respond to so I will ask it again so that you may be clear. What behavior of Palins are you speaking of? You throw your hypothetical out about Palin's (then underage) daughter. So are you saying if her child made a mistake that Palin is not allowed to talk about family values?

Once again I will explain what a discussion is for you. Someone (you) ask a question. You then get opinions in return. At some point others may choose to ask questions during the "discussion". The idea is for you to clarify you position when asked to do so.

You throw a topic out but are never willing to defend you statements. You wait for Jeff or one of the more intellectual leftists to come to your rescue.

dnf777
08-03-2010, 10:35 AM
I stuck to the topic. I responded to your quote and even asked you other questions that either you would not or could not respond to so I will ask it again so that you may be clear. What behavior of Palins are you speaking of? You throw your hypothetical out about Palin's (then underage) daughter. So are you saying if her child made a mistake that Palin is not allowed to talk about family values?

Once again I will explain what a discussion is for you. Someone (you) ask a question. You then get opinions in return. At some point others may choose to ask questions during the "discussion". The idea is for you to clarify you position when asked to do so.

You throw a topic out but are never willing to defend you statements. You wait for Jeff or one of the more intellectual leftists to come to your rescue.


Re-read my first post. It was perfectly clear. (I'll reprint it here...its perfectly clear.)

What if it were Chelsea Clinton, who had a child out of wedlock, then broke off the relationship. Then the guy posed in Playgirl and made talk show rounds criticizing Hillary. Then got engaged again, after all that. Then only to have Chelsea break it off again after finding out dear boyfriend and father of child, impregnated another woman, AND had yet another gal on the side???

I don't need your condascending tone. You and your extremem right-wing nutz need the remedial course on civil discussion.

Another point (for the eighth time) The thread is NOT about Chelsea's or Bristol's behavior. You just can't or won't understand that. It is about the double standard applied by the RWM. Geez, I'm getting tired of saying that! If you're going to accuse me of not paying attention or answering questions, at least make sure you know what's being discussed!

Later.

ducknwork
08-03-2010, 11:10 AM
Now, after reading your first post again (thanks for posting it there, it saved me a couple clicks) I am not sure what you are getting at. What are you implying would have happened if your hypothetical were true? As I recall, Bristol and Sarah had a LOT of negative things said about them as a result of Bristol's pregnancy. That would mean that if there were a double standard like the one you are making up in the situation, then nothing bad would have been said about the Clintons? Or are you saying that they would be dragged through the mud, just like the Palins were?

And please don't tell me for the ninth time what you meant!

subroc
08-03-2010, 11:16 AM
Dave was just looking for another way to bash the Palins. the dozens of ways he has done it before were not enough.

code3retrievers
08-03-2010, 11:46 AM
Re-read my first post. It was perfectly clear. (I'll reprint it here...its perfectly clear.)

What if it were Chelsea Clinton, who had a child out of wedlock, then broke off the relationship. Then the guy posed in Playgirl and made talk show rounds criticizing Hillary. Then got engaged again, after all that. Then only to have Chelsea break it off again after finding out dear boyfriend and father of child, impregnated another woman, AND had yet another gal on the side???

I don't need your condascending tone. You and your extremem right-wing nutz need the remedial course on civil discussion.

Another point (for the eighth time) The thread is NOT about Chelsea's or Bristol's behavior. You just can't or won't understand that. It is about the double standard applied by the RWM. Geez, I'm getting tired of saying that! If you're going to accuse me of not paying attention or answering questions, at least make sure you know what's being discussed!

Later.

Dave, I understand what you were trying to do and it just goes to show what type of hypocrite you are. The Palins were drug through the mud and they still are, including the kids (although Bristol is bringing a lot of that on herself) Would Chelesa gotten the same treatment? Yes in today's TMZ society. The is no double standard. They were all over Bush's for underage drinking and people like you will want to read about the next president's kids in the National Enquirer also.

I will ask you again for the eighth time. What PALIN behavior are you speaking of? Is it the fact that she gives talks about family values? Since you are so much smarter than the rest of us maybe you could clarify for us conservatives. Reread your post. I hope when someone asks you a question in your professional life you actually listen and then formulate an answer but then again you are always on here posting.

Cody Covey
08-03-2010, 12:21 PM
Re-read my first post. It was perfectly clear. (I'll reprint it here...its perfectly clear.)

What if it were Chelsea Clinton, who had a child out of wedlock, then broke off the relationship. Then the guy posed in Playgirl and made talk show rounds criticizing Hillary. Then got engaged again, after all that. Then only to have Chelsea break it off again after finding out dear boyfriend and father of child, impregnated another woman, AND had yet another gal on the side???

I don't need your condascending tone. You and your extremem right-wing nutz need the remedial course on civil discussion.

Another point (for the eighth time) The thread is NOT about Chelsea's or Bristol's behavior. You just can't or won't understand that. It is about the double standard applied by the RWM. Geez, I'm getting tired of saying that! If you're going to accuse me of not paying attention or answering questions, at least make sure you know what's being discussed!

Later.I'm confused Dave maybe you can help. You keep saying this thread isn't about the kids. How are we supposed to consider the hypocrisy if we are allowed to consider the childrens actions and not only that you won't say which actions we are supposed to be condemning.

Do you think that you instill good family values into your children? I would venture to guess that your children at some point in there life have done something that you thought was against the values you were trying to instill into them. That doesn't make you a bad parent. How you handled the situation determines how good of a parent you actually are. Some make bigger mistakes then others. That not to downplay Bristol's actions she made a mistake that she will have to live with for the rest of her life. But to say that it directly relates to the quality of parenting is just you trying to take a jab at the Palins which unfortunately no one else here agrees with so then you get angry while saying that you are actually not angry.

dnf777
08-03-2010, 12:54 PM
I hope when someone asks you a question in your professional life you actually listen and then formulate an answer but then again you are always on here posting.

Why do you feel the need to bring my professional and personal life into this?

Have I questioned your professional skills?

dnf777
08-03-2010, 12:55 PM
I'm confused Dave maybe you can help. You keep saying this thread isn't about the kids. How are we supposed to consider the hypocrisy if we are allowed to consider the childrens actions and not only that you won't say which actions we are supposed to be condemning.

Do you think that you instill good family values into your children? I would venture to guess that your children at some point in there life have done something that you thought was against the values you were trying to instill into them. That doesn't make you a bad parent. How you handled the situation determines how good of a parent you actually are. Some make bigger mistakes then others. That not to downplay Bristol's actions she made a mistake that she will have to live with for the rest of her life. But to say that it directly relates to the quality of parenting is just you trying to take a jab at the Palins which unfortunately no one else here agrees with so then you get angry while saying that you are actually not angry.


You people are freakin' RETARDED!

Sorry, but I can't deal with such idiocy. I'm getting a headache.

Cody Covey
08-03-2010, 01:26 PM
So you can't explain it either. Got it good to know

Always good for the one continually preaching about how there should be no name calling to call others names...and to think this post was supposedly started to address hypocrisy and it turned into irony...good deal :)

road kill
08-03-2010, 01:34 PM
You people are freakin' RETARDED!

Sorry, but I can't deal with such idiocy. I'm getting a headache.

Sweetness.
Do you have a link to support that?

If not, it's not factual.

Just following the guidelines laid down for me be you "middle of the road independents!!":D



RK

dnf777
08-03-2010, 01:36 PM
So you can't explain it either. Got it good to know

Always good for the one continually preaching about how there should be no name calling to call others names...and to think this post was supposedly started to address hypocrisy and it turned into irony...good deal :)

darn right. Everyone else can be hypocritical and call names, so can I!

When dealing with retards, act like a retard! My new motto here.

Cody Covey
08-03-2010, 01:51 PM
darn right. Everyone else can be hypocritical and call names, so can I!

When dealing with retards, act like a retard! My new motto here.

How was i hypocritical or when did i call you any names. I asked a bunch of question of you and tried to lay out in a nicer way then the others tried why we are confused. You still haven't answered any of the questioned laid out before you in a discussion you just insist on saying the same thing over and over and calling names. If you want to call David or gman names thats fine I'm sure they probably would take it as flattery. I on the other hand was trying to have a discussion where you couldn't or wouldn't answer the question so decided to be immature and call me a retard after my first post on this thread.

Maybe you need to take another break from POTUS since in every thread you post in lately you are calling names and insulting people.

dnf777
08-03-2010, 02:16 PM
How was i hypocritical or when did i call you any names. I asked a bunch of question of you and tried to lay out in a nicer way then the others tried why we are confused. You still haven't answered any of the questioned laid out before you in a discussion you just insist on saying the same thing over and over and calling names. If you want to call David or gman names thats fine I'm sure they probably would take it as flattery. I on the other hand was trying to have a discussion where you couldn't or wouldn't answer the question so decided to be immature and call me a retard after my first post on this thread.

Maybe you need to take another break from POTUS since in every thread you post in lately you are calling names and insulting people.


The thread is about the right wing media's silence on this matter, not anyones' children. (10th time to explain). I can't make it any simpler than that. Sorry if you got attacked unfairly....welcome to the club, arsehat!

ducknwork
08-03-2010, 02:26 PM
Sorry, but I can't deal with such idiocy.

Is that why you didn't respond to my legitimate question?

ducknwork
08-03-2010, 02:27 PM
The thread is about the right wing media's silence on this matter, not anyones' children.

What matter? Dangit, I'm confused!

road kill
08-03-2010, 02:28 PM
What matter? Dangit, I'm confused!

Republican's children, I mean ....wait....uhhh.....you got me all confused now!!



RK

Cody Covey
08-03-2010, 03:45 PM
The thread is about the right wing media's silence on this matter, not anyones' children. (10th time to explain). I can't make it any simpler than that. Sorry if you got attacked unfairly....welcome to the club, arsehat!You're right Dave you keep telling us over and over and over again "what" this thread is about but as soon as we ask about the "matter" you speak of you tell us thats not what the thread is about. How the hell are we supposed to address your "issue" if you won't tell us what it is.

Retard waiting for answers regards...

dnf777
08-03-2010, 04:11 PM
You're right Dave you keep telling us over and over and over again "what" this thread is about but as soon as we ask about the "matter" you speak of you tell us thats not what the thread is about. How the hell are we supposed to address your "issue" if you won't tell us what it is.

Retard waiting for answers regards...

Ah, I get it. I was a little slow on the uptake, but as I'm counting the times I explain this to you, you're keeping a count of how many times I explain this to you. You got me! But I guess that concedes the right wing-nutz hypocrisy and double standards. Hey, Sharon Angle let your side's little secret out of the bag...have you seen Jeff's post? Hilarious! (and sad)

ducknwork
08-03-2010, 08:22 PM
The thread is about the right wing media's silence on this matter, not anyones' children. (10th time to explain). I can't make it any simpler than that. Sorry if you got attacked unfairly....welcome to the club, arsehat!


What matter? Dangit, I'm confused!

I guess I'll ask again.

david gibson
08-03-2010, 08:36 PM
You people are freakin' RETARDED!

Sorry, but I can't deal with such idiocy. I'm getting a headache.

oh, i thought:

1) you were above these kinds of retorts, and
2) i was the only one in here that made such stupid remarks to be worthy of them. are you two-timing me dave??

yesireeeeee you do set the standard for classy posts here.....

dnf777
08-04-2010, 04:46 AM
oh, i thought:

1) you were above these kinds of retorts, and
2) i was the only one in here that made such stupid remarks to be worthy of them. are you two-timing me dave??

yesireeeeee you do set the standard for classy posts here.....

You are the most iniciteful A-hole on this forum, and everyone agrees, according to public and private comments. If you ever contributed anything meaningful, it would be overlooked, but your comments are usually as retarded and substance-less as they are vicious. So get used to being called what you are, some of us will be stooping to your level here.
My new sig line is dedicated to you.

dnf777
08-04-2010, 04:47 AM
I guess I'll ask again.

You make-a me laugh! :D

ducknwork
08-04-2010, 06:19 AM
I was serious...Are you referring to the rwm's silence on the Clinton wedding? Or their supposed silence on the Palin baby? Or something else?

Glad I could give you a laugh at least...seems like you need a couple...;)

dnf777
08-04-2010, 08:53 AM
I was serious...Are you referring to the rwm's silence on the Clinton wedding? Or their supposed silence on the Palin baby? Or something else?

Glad I could give you a laugh at least...seems like you need a couple...;)

Sorry, Duck, I'm done with this one.
And my tag line is definately NOT referring to you in any way.
In fact, I should probably change it.....its just not nice, and besides, it goes without saying.

M&K's Retrievers
08-04-2010, 09:09 AM
Sorry, Duck, I'm done with this one.
And my tag line is definately NOT referring to you in any way.
In fact, I should probably change it.....its just not nice, and besides, it goes without saying.

You don't need to change it. It is what it is.