Palin v. Letterman

[You-Gi-Owe]

Again, Let's leave Letterman/Palin out of this topic thread.
Ring of Isengard, yes, I would suppose that it's impossible to defend the indefensible, but some people try.
Treznor, it's a cute drawing. I think Letterman/Palin is a "dead horse", but not the general and societal question.
Ifreann, ....
Soheran, I agree with the sentiment, but again, please refrain from Letterman/Palin.
Blouman Empire, I'm with you.
Cameroi, actually, I would have thought that the parent not using their child would have been the natural state of the question.

I think I'm mostly caught up with the new posts, since my last.

[Treznor]

Treznor, it's a cute drawing. I think Letterman/Palin is a "dead horse", but not the general and societal question.

Except that you're still on the same topic, even if you've finally chosen to avoid names. So, since the Republicans are so fond of placing their families in the spotlight to demonstrate their "family values," do they get criticized for putting their children in harm's way? It's one thing to ridicule a politician's child just because the politician is in the spotlight, but it's something else to ridicule the politician when they don't practice what they preach.

[Blouman Empire]

*snip post*

FYI You-Gi-Owe, this is the first thread of this topic in which I have posted.

And anyway despite my posts using Willow as an example, but yes I suppose I am with you.

[You-Gi-Owe]

Treznor, it's a cute drawing. I think Letterman/Palin is a "dead horse", but not the general and societal question.

Except that you're still on the same topic, even if you've finally chosen to avoid names. So, since the Republicans are so fond of placing their families in the spotlight to demonstrate their "family values," do they get criticized for putting their children in harm's way? It's one thing to ridicule a politician's child just because the politician is in the spotlight, but it's something else to ridicule the politician when they don't practice what they preach.

Well, imagine that you're a politician and that you have children, if you don't, and that you and someone else are at odds with one another, and they tell others or the Press that your son and daughter are incestuous. Is that defensible behavior?

[Blouman Empire]

Except that you're still on the same topic, even if you've finally chosen to avoid names. So, since the Republicans are so fond of placing their families in the spotlight to demonstrate their "family values," do they get criticized for putting their children in harm's way? It's one thing to ridicule a politician's child just because the politician is in the spotlight, but it's something else to ridicule the politician when they don't practice what they preach.

What and Obama never showed off his family?

And regardless of what the may do doesn't change things, what you want to do is blame the victim similar to saying that slut shouldn't complain about being raped because she wore a skirt and a tight top showing off her cleavage.

[Treznor]

Treznor, it's a cute drawing. I think Letterman/Palin is a "dead horse", but not the general and societal question.

Except that you're still on the same topic, even if you've finally chosen to avoid names. So, since the Republicans are so fond of placing their families in the spotlight to demonstrate their "family values," do they get criticized for putting their children in harm's way? It's one thing to ridicule a politician's child just because the politician is in the spotlight, but it's something else to ridicule the politician when they don't practice what they preach.

Well, imagine that you're a politician and that you have children, if you don't, and that you and someone else are at odds with one another, and they tell others or the Press that your son and daughter are incestuous. Is that defensible behavior?

No, but that hasn't happened, has it? Yes, Republicans are fond of taking potshots at Democrats any way they can, up to and including their children, but by and large Democrats have refrained from bringing children of Republican politicians into the discussion unless the Republicans put them in the spotlight first.

I agree with the idea of keeping children "off-limits" for political gain, unless someone decides to make them an issue in the first place. At that point, they become fair game if it turns out it was all hypocrisy, as in the case of Palin.

What and Obama never showed off his family?

And regardless of what the may do doesn't change things, what you want to do is blame the victim similar to saying that slut shouldn't complain about being raped because she wore a skirt and a tight top showing off her cleavage.

Obama didn't parade his children on stage like Palin did. He didn't show off his wife as a trophy piece like McCain did. He kept his family with them, and the media inferred whatever they chose from that.

I am not blaming the victim here, because there's a difference between a woman wearing sexy clothes and a woman actively trying to get you into bed. Just as there's a difference between a politician preaching family values and a politician who has a family.

[You-Gi-Owe]

I agree with the idea of keeping children "off-limits" for political gain, unless someone decides to make them an issue in the first place. At that point, they become fair game if it turns out it was all hypocrisy, as in the case of Palin.

AND

I am not blaming the victim here, because there's a difference between a woman wearing sexy clothes and a woman actively trying to get you into bed. Just as there's a difference between a politician preaching family values and a politician who has a family.

Look, I see you have your "hate on" and you can't get the press story out of your head. But can you really agree that something, like one's children, should be "off-limits", because it's morally reprehensible and then say that Press coverage makes it okay. I'm just not buying such a stance.

[Treznor]

I agree with the idea of keeping children "off-limits" for political gain, unless someone decides to make them an issue in the first place. At that point, they become fair game if it turns out it was all hypocrisy, as in the case of Palin.

AND

I am not blaming the victim here, because there's a difference between a woman wearing sexy clothes and a woman actively trying to get you into bed. Just as there's a difference between a politician preaching family values and a politician who has a family.

Look, I see you have your "hate on" and you can't get the press story out of your head. But can you really agree that something, like one's children, should be "off-limits", because it's morally reprehensible and then say that Press coverage makes it okay. I'm just not buying such a stance.

What I said is that politicians who use their family to promote their "family values" agenda, then get revealed to be hypocrites, get no sympathy from me. I feel for their families for being subjected to such exploitation in the first place, I do. However, if you tell me that your dog is off-limits but still use your dog to show the world how sensitive and moral you are, then your dog becomes fair game if it turns out you beat your dog when you get drunk.

Hypocrisy is an automatic penalty point in politics or any other venture. Politicians frequently have families that usually include children, but when you politicize your own family then you have only yourself to blame when your "family values" come under fire.

[Dempublicents1]

Treznor, it's a cute drawing. I think Letterman/Palin is a "dead horse", but not the general and societal question.

Except that you're still on the same topic, even if you've finally chosen to avoid names. So, since the Republicans are so fond of placing their families in the spotlight to demonstrate their "family values," do they get criticized for putting their children in harm's way? It's one thing to ridicule a politician's child just because the politician is in the spotlight, but it's something else to ridicule the politician when they don't practice what they preach.

Indeed, it's silly to ask people to ignore whether or not parents use their children as political tools when discussing this. Once something is in the public eye, it's fodder for comedians. That's how comedy works. If a comedian just went after a politician's child out of the blue, it (a) wouldn't be funny and (b) wouldn't be appropriate. When that child has already been paraded in the public eye and has done something that made news, on the other hand....

[Ashmoria]

he did not make a lewd comment about a 14 year old.

he made a questionable joke about an 18 year old.

Then he didn't do his goddamn fucking homework, because the 18 year old wasn't at the fucking baseball game!

Now, Letterman's made a much better apology and it's been accepted.

This topic is no longer relevant.

again, comedy is not news reporting.

he did his homework, he made sure that bristol palin is a legal adult.

she didnt need to have been there for the joke to work.

[Rhodanjah3]

I HATE LETTERMAN! HE IS SO OLD AND THINKS HE IS SO COOL? HES SUCH A PERVERT!

[Lancaster of Wessex]

I HATE LETTERMAN! HE IS SO OLD AND THINKS HE IS SO COOL? HES SUCH A PERVERT!

uh...okay.

[Rhodanjah3]

I HATE LETTERMAN! HE IS SO OLD AND THINKS HE IS SO COOL? HES SUCH A PERVERT!

uh...okay.

exactly

[Crownstar]

Anybody heard of the Don Imus syndrome?

[Farnhamia]

Anybody heard of the Don Imus syndrome?

Which is what? Make a rude remark, get yelled at and fired for it, take some time off and get a new job on satellite radio?