Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I see. Bottom line is, you don't have children and you do not like having to contribute taxes to the public school system, and you are "responsible" because you don't have any. I get it now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native
I'll give you a two part answer ... and I'll apologize initially if I happen to veer off the topic a little. First, it's a fact that Governor Palin's children attend public schools, which is a burden on Alaska's taxpayers. Public schools also have a cost burden on the rest of us because public education as it is today is also funded through the NEA (a Federal agency). On a local level, if you own a home and actually look at the breakdown of your property tax bill, nearly 70% of it likely goes to public schools (at least it does where I live). I don't have children, yet I'm paying an enormous cost out of my pocket each year to subsidize the education for kids that aren't mine, simply because I chose to be responsible & not impregnate anybody. Read: SOCIALISM!
It's basically the same answer regarding how Palin's daughter's pregnancy is a burden on taxyapers. You know very well that the majority of teenagers who have babies are not financially prepared for the expense & upbringing that a child demands. So who ends up paying for the expense? You guessed it! TAXPAYERS ... in the form of government funded children's health initiatives, and public schools. The only exception to that is if the grandparents (the Palins) cover the cost ... which seems unlikely being that Sarah Palin's own children are attending government funded school (not private school).
but in her case, "pro life" apparently means having five children, and sticking them in public school at the taxpayers' expense!
Conservatives are community and family oriented. It has always been the belief of conservatives that the community is responsible for the education of the children in the community, because everyone in the community benefits from it. Had you bothered to read what Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatism wrote in the 1700s, you would know that. Remember? It takes a village.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native
Apparently, "pro life" now means that Sarah's teenage daughter can become pregnant out of wedlock ... and instead of being ashamed, her mother is actually proud that she's going to become a grandmother in her mid 40s!
Being a grandmother at the age of 30-40 was the norm on Planet Earth for several million years. There's no reason for Ms Palin to be ashamed. There is reason for Ms Palin to be concerned as in the modern age it can cause hardship for daughter and child, but no one is served by Ms Palin berating, debasing or demeaning her daughter in public, or private.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native
Sorry, but 40 or 50 years ago, a social conservative practiced what he/she preached. A true social conservative used to be one who didn't believe in having sex before marriage
40 or 50 years ago the age of consent was still 16 in most US states, since that was also the age of marriage, just as it was 75 years ago. My grandmother was 17 and my grandfather was 16 when they got married. It didn't stop my grandfather from being awarded a Silver Star and Bronze Star, both with "V" devices for valor, and didn't stop them from raising two children, one of whom became a CPA, and the other a doctor of psychology specializing in neuropsychology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native
... and most certainly didn't tolerate out of wedlock pregnancies.
No, they didn't tolerate out of wedlock pregnancies, but they didn't run to the doctor and rip the child out of the womb, or kick the daughter out of the house either. Both states and private organizations did sponsor homes for unwed mothers, but that is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue, that's a personal issue where insecure individuals upset and embarrassed that it might cast aspersions on their social standing or status or standing in the community kicked their daughter out of the house
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native
Never mind that taxpayers will have to end up supporting these kids in some shape or form.
And your evidence of that is what? The 18 to 25 year old unwed mothers with 2 or 5 children living in HUD Section 8 Housing at taxpayer expense and receiving food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, Aid to Dependent Children and other benefits are not conservatives and not from conservative families.
Census data quite clearly shows that were there are two households in a single dwelling and one of the households is headed by a single parent tend to identify themselves as conservatives and/or are affiliated with the Republican Party.
Conservatives are community and family oriented. It has always been the belief of conservatives that the community is responsible for the education of the children in the community, because everyone in the community benefits from it. Had you bothered to read what Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatism wrote in the 1700s, you would know that. Remember? It takes a village.....
The 1700s were vastly different from today in too many ways to name in one posting. For one thing, schools were completely different 100+ years ago. Many consisted of one room, and even doubled as community centers & churches. Because children received a basic education, the cost of running those school houses was highly prudent compared to today's disastrous public system.
I find it rather amusing that you mentioned "modern conservatism" and "it takes a village" almost in the same breath. Hillary Clinton was the spokesperson for "it takes a village" in her 1996 speech at the DNC. Basically, what she advocates is communities being responsible for children's upbringing (including their education) because it benefits society. Sorry, but that's not conservative. In fact, it's more along the lines of socialism.
On that same note, I'm not sure if you own property ... but if you do, I hope you look over your statement and realize where most of your property taxes are being spent. Where I live, 70% of it goes to public schools. I have no children, yet I'm forced to give up thousands of my hard earned dollars every year to be thrown in that black hole known as public education. The modern day public system is a proven failure ... and it certainly doesn't benefit me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Census data quite clearly shows that were there are two households in a single dwelling and one of the households is headed by a single parent tend to identify themselves as conservatives and/or are affiliated with the Republican Party.
So what does that tell you about the direction of the GOP??? Much of what I hear from the social wing of the Republican party is preaching about family values and marriage. That tells me that those single parents obviously don't give much thought to the so called sanctity of marriage ... but they identify themselves with a party that highly stresses it as a moral issue.
Anyway, it's not just Palin that I'm writing about. Lately, too many so called moralists who preach marriage & values have been involved in things that are highly immoral. Remember Larry Craig??? One thing I despise is hypocrisy. Social conservatives like to make an impression by talking about how moral & righteous they are ... but it's too bad their actions often don't follow the words they speak!
I'm not an expert on what social conservatives believe. But what I do know about the subject doesn't seem to be in much conflict here. Governor Palin, from what I understand, is a believer in teaching abstinence. Okay, so her daughter Bristol didn't abstain. I would imagine that that places her in a high percentage of kids in her age group. My parents didn't want me to have sex at that age either and I did anyway. It wasn't my parent's fault that I did and I don't see this as being Governor Palin's fault in her daughter's case either.
Governor Palin is pro life. Well, Bristol Palin isn't going to have an abortion so that seems pretty in line with things. Bristol Palin is not going to be a single parent either because it was stated that she and her boyfriend are going to get married. It also seems that she will be receiving an abundant amount of love and support from her family which is never a bad thing. So this still seems to put the Palin's on the plus side of social conservative values.
There are many instances where one can point to moral and social hypocrisy on both sides of the political spectrum. But to use this teenage girl's pregnancy as a talking point to make that case is pretty low. The fact that so many people on this site and elsewhere are jumping on this bandwagon I think says more about the moral and social decline in this country then anything else.
Ironically, I can't believe that I'm the one being the moralist on this topic.
That statement is, in itself, ironic.
Just think of Palin's kids, or grandkids, as troopers for any of 'Bama's service corps.
Green Job Corps, YouthBuild Program, AmeriCorps VISTA, Experience Corps, Senior Corps, Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans Corps, Homeland Security Corps, Peace Corps, Global Energy Corps, Social Investment Fund Network, Social Entrepreneurship Agency for Nonprofits, Corporation for National and Community Service
If you feel you're being cheated so much go out and impregnate a couple of women and get your moneys worth.
Now, that's just an ignorant statement. I pay for other peoples' kids, too, since I was smart enough not to have any that I could not afford. I pay for those families who don't pay as much taxes as I do, as a single person.
As far as the Palin story, it just goes to the judgement of Mrs. Palin that apparently, she did not teach her daughter about birth control. And, it's doubtful that the girl is really going to marry the father, nor should she at 17.
It's a private matter, but it shows the bad judgement of Mrs. Palin.
The fact that so many people on this site and elsewhere are jumping on this bandwagon I think says more about the moral and social decline in this country then anything else.
Give the kid a friggin' break.
Oh sure. Give the poor girl a break. What she (and her boyfriend) did was out of love, wasn't it? She's going to get married after she became pregnant, so that makes everything OK, doesn't it? What kind of morals are we as a society setting for teens when we coddle them and assure them that their actions are acceptable?
So let's cut everyone a break. Let all the kids get banged up. Let all the illegal aliens keep coming here to have babies by the barrel. They're instant citizens anyway! Give all the people who bought homes at sub prime loans a break. Why worry? The taxpayers will bail everyone out. To hell with taking precautions and being responsible. That's what our society has come to. Screw around and spend to the hilt, then pay later ... or I should say, let everyone else pay for it later!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
