Homosecular Gaytheist

2 September 2008

Why Palin’s Slutty Daughter Matters

Filed under: Politics — Rev. J. Reed Braden @ 6:32 pm

I was told today to, “shut up,” when I was talking to a friend about Sarah Palin’s daughter.  My friend and I were joking about the mess that Palin is now going to have to clean up from this fiasco when some fat troglodyte I’d never seen before yelled over to us, “Shut up! It don’t matter what her daughter did.  Palin’s still a better President than Obama ever could be.”  I go to a community college.

Well, here are five reasons why Bristol Palin, the slutty alcoholic daughter of Sarah Palin, matters in this election.

I. Abstinence-Only Sex “Education” Does Not Work, Period.

Sarah Palin taught her children not to have sex until marriage, in lieu of teaching them about condoms and birth control.  Now her oldest daughter, 17, is pregnant.  All statistics I’ve found show that abstinence-only sex ed does not work in preventing STDs and pregnancies.  In fact, it worsens the spread of STDs in teenagers–including HIV/AIDS, herpes, chlamydia, gonorrhoea and children–because they aren’t taught how to protect themselves from disease.

Sarah Palin wants to teach our children the same stuff she taught her children about sex… since, you know… that obviously worked.

II. Sarah Palin Has No Control Or Any Sort Of Decent Management Of Her Own Family.

Bristol’s Baby Daddy’s sister posted some interesting pictures of her brother (the Baby Daddy) on MySpace and PhotoBucket drinking hard liquor and beer.  One of the girls in these pictures is purportedly Bristol Palin, but it’s hard to tell.  Drunk 17-year-old sluts all look the same.  Bristol or no Bristol, one of the pictures shows Bristol’s Baby Daddy sleeping in a girl’s bed (I think it’s safe to assume it’s Bristol’s bed.) and there is a Crown Royal bag tacked to the wall above the bed.

 

Judging by the male models on the walls and the stuffed bear and printed blankets, this is not Baby Daddy’s room.  The least disturbing solution is that this is Bristol’s bed.

There also seems to be some interesting stuff that was on another girl’s MySpace earlier which implies that Bristol is already married to Baby Daddy. 

Bristol Palin is out of control and Sarah knows about it all.  Why is Sarah Palin lying about her slutty daughter when it’s only making things worse for her?

How will Sarah Palin fare in running the entire country after the inevitable death of John McCain if she can’t even run her own family?

III. Palin Is Ruining Her Child’s (And Her Child’s Boyfriend’s) Life For Political Gain.

Sarah Palin has compromised her motherhood by lying about her children in public for personal gain and forcing her oldest daughter into an unwanted and underage marriage for the same reason.

Baby Daddy has made it clear that he does not want children on his MySpace profile, but Sarah Palin is forcing her daughter to marry this boy and the two of them will be forced to raise the child that he doesn’t want and she had no choice in delivering.

This speaks volumes about her manipulative and self-serving character.  Her lust for power will decimate her family and the relationship she has with her daughter… but none of that matters as long as she goes down in history as the first woman Vice President, right?  Right??

IV. This Will Impact Her Performance As Vice President

Bristol Palin will not be able to rear the baby herself, and it looks unlikely that her soon-to-be-or-maybe-already-is husband isn’t willing to do much with the child, so Bristol will become dependent on her mother to raise the infant (as well as the mentally handicapped infant) which will distract Sarah Palin from her job.  Most mothers of mentally handicapped children usually leave work for a few years to care for the child and ensure a healthy development.  It takes that much dedication.  Can you really dedicate enough time to raising two infants, one of them with special needs, and hold the second-highest office in the country?  What about if when McCain dies?  Will Palin be able to raise two infants (along with the rest of their kids) and be the President?  (I thought these were the same folks who continuously say that children need to be raised by a father and a mother.  Now she’s trying to have her baby and eat it too.)

V. What if it was Obama’s kid?

The conservative hoo-hahs keep repeating the mantra:  They are voting for McCain and Palin, not their families.

If Obama had a 17-year-old daughter who got pregnant, do you think Bill O’Reilly would say, “It’s not my business, I’m just going to focus on Barack.”  Hell no!  The conservatives have incessantly peddled irrelevant crap they mined from Obama’s pastors, wife, old acquaintances, etc., but the moment this Bristol Palin gem lands in our lap, it’s off-limits.  Fuck you.  Do the Republicans really think we’re so dumb they can silence us by pretending that this is all a big non-issue?  Sarah Palin’s inability to raise her own children is highly relevant to her inability to lead this country.

38 Comments »

  1. Hmmm . . . I think Troggy was trying to say that it doesn’t affect Palin’s political aptitude, or her capability for running as VP.

    Comment by Tom the Pom — 2 September 2008 @ 6:36 pm

  2. Party time for the Palin children if McCain gets elected

    Comment by Wil — 2 September 2008 @ 6:54 pm

  3. gotta love how even myspace is getting involved in this. this is reality tv at its finest.

    Comment by saycheeseworld — 2 September 2008 @ 6:56 pm

  4. Awesome rant. I’ve been following this real world soap opera and I completely agree with you. Her behavior, decisions, and fundamentalist mindset are critical issues in this elections. These events not only expose Sarah Palin, but also John McCain’s judgment as a future CEO of this country.

    Comment by bugsoup — 2 September 2008 @ 6:56 pm

  5. Hey Reed,

    I generally agree with your rants, but you might want to get your facts correct:

    The 4 month old infant, Trig, actually has Down’s Syndrome, not autism. Autism is a totally different disease and is not diagnosable in infants.

    Also, if Bristol Palin actually is five months pregnant, then it is impossible for her to have given birth on April 18 to Trig Palin.

    Comment by mollishka — 2 September 2008 @ 7:02 pm

  6. Moll, thanks for the correction. I’m only reporting on what has been sent to me, so the information is confusing and sketchy.

    I confused a report I didn’t use that postulated whether or not Trig was Bristol’s child and they are lying about how pregnant she currently is or how old Trig is with the report I actually linked which implies that Levi and Bristol are already married.

    It’s been a long day.

    Comment by Rev. Reed Braden — 2 September 2008 @ 7:10 pm

  7. I made the corrections.

    And the Down’s Syndrome/Autism faux pas was entirely my fault. I had far too little sleep last night and far too little coffee today.

    Comment by Rev. Reed Braden — 2 September 2008 @ 7:14 pm

  8. We all get challenges in our life and no family these days is a picnic. Sarah and her husband seem to accept change and that will help Bristol accept responsibility for her actions. There is nothing wrong with Bristol and her boyfriend getting married and making a go of it and hopefully it works out and they mature gracefully. I think Sarah Palin and her husband are very positive people and they love children and life. Baby Trig is very blessed to have the parents he has, many would have aborted him. He will teach them much about love.

    Comment by Doris Tracey — 2 September 2008 @ 8:33 pm

  9. Eww… someone take it away before its sickening sweetness–almost like a decaying rat–seeps into the rest of the blog.

    Comment by Rev. Reed Braden — 2 September 2008 @ 8:47 pm

  10. Palin appears to be a nutter, and this whole baby thing is really just icing on the urinal cake at this point. The whole double standard point you made seems to apply to nearly everything in this election cycle.

    Comment by Spook — 2 September 2008 @ 9:36 pm

  11. Actually, she IS a governor. I’m pretty sure she’s got the whole nanny crew thing worked out.
    And she doesn’t seem like the type to be overly concerned about her children anyway (daughter’s preggo).

    Comment by Wil — 3 September 2008 @ 12:43 am

  12. Spot on, these things WILL affect her roll as (FSM-forbid) VP, and point 1 needs to be brought up on a mainstream level again and often. I feel bad for the poor girl and her babydaddy having their lives ruined by her mother. Seriously, where can they go from here? Part-time college and work? Sponging off her mother? Like she’ll even care once it’s over.

    Comment by ryot — 3 September 2008 @ 1:28 am

  13. abstinence is the most efective it works 100%

    Comment by stellastewart — 3 September 2008 @ 2:10 am

  14. Abstinence works, Abstinence Education does not.

    Big difference.

    Comment by doazic — 3 September 2008 @ 2:45 am

  15. “My friends, I am very displeased with my opponent’s attitude in this election. After y speech critisizing his energy policy, he defreinded me and sent me a link to goatse. Is this the sort of man we want to be president?”

    Comment by Travis Bedford — 3 September 2008 @ 5:28 am

  16. As to abstinence only education, why don’y they just give them all one of these http://asksamabout.com/images/red-button-med-30.jpg labelled “Do Not Push”?

    Comment by Travis Bedford — 3 September 2008 @ 5:32 am

  17. Stella, Doazic, abstinence doesn’t always work. Remember the Virgin Mary?

    Anyhoo, Stella, kids still need to know about contraceptives and safe sex because telling them not to use what they have and what their hormones are telling them to use is not going to work.

    Comment by Rev. Reed Braden — 3 September 2008 @ 8:16 am

  18. Molli, here’s the blog I was talking about before.

    http://cabalamat.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/is-sarah-palin-the-mother-of-trig/

    Comment by Rev. Reed Braden — 3 September 2008 @ 8:24 am

  19. Hi Homosecular Gaytheists,

    Thanks for the link to my screenshot of the hastily-deleted myspace page. All very mysterious indeed.

    Just one question though – do you really need to go with “slutty daughter” for the title? May as well save any potshots you have for Mama Palin, no? Not really offended (although I did click that page, and now I’m even less offended), but bits of the post – such as part III – are better than the title suggests. Just saying.

    x

    Comment by Suchandrika — 3 September 2008 @ 12:45 pm

  20. I kind of agree Reed-o. You know that you and I are on the same page when discussing Palin, but I think you place unfair emphasis on the daughter being a “slut”. Without being too personal, she’s probably had no more sex than I have, and maybe she really does love this guy — but she wasn’t educated properly, so she got pregnant.

    I’d be pregnant too, but I have a mom who encouraged me to get birth control and would have bought me condoms if I asked her too.

    Her situation is no different from thousands of other girls we know, a lot of whom I would NOT call sluts — the only difference is that her mom is now famous.

    It’s her tough luck. But unless I know her personally I don’t think I could call her a slut.

    Comment by kjmitchell715 — 3 September 2008 @ 12:58 pm

  21. Sigh.

    The title and the Bristol-centric focus is because I emphasise Bristol Palin (and why she is, indeed, relevant to Sarah Palin’s electability. The reason why I called her a slut in the title was because it attracts attention to the issue.

    I’ve probably had more sex than Bristol Palin and I would probably be considered more of a slut by any reasonable standards than Bristol, but my mom isn’t running for the second-highest office in the nation, nor does my mom lie to cover up the fact that I am, indeed, a slut.

    If Sarah had come clean about her daughter to begin with rather than lying to cover it up, none of this would be relevant.

    Try not to focus on the headlines when the story is in the words below it.

    Again, calling her a slut draws attention to the issue… it’s not necessarily a potshot at Bristol herself. I’m sure she’s a nice slut.

    Comment by Rev. Reed Braden — 3 September 2008 @ 1:41 pm

  22. Sure, it isn’t really a potshot at her, but it reads like that to people who don’t bother to read the whole of your post – and that’s just going to happen, no matter how great the would-be reader is. Time constraints and all. Which is a shame, because your post has many more dimensions than that title would suggest. It will put off people who would otherwise read it, and perhaps agree.

    I guess there is great irony in the title, in light of her mother’s beliefs – but you do your own writing no favours by using the term so prominently.

    Comment by Suchandrika — 3 September 2008 @ 1:49 pm

  23. Anyone so dumb as to not understand that half of what I say is sarcastic (including this (and that)) shouldn’t be reading my blog, and if they get something out of my post that I didn’t intend, that’s their own problem. I won’t change my work to facilitate others, only in cases of factual errors will I edit a post (see above comment from Molli).

    Comment by Rev. Reed Braden — 3 September 2008 @ 1:59 pm

  24. is that a shotgun wedding ?

    Comment by Mikko — 3 September 2008 @ 6:12 pm

  25. [...] Walker, Reason’s managing editor, quoted one of my recent posts with this uninspired piece of poop: A blogger called the Homosecular Gaytheist, a handle that might [...]

    Pingback by Reason??? Don’t make me laugh! « Homosecular Gaytheist (and friends!) — 3 September 2008 @ 11:39 pm

  26. All in all, this doesn’t reflect on Michael Sarah Palin’s political ability does it? It doesn’t make here a “bad candidate”, and that was the important point.

    Still, being Republican, she probably will be awful anyway.

    Comment by Tom the [Not Whingeing, Thankyouverymuchaussies] Pom — 5 September 2008 @ 3:43 am

  27. Tom, I think it does. It shows a lot about her terrible character, which is important.

    Comment by Rev. Reed Braden — 5 September 2008 @ 12:56 pm

  28. The Palin sluts will keep fucking til the end of times. Good tits dough.

    Comment by JOEL — 5 September 2008 @ 8:02 pm

  29. Joel, there’s a fine line between what is acceptable criticism and what is blatant sexism and you’re about 30 miles away from it on the sexism side. Please refrain from blatantly sexist comments. It was the tits remark.

    Comment by Rev. Reed Braden — 5 September 2008 @ 8:27 pm

  30. I saw one of Pailn’s diatribes the other day, and she spoke about her nanny. What a lovely family value! Have kids and pay someone else to raise ‘em! Perfect! Then when they screw up all your supporters can tell you (and the rest of the world) that it isn’t your fault, it’s someone else’s!

    Christ! If she can’t so much as raise her daughter not to go out and get knocked up at such a tender age, then how can she run a country? If she cannot discipline her own child, how can she take flak (and give it) from political opposition. How she can she stand on her ideals if her own family won’t respect them?

    And the opposition can’t have a go at her, after all she’s a loving mother, a woman. No guys, she’s a TRAP, say it again. TRAP. You can’t be overtly mean to her because she’s a girl. A mother with a young daughter with an out-of-marriage Down’s baby… how the hell can you attack that and not sound like a bastard? (To the majority at least, I know quite a few of us have no scruples about attacking her abilities as a parent, me included).

    And yes, it DOES reflect on her political abilities. How can you govern a country if you can’t govern your a small pack of your own children. If you can’t be there for your own family, how will you be there for other people’s? You take up the reins, not of government, but of leadership. As a parent leads their children, so a president must lead their people.

    Or a vice president in this case.

    Comment by literarydeadkittens — 6 September 2008 @ 4:16 am

  31. You are a complete loon. Perhaps your mommy didn’t tell because you apparently tend to throw tantrums when you get yelled at but you and most other people in this world were mistakes. Sarah Palin is real. Somehow we can’t hold Nobama responsible for the decisions/statements of every racist preacher/wife/terrorist he associates with but Palin gets the blame every time someone in her life screws up. Sure, maybe in your world. “Abstinence only sex education doesn’t work”. Maybe the problem was lack of abstinence only drug education in addition to the sex education. Kid probably got drunk and was too slow on the pullout – just like your dad and half the father’s of 80% of kids in this country. If you think it would somehow be smarter to give the drunk kids condoms your more retarded than her little baby.

    Edit:
    Here’s the troll’s info, for anyone interested.
    Author: Ivan (IP: 128.36.120.155 , 128.36.120.155)
    E-mail: darkknight0072004@yahoo.com
    Whois: http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=128.36.120.155

    Comment by Ivan — 6 September 2008 @ 4:15 pm

  32. Of ocurse, Reed, but it wouldn’t reflect on her political aptitude in an area such as (for example) taxation, or her stance on the economy, would it?

    Comment by Tom — 7 September 2008 @ 7:00 am

  33. Of course not, Tom, but it reflects on her character, which is very important. It also shows us the failures of her abstinence education policy.

    Comment by Rev. Reed Braden — 7 September 2008 @ 8:43 am

  34. Well, yes — it shows the public her policies are a load of crap. But, my point is, if she took up a more progressive (better) stance than she had, as Obama has, then she would be able to run properly as VP then.

    In other words, if she started out right, she could do a good job.

    N/B: I’m not defending her by a long shot; I’m just being fair.

    Comment by Tom — 7 September 2008 @ 6:43 pm

  35. Well, if she didn’t have an abstinence-only infatuation, her daughter’s pregnancy wouldn’t even be an issue to reasonable people. The reason why it is, is that it shows how utterly misguided the delusion of abstinence-only sex “education” really is. In her situation, Bristol’s foetus is relevant. In other situations it would not be.

    Comment by Reed Braden — 7 September 2008 @ 7:52 pm

  36. Hmm. Absolutely. It also means she’s a fricking hypocrite, too

    And — not that it’s really my place to judge — but who the Hell names their child Bristol? Chelsea or Brooklyn, maybe, but Bristol? Jesus. Bristol’s a shithole.

    Comment by Tom — 8 September 2008 @ 6:35 am

  37. [...] (whore) por haber quedado embarazada.  Algunos -como el dueño del blog ”Homosecular Gaytheist“- llegan a agregar que es alcohólica además de “putilla”.  Su [...]

    Pingback by Una adolescente “putilla” | Ana Álvarez — 8 September 2008 @ 9:47 am

  38. if you name a kid after a pair of breasts …

    Comment by panacea — 3 October 2008 @ 6:52 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.