Brist-Ho Palin

Bass Attack · Post by **Bass Attack** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:29 pm

Brist-Ho Palin has given birth to a son...The word from the far north is that the birth of Bristo-Ho's second child went well and that the mother is happily resting. Sarah is now a two time grandmother according to many. There are reports that the birth of her first grand child "Trig" resulted in a coverup in which Sarah claimed to be the mother. In doing so she was probably hoping Brist-Ho would keep her pants on in the future, but I guess when you've been to the well once, you can't help but go back again and again....

When Sarah was running for VP we were told that Brist-Ho and her lover Levi were to be married, but that didn't happen...That makes Brist-Ho an unmarried mother...Like mother like daughter....Slutty Sarah wasn't married when she had her first child either....

Guyle · Post by **Guyle** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:58 pm

She sounds like your mother

Bass Attack · Post by **Bass Attack** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 3:19 pm

You're right, I'm mean....we should all get together and have a fund raiser to buy Brist-Ho a used trailer...If we have any cash left over we could get her some birth control pills and a case of Natural Ice....Heck after that we could get her signed up for public assitance and she could be the poster child for all Neo-con nut cases everywhere....I wonder if she can sing, perhaps Rush and her could do some sort of racist duet...the possibilties are many and the gutter is the limit for the young Palin lass...Mom and the would be "first dude" must be darn proud with a son that has the reputation for being a hell raising drugy and a daughter that can't seem to keep those darn pants on.....

Marty · Post by **Marty** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 3:52 pm

I for getting together!

Andy Lippert · Post by **Andy Lippert** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:55 pm

a$$ attack, you are a blithering idiot, who should be banned from pro-creating...God forbid if it has already happened. You represent the liberals well buddy...keep on keepin' on! =)

Skeeterman · Post by **Skeeterman** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 5:36 pm

Bass Attack are you saying you never got laid by a unmarried woman before?

Bass Attack · Post by **Bass Attack** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 7:04 pm

I used protection...For those that are too uneducated to read (apparently the Palin women folk) there are cartoon diagrams on the inside of the condom box.....

Bob Simard · Post by **Bob Simard** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:27 pm

Mean? No. A punk? Absolutely.

You're the Andres Serrano of this forum. You're posts are not evocative and certainly not political.

You post garbage to provoke all - liberal and conservative alike - to get a reaction........

Much the same way your counterpart Serrano submerged a crucifix in his own urine, photagraphs it, and calls it 'Piss Christ' - art - For the sole purpose of making the Catholic Church and it's members upset, you post to provoke negative reaction.

Be careful - the reaction you get may not always be the one you expect and look forward to you sick f_ck.

BTW - to my Conservative brothers and sisters out there - this Dude's no Liberal. While we all may disagree politically with the Libs, I doubt very much they support this punk and the vile crap he spews.

Greg_Cornish · Post by **Greg_Cornish** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:20 pm

I always respected the way the republicans treated Amy Carter, The Kennedy Kids, and Chelsey Clinton and try to remember that when it comes to anyone's family members. I doesn't bother me that the Reagan girl posed in Playboy, Young Ron did a twinkle toes dance or the Cheney has a gay daughter. I appreciate the fact they all love their kids no matter how they turn out.

Its apolitical.

It won't get my dander up.

Good for some jokes if they are real jokes but no good for this kind of BS.

You fail Bass Attack

Bass Attack · Post by **Bass Attack** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:42 am

Well I've been in and out of here for a few months. The Palin stuff I've posted was intended to illustrate the problem with most of the Republican leadership, especially those that would have been considered part of the "moral majority" back in Reagan's time....Palin is a great example of these two faced folks...She is very enthusiastic when expounding moral directives up in Alaska, no sex ed in schools, abortion is wrong, abstinance is right and so forth, yet she lives in a glass house...Her moral background when judged by her own standards appears to be quite questionable and the behaviors of her oldest kids are downright unacceptable by her own standards, in fact the behavoirs of her son may be criminal based on the reports of seemingly reliable sources up in Alaska...The bottomline is this, I'm not perfect but I'm not seeking to impose my moral standards on anyone else...while I'm not perfect, I do have a perfect record in that I haven't violated my self chosen and self imposed moral code. Palin proposes a moral code and much of what she and her family does is in direct violation of that code.....How many super conservative so called moral religious leaders have come forward condeming gays only to be caught up in gay scandals and/or sex scandals of thier own....The Palins are cut from that cloth....Now when they were up in Alaska doing whatever it is they do that was all fine and dandy. When she lined up for the second most powerful job in world, her views and actions became more important to me....Why have I continued now that the election is over? Well unless something changes drastically the Republicans will have a limited number of potential canidates in 2012 and beyond and I believe it is likely that she will run and there is a strong possiblity she'll get the nomination....Her do as I say, not as I do attitude is very attractive to many conservatives since they apparently share the same sort of attitude of it's okay if I do something, but it's not okay if you do the same.....At any rate the possiblity of Palin in the White House starts the red light of danger flashing in my head and if I can do my small part to prevent that from happening by smearing her name with the TRUTH as reported from numerous sources that's what I'll do....But I won't do it here....I'm expecting '09 to be a great year and I'll be too busy watching Obama correct the problems that the Republicans have created to spend time posting.....

As a final thought, if you think I've been too harsh on poor old Slutty Sarah, Brist-Ho and the would be First Dude, just think back to the way that the Republicans smeared Bill Clinton or the way that your spokesman Rush is smearing Obama with racial jingles today.....

Have a great '09 and catch a lot of fish! Good By!

Ringer · Post by **Ringer** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:19 am

Bill Clinton made BJs the accepted form of play for America's youth and he constantly cheated on his wife just like many other politicians have. He was a moral wasteland IMO. I would not equate teenage sex by someone's daughter as incriminating the parents and certainly would not equate it to shoving a perfectly good ceegar up some fat skank's stinkhole in the Oval Office. You can do and say whatever you want but people can also brand you as a left wing loser. I don't like most republicans or democrats so I am not defending either party. Bunch of self serving thieves.

Bob Simard · Post by **Bob Simard** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:30 am

............

No - I think you're a punk. Period. Not a Liberal. Not a Democrat. A punk. You have zero, zip Political knowledge (or at least are incapable of communicating it in a rational way).

And BTW - The Clinton machine, in both the State of Arkansas and on his way to the WhiteHouse, rolled over and squished more than their fare share of Democrat opponents..... they were masters at it.

Greg_Cornish · Post by **Greg_Cornish** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:53 am

Bob Simard wrote:............
And BTW - The Clinton machine, in both the State of Arkansas and on his way to the WhiteHouse, rolled over and squished more than their fare share of Democrat opponents..... they were masters at it.

That's why I like em. they're smart

FishaHallic · Post by **FishaHallic** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:44 pm

I am on the fence on this one. I see both sides.

I agree that the kids should be left out of this situation but I also understand what bass attack is saying about the morals of the Palins in general. She wants to impose her religious beliefs on everyone but yet she does not have her house in order but calling her daughter a whore or slut might be a little much, I would just call her fun

.

Greg_Cornish · Post by **Greg_Cornish** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:47 pm

I miss Kurt calling us idiots.

Bob Simard · Post by **Bob Simard** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:55 pm

calling an 18 year old girl a whore because of her mother's politics is just low ball, scumbag garbage spewed forth by a punk.

It's got nothing to do with Republican or Democrat.... If one of my Conservative counterparts came on her and posted this filth about the Obama children I'd say the same thing. This A$$ hole continues to cross the line to pipe up a reaction....

And please tell me a mainstream Political candidate who DOESN'T covet the high moral ground.......

FishaHallic · Post by **FishaHallic** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:33 pm

Bob Simard wrote:
And please tell me a mainstream Political candidate who DOESN'T covet the high moral ground.......

Coveting the high moral ground and imposing your religious beliefs onto someone else are two different things. This might be an idea for a "new thread"...........

Bob Simard · Post by **Bob Simard** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:27 am

I hear this a lot from the left - "Impossing you're religious beliefs on others"

To me that means seeking to establish a national religion or something of that nature. I make the distintion between religion and morality.

From a morals standpoint, I see it more the other way around - "You must accept - state-sanctified Gay Marraige" for example.

Or

"Art and the 'Piss Christ' piece exhibited should be funded by the NEA and allowed to be exibited in a public-owned gallery." It's 'Art' and it's the author's right under Freedom of Speech......

..... wonder how the Left would have felt had that been a picture of Martin Luther King in the jar full of urine rather than a crucifix?

But yes - another thread.

This thread to me more signifies right or wrong and in this Google-me-bitch age, putting garbage up like this, in this manner, about someones child more than crosses the 'Bad Taste' line.

This 'internet thug' A$$ Attack is nothing more than a bully with a keyboard.

Hell - even the Mafia leaves the families alone - there are unwritten rules....... then again, maybe it is a 'Left' versus 'Right' argument because to me (and I suspect most of my Conservative borthers and sisters - there is no argument. This is cut and try 'thug-ism' at it's worst......

FishaHallic · Post by **FishaHallic** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:38 am

Bob Simard wrote:I make the distintion between religion and morality.
..

Sorry, but morals are mostly based on religious beliefs, so some of the morals you want to base laws on are a direct result of "your" religion. I'm sure we all can agree on murder, robbery, assaults, child porn are all morally wrong but I don't see gay marriage or abortion or even selling alcohol on sundays to be immoral but you most likely do and I am sure this is based on your religion.

Rod Martin · Post by **Rod Martin** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 1:53 pm

I may be wrong be I belive, if you take religon out of the picture there would be no current laws. All are based on a religon.
Please I may be wrong, but of the ones you just listed, show me one that cannot be traced back to religon?

Greg_Cornish · Post by **Greg_Cornish** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:27 pm

Rod Martin wrote:All (laws mentioned) are based on a religion

Yes, that has been a major problem. Many of the most moral people I have met have been agnostic or atheist. I am neither.

FishaHallic · Post by **FishaHallic** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:31 pm

Rod Martin wrote:I may be wrong be I belive, if you take religon out of the picture there would be no current laws. All are based on a religon.
Please I may be wrong, but of the ones you just listed, show me one that cannot be traced back to religon?

I don't know about that Rod?

But these examples I gave are all crimes against actual people are they not? The laws I am talking the religious side is trying to push down on everyone like blue laws, anti gay laws and yes even abortion (although I can some what see the argument here) have nothing to do with harming anyone except the people involved like the guy buying alcohol on Sundays or the two gay people marrying.

Rod Martin · Post by **Rod Martin** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:21 pm

OK, I'm for that, any law that isnt against somebody, lets get rid of it. lets start with legal age to drive or drink, those are gone.speed limits, laws that deal with zoning, laws that set standards for Doctors, Contractors, Police. Laws dealing with noise, curfews.

There are a lot of laws out there that dont deal directly with an effect on a person.

I would be for getting rid of all laws and remaking them as needed.

Now who gets to decide what is needed?

I pick ME.

Because I think I am the person that knows best for me.

Althought I would think others would rather they make the laws

FishaHallic · Post by **FishaHallic** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:48 pm

Your making a mockery out of this whole thing

.

Also would like to add this without explanation........floating gold rapala on lite line

Rod Martin · Post by **Rod Martin** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 6:00 pm

gold works good down here

No I'm not . A very few people want no laws at all. All the rest of us want some and not others. What matters is where the line is drawn. What laws are kept and what laws are not. Or what laws are good and which are not

good----------------us---------------bad

pass a bad law

good----------------------us----bad

pass a good law

good-----us--------------------bad

For all of time people have fought over where to draw that line, and as with all things once you've gone to far its hard to go back.

You and I just differ on where to draw the line.

Marty · Post by **Marty** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 6:10 pm

Very Good exchange and well presented - Rod

Rod Martin · Post by **Rod Martin** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 6:36 pm

Marty, Thank you.

Greg_Cornish · Post by **Greg_Cornish** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 8:15 pm

Marty wrote:Very Good exchange and well presented - Rod

You feeling okay Marty? You make some weird New Years resolution?

Fishin' Dave · Post by **Fishin' Dave** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:49 am

Bass Attack wrote:I used protection...For those that are too uneducated to read (apparently the Palin women folk) there are cartoon diagrams on the inside of the condom box.....

I'm Catholic jerk wad. Thanks for trashing an entire religion. You cast a stone from your glass house on this sin but I wonder how you could when you enjoy sodomy. Haha, get another hobby the election is over along with the victorian era. People have children out of wedlock and no one dies. Mom and dad are there and the kid is healthy and it is not your family so who cares?? Move on.

Greg_Cornish · Post by **Greg_Cornish** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 12:48 pm

Fishin' Dave wrote:I'm Catholic jerk wad.

You need a comma

"I'm Catholic, jerk wad."

Fixed!

MIKE TREMONT · Post by **MIKE TREMONT** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:22 pm

This is why you won't see on this board.

Some people wonder what's happened to this great country of ours?

I wonder how many of you even managed to get this far in life.

Rod Martin · Post by **Rod Martin** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 5:06 pm

Dave I thought you were a Copperopolis. Kind of guy.
Did you move

Rod Martin · Post by **Rod Martin** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 5:09 pm

Sorry Mike, I didnt understand your post.

Greg_Cornish · Post by **Greg_Cornish** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 5:13 pm

MIKE TREMONT wrote:This is why you won't see on this board.

I think he meant, "This is why you won't see me on this board."

MIKE TREMONT · Post by **MIKE TREMONT** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 5:17 pm

It was meant to be very vague Rod.

Some folks view on life and their inability to even consider another's point of view really gets under my skin. Look at the morons running this State.

I've given up trying to explain that there might be a better way.

Hence my angry little post.

Tight lines

MIKE TREMONT · Post by **MIKE TREMONT** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 5:19 pm

That's it Greg!

I knew you'd get it!

Rod Martin · Post by **Rod Martin** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 5:22 pm

I post so the libs will have someone to jump on. AND
Marty and Andy need all the support they can get

Tags

Notice