Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

CBS: Jeff Greenfield: Would the Family Research Council approve of a pregnant 17 year old Chelsea?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Cush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-08 05:54 PM
Original message
CBS: Jeff Greenfield: Would the Family Research Council approve of a pregnant 17 year old Chelsea?
Ouch, says its a fair question to ask
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TwilightZone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-08 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. I think it is a fair question to ask.
The underlying assertion being, of course, hypocrisy.

I guarantee that the FRC would have gone nuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Gardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-08 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
18. They would have ripped into Hillary
For being a "working mother" and not staying home to raise her daughter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BluegrassDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-08 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
2. What's good for the goose is good for the gander
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kdillard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-08 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
3. Yeah right they would have ripped Bill and Hillary in two with
righteous indignation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JBoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-08 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
4. Time to dredge up some past statements they've made about teen pregnancies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redirish28 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-08 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
5. Oh we know the answer. They wouldn't have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ishoutandscream2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-08 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. No question. They are hypocrites
And imagine Coulter, Rush, Sean, et al if that had happened to Chelsea. It will be interesting to hear their takes on this. I'm sure they are receiving their talking points from the RNC as we speak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-08 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. It's okay, though
she's a Republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ampad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-08 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
7. There you go
This is one of many reasons I don't feel bad that this came out. I feel sorry for the poor girl but her mother is to blame with the lack of sex education in the home. Had this been Chelsea the media and the repigs would of made her life a living hell. The entire time Chelsea was in the white house they made fun of her looks. Didn't McCain call Chelsea a dog? It's so funny because Chelsea has blossomed into a beautiful young lady.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trixie Donating Member (696 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-08 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
8. The biblical right is going nuts
From Ladies Against Feminism; Titus 2; Vision something etc....all going nuts about a woman leading men when she can't lead the people around her dinner table. :rofl: I will report that the Baptist Board is firmly on board with McInsane because they just twist the bible to justify their own means. To be fair, they are more fascists than biblical anyways. One of their most recent rants was about how unfair it is to the military that civilian groups monitor them. Something must be done about this, the military needs to be self policed. :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-08 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
9. That would be a Hell No.
And I don't think they approve of Palin's daughter, either - regardless of the official comments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-08 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
10. This is EXACTLY what I said this morning
Personally, I could give a rat's ass about the Palin familiy and its personal travails.

The problem is that I don;t think Sarah and Todd would return the favor.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-08 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
11. I saw that too--BURN! Great question. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-08 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
13. No, but aren't fundie nutbags the ones
who vetted palin?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RollWithIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-08 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
14. And people complained about us bringing up the "tinfoil" pregnancy issue....
Guess what, we saw the pictures of that daughter. She's pregnant. We're not fucking stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-08 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
15. I am VERY glad this is being asked - SOMEWHERE in the mainstream media.
That's a good thing. There IS a double standard and I'm glad he's saying something about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ikojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-08 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
16. We'd STILL be hearing about a pregnant 17 year
old Chelsea Clinton. Hillary would have been ripped up one side and down another. The reich wing would be saying how it's an indictment of women working outside the home and not devoting every single solitary second to their kids. It would have been seen as an indictment of liberalism. Heck they would have concocted stories about Chelsea being allowed to have multiple boyfriends over in the Lincoln bedroom as long as their parents donated to Bill's campaign fund.

Oy vey!

Parents, listen. Kids are going to have sex. They have hormones. You would not let them drive without at least showing them where the gas pedal and brake are located. Why send them out into the sexual world unarmed?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-08 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
17. Well, bless his heart
Jeff has a memory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-08 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
19. More to the point, if it had been Barack's 17-year-old unwed daughter
can you imagine the outcry from the Republicans and their noise machine?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-08 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Deafening. And the racism would be off the charts. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eshfemme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-01-08 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
21. A very good role reversal question that catches RW hypocrisy
What's funniest is that after Obama said that he wouldn't go after families (he told people to back off on Pailin family just like he told people to back off on HIS family) that the RW people actually voluntarily said that he's right that people need to back off. ROFLMAO!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC