36 thoughts on “GUNS OF BRISTOL”

  • J. Dryden says:

    It's not the fucking, it's the fucking hypocrisy.

    Agreed that A. she's got a major amount of shit coming at her quite deservedly, but B. none of that shit should have anything to do with having sex/a child out of wedlock.

    Except for the fact that if the condom had held up, or Dakota (can that REALLY be his name) had pulled out in time, or whatever, Ms. Palin would still be out there telling other people doing exactly what she did that they're doing the wrong thing. In other words, slut-shaming is wrong–and while Ms. Palin has been a PROFESSIONAL slut-shamer, and while we'd all LOVE to just fucking make her eat the shit she's been forcing down the throats of young women for years, we have to recognize that if we HATE her for doing it–and we DO–we can't turn around and do it ourselves. Wrong is wrong, no matter how delicious it would be.

    Besides, let's talk about that poor fucking kid. What an absolute shit-show is that little tyke being ushered into. As much as–as I believe I have clearly established at this point–want Ms. Palin to be absolutely besmeared with metaphorical excrement, we have to remember that what gets said now will one day be read by that child. (Yeah, yeah, I too thought of the obvious "assuming those fucktards can teach the kid to read" zinger.) I so much want bad things to happen to these horrible people, but now there's a kid on the way (and a couple of others too young to have committed their own fuckups–as I've said from the very beginning, the only Palin I can imagine getting into Heaven is Trig) who doesn't need to hear from us. For the sake of that poor fucking kid (which is the only phrase my brain can produce when I think of him/her), let's just…keep it civil, shall we?

  • Dave Bearse says:

    "Laugh at her because she can't figure out how condoms work or, even worse, that it's somehow a better decision to be young and sexually active without using any form of birth control. And laugh at her for being just one more log on the fire of right-wing hypocrites preaching morals absent from their own lives."

    But none of that is funny.

  • Nick says:

    I dunno, Dave. It's funny in that "I can't care about anything anymore" kind of way.

    Also, A+ title, Ed.

  • Leading Edge Boomer says:

    What is it, exactly, that is the point here? Commenting on BP seems below any level of contempt. Cannot understand why this is even a posting.

    Let's have more travelogue, and commentary worthy of important events.

  • HoosierPoli says:

    If I can misappropriate a term, Christians always have a ready shuck-and-jive in such situations: I'm only human, Jesus forgives, blah blah blah. With this the most disgusting acts of deception and hypocrisy can be swept under the rug in one fell swoop, never to be remembered by the loyal congregation (see also: Vitter, David).

  • Katydid says:

    There are several angles to this whole story. We can't forget that BP has, through her ghost-written blog, attacked women like Sandra Fluke, who stood up and spoke eloquently for the right of women to have access to birth control (for a number of reasons including medical ones, but Bristol's ghostwriter focused only on Teh Ebbil Sex). Also, while taking Other People's Money to run around the country slut-shaming women who have sex, Bristol Palin also turned up on Dancing With the Stars as the only person to ever gain 30 pounds while doing the show…pretty much all in her belly. There are several pictures of her with the classic belly-button-protruding features of pregnancy. Let's not forget the tragedy that this woman, who at one point was close to being a millionaire, and the daughter of a millionaire, not only never finished high school, but has had zero interest in any sort of education. It's painfully obvious anytime she opens her mouth that she has a vocabulary of maybe 500 words, most of them swear words. With all the money in that family, she could well have afforded professional help for education and child raising advice–bringing her 6-year-old (or however old he actually is; the issue is purposely vague) to a late-night drunken family brawl shows absolutely no common sense.

  • Katydid says:

    @HoosierPoli; during the 2008 election cycle, any number of conservatives were wailing, "But those two kids are IN LUUVVVV" and "It happens in the BEST of families!" while simultaneously insisting that "WHEN the Obama girls get knocked up as teens…" (Interesting note; the oldest Obama girl is older than Bristol was when she gave birth for possibly the second time, and instead of gallumphing across a Hollywood stage dressed as a gorilla, she's…getting ready for college, like a normal kid.)

  • Katydid says:

    I'm on a roll this morning (sorry to spam the blog): another issue in the Bristol Palin saga is that it's a family tradition. Bristol got pregnant outside of wedlock; her mother got pregnant outside of wedlock, and her *grandmother* got pregnant outside of wedlock. That's a strong family tradition there. Additionally, her brother got a girl pregnant outside wedlock, and several of her aunts were pregnant outside wedlock. Her uncle–a teacher–got a former student pregnant while he was married and a father to other children.

    It's the hypocrisy of the whole situation that has people jeering at these clowns. Both Sarah Palin and her daughter shake their fingers at the "godless libruls" and "Hollywood", but they are certainly in no way fit to be the judge of anyone else's character.

  • c u n d gulag says:

    Ho-hum…

    Another Jesus-spouting conservative hypocrite.

    If they sold trading cards of all of them, there would be probably 100 X's as many as all of the baseball cards sold since the dawn of trading cards.

    So, those "Christian" conservative trading cards would be worthless.

    Kind of like the entire Palin clan.

    Thanks, Bill Kristol, for pulling this bunch of tundra hillbillies out of Alaskan obscurity, and giving them a chance to grift the "Christian" conservative rubes by pushing to make Sarah "The Whore of Babblin'-on" Palin, McCain's VP candidate.

    We as a nation, should breathe a sigh of relief every day, that McCain/Palin got trounced.

    Everyone related to President Obama has more class it a single molecule in their body, than the entire Palin clan has, collectively.

    Having said all of that, I feel sorry for this baby.
    Hopefully, the BP will stay in Alaska, so we don't have to worry that she'll leave her kids in the car on a hot summer day with the window's shut.

  • c u n d gulag says:

    And, yes, I know even Alaska has some hot summer days – just less of them, decreasing the odds of a tragedy…

  • Skippper says:

    Who is going to be a mensch and read the dissent on the same-sex marriage ruling? I don't want to bum my buzz.

  • gmane says:

    There are 4 dissenting opinions. All of them are pretty much the same: "This should have been left to the States and is a violation of democracy," says Roberts.

    Scalia's is unsurprisingly crazy: "Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court." As far as I can tell, apparently Scalia doesn't think the SCOTUS shouldn't exist anymore: "of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention." I think Scalia would have ruled in favor of the Board of Education in Brown v. Board of Education at this rate.

  • Brutus says:

    I'm with Leading Edge Boomer. The Palins are one of numerous train-wreck clans (other names obvious but withheld) constantly being shoved in my face but about whom I could not possibly care less. Leave them to their messy, twisted, graceless selves and let's pay attention to more important things.

  • A Different Nate says:

    There's some funny stuff in the dissents, actually. Like this from Roberts:

    "Perhaps the most discouraging aspect of today’s decision is the extent to which the majority feels compelled to sully those on the other side of the debate. The majority offers a cursory assurance that it does not intend to disparage people who, as a matter of conscience, cannot accept same- sex marriage."

    Yes, unlike the opponents of marriage equality, who only called their opponents pedophiles and dog-fuckers.

    Or this, also Roberts:

    "As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?"

    Yeah, who do we think we are, not practicing human sacrifice? Won't somebody *please* think of the poor Aztecs and Carthaginians?

  • Skippper says:

    A "slut" is a woman who thinks about sex about 1/10 as much as the average man does. I have no problem with people having sex as often and as exciting as possible – as long as they don't exploit anyone, force anyone, or hurt anyone.

    But I have no tolerance for hypocrisy. Zero tolerance. Bristol is scum — not for having sex, but for tormenting other people with her sanctimonious hypocrisy while she was stuffing her pockets with money. A grifter — just like her wretched mother.

    But, the apple never falls very far from the tree – neither do the nuts.

  • Skippper says:

    Holy crap! Those dissents are simply insane. These blowhards have no idea what they're talking about. Marriage, as commonly practiced in the US today, has not formed the "basis of human society" for millennia. That's just nonsense. Absolute nonsense. Marriage, multiple marriages, or cohabitation without marriage has taken many forms through the centuries. Some people never bothered to get married. The church, and later civil government, was only really concerned when there was property or dynastic succession to worry about. Roberts should be embarrassed for putting that into writing. This guy shouldn't even be representing drunk drivers in municipal court, never mind sitting as chief justice. He's a total idiot.

  • Hank says:

    I've always defined 'slut' as being someone who won't have sex with the person doing to the name calling. If the 'slut' would have sex with the name-caller, then the 'slut' is not a 'slut', just affectionate.

  • RosiesDad says:

    The Palin Clan is like syphilis (ironically enough); they are a gift that keeps on giving.

    And they are shameless to a point that I am almost embarrassed for them.

  • c u n d gulag says:

    John Roberts needs to be reminded that in many ancient societies, and even in the Old Testament societies in the Bible, it wasn't monogamy that was practiced, it was polygamy – if a man could afford it, that is.

    Btw: No women need apply for multiple husbands, only men for multiple wives – and then, they could stick them in their harem, with the rest of the wives.

    How's that, John Roberts?

  • Anon says:

    Wow- Roberts really is an idiot if he's listing the "Han Chinese" as an example of one-man, one-woman marriage. I can't speak for the Carthaginians or the Aztecs, but the Chinese traditionally allowed men to have two wives. Anyone who watches kung-fu movies knows that.

    This reminds me of one of my big beefs with Pope Benedict XVI. He said the Nazis were atheists. Well, bullshit- he knows full well the SS had "God is with us" on their belt buckles. He knows this because he was in the Hitler youth.

    But the Pope's lies count for more than reality, so I have to put up with Christians nattering about how the Nazis were atheists, even though Hitler's propaganda was at least as full-on religious right at the modern GOP. His personal Bible even had marginal notes saying that Leviticus and the OT genocides were his inspiration- he was convinced that God was a god of genocide, and that the responsibility for carrying out divine genocide had passed from the Jews to the Aryans.

  • Bruce Webb says:

    As to Anon at 3:33

    I urge everyone to read the sixth book of the Old Testament: the Book of Joshua. It is simultaneously the source of a bunch of seemingly benign Bible tales for kids (Walls of Jericho falling down, Sun being stopped in the sky) and an instruction manual for genocide of the Canaanites by the Hebrews to 'liberate' the Promised Land. Except of course for the one city of Canaanites spared to be "hewers of wood and bearers of water", i.e. slaves.

    And oddly translating that into the original German of 'Arbeit macht frei' and 'Lebensraum' doesn't make it sound better. This isn't Godwin talking, this is the book immediately following the Five Books of Moses.
    http://www.sacred-texts.com/wmn/wb/wb45.htm

    And it is not just Nazi German Catholics that need to own up to this. There are equally troubling questions for American Protestant Biblical Liberalists and certain coalition partners of Likud. Are any of you really okay with embracing the God or Y*h W*h revealed in the Book of Joshua? Because Man!! it is pretty far from say The Sermon on the Mount. (The only part of the Bible I can stand to read – THAT Jesus was a stand up guy)

  • Skepticalist says:

    Skipper has it right.

    My understanding was that marriage as we think of it got serious sometime in the middle ages.

  • Anon says:

    @Bruce Webb, if I might add to what you said…

    It seems like there's a lot of "If ________ offends you, you need a history lesson" going around. I've already mentioned in the Confederate flag thread that Christians often tell me that I *have no right* to be offended by Leviticus and the book of Joshua, because the fact I am offended means I am "ignorant."

    I have a real problem with the fact that Islam is yet another topic in the "if it offends you, then you're ignorant and hateful" category. Let me preface this by saying that Islam as a whole doesn't offend me, and I certainly do not want to imply that the average American Muslim supports terrorism.

    My real problem is that Americans as a whole- both pro- and anti-Islam- are absolutely butt-ignorant about Islam. Islam is something we need to be able to talk about, but people in both camps make it impossible to have a factual discussion.

    For years I read books of the "Introduction to Islam" variety, and none of them were worth shit. Finally I read a lot of books *by Muslims,* and read a lot of Muslim messageboards and websites, and now I feel like I have a better handle on what Islam is about.

    But it's not like anybody will listen to me, because "everybody knows" what Islam is like. The mere fact that I disagree with them- because I spent years studying books by Muslims, and the non-Muslims have not studied at all- proves that I am an ignorant buffoon.

  • J. Dryden says:

    Roberts is a tool and Scalia is his usual delightful self. But if you want the hairs on the back of your neck to go up, read Thomas's dissent. That man is a horror. Did you know that slavery didn't rob its victims of their dignity and humanity, because no government can ever take those away? And here I thought that rape, mutilation, fetid squalor, emotional torture and the loss of something as simple as one's own name might have had a deleterious effect on one's self-image. But I guess if it did, that would be the fault of the enslaved.

    Good to know, Clarence. One to grow on.

  • Procopius says:

    I just wonder if maybe she hasn't yet figured out what it is that *causes* babies. She must know where they come from because she's had at least one kid, but the cause may still be a mystery to her. "Can't be that 'cause I do that all the time and I only been knocked up twice. Must be something in the water."

  • c u n d gulag says:

    "The Gall of the Wild."

    Or, 'The Gal of the Wild."

    She gave lessons on abstinence – LOL!!!

    What's next?
    Willie Nelson in anti-marijuana ads?

  • jon says:

    There is the shame of being a hypocrite. There is the shame of being an idiot who likely had unprotected sex because being smart about it is "immoral". There is the shame of being someone whose worry when she finds herself pregnant is what her family will think rather than about the child (whose mother probably won't keep her $262K/annual job telling people not to be like her.)

    There's going to be plenty of shadenfreude in her inbox for a long time, but that's not the same as calling her a slut. It's calling her an idiot. Different thing. If she thinks she's being slut shamed, it's probably true to some degree. But if she thinks all shame upon her is because she's being slut shamed, she really is unaware of how many progressive people think that people who decide to have sex should prepare themselves for it by acting responsibly and using contraception. Like a grown-up of any age should.

  • jon says:

    https://youreadygrandma.wordpress.com/2015/04/28/supreme-court-justice-didnt-know-marriage-cant-legally-involve-churches-or-religion/

    'The uncomfortable exchange began when Chief Justice Roberts asked famed gay rights lawyer Mary Bonauto why she believed that we should “force churches and religious leaders to preside over a homosexual wedding that, when taken as a whole, would offend their moral conscience.”

    'Bonauto concluded [there are some paragraphs I skipped] by accurately saying, “Indeed, it is a fact that all you need to get married would be another person, a trip to a courthouse, a witness, and a signed document. When people get married in a church, it isn’t recognized by the government without the legal documentation.”

    'It was at this point that those in the court witnessed Chief Justice Roberts begin to whisper to fellow conservative Justices Scalia and Alito. Justice Roberts then became visibly red in the face at this point and some reports even state that you could audibly hear Roberts say, “Really!?” '–from the article

    Apparently Scalia and Alito never told him the truth about this common-sense fact. Stupid conservatives are still up in arms over the idea that gays will FORCE churches to perform marriages, because of course straight people have been forcing any random rabbi, priest, imam, shaman, or High Fucking Druid of Main Street to perform weddings for the past few millenia. They really are that stupid. Sincerely, they really think that. This is their fear. Icky gay men in chaps and bondage gear will demand to consummate the pairing in the rectory.

  • All About Funny says:

    Heya superb blog! Does running a blog like this take
    a great deal of work? I've virtually no
    knowledge of coding but I had been hoping to start my own blog soon. Anyhow, should you
    have any ideas or techniques for new blog owners please share.
    I know this is off subject however I simply needed to ask. Thanks!

Comments are closed.