Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston to Get $300,000 for First Pics of Baby

Because there was only speculation on the part of the critics, and not the O/P. In this one, the gossip is started by Cratbtownboy.

Nice try, PL. Actually, not.

 

I must confess that didn't make any sense. I didn't see any speculation. I saw a question: I wonder if they will give a tithe to their church? (I cut and pasted from the OP to make sure I got it right.) I don't know what his motivation for asking the question was, or making the OP, just as I didn't know what the motivation of the previous thread was.

However, in the previous thread, there was no speculation. An unknown woman from a small Alaska town was arrested on drug charges and somehow that was deemed to be national news, even though no one knew this woman or anything about her life, and it had no bearing on anything outside of a very few people.

Here, a young woman who had previously been in the national news for legitimate reasons and was known to be pregnant has given birth, and that is simply gossip because someone wonder if they will give to their church from their 300,000 dollars.

Furthermore, in this thread you are upset about "gossip" and innuendo against this couple. In the previous thread, however, you made direct personal attacks against me and weren't bothered by that. So I don't see the reason for you being upset here.

As you can see, it makes no sense that one is news and that other is not.

As I said, neither is a legitimate news story. The first had no place outside of local news, and the other has no place outside of tabloid news.

As I suggest, I think we need a more critical evaluation of what "news" is.

 

Funny, I saw it the other way around Faith Girl... In these parts, Liberals are nothing but criticized but there is a good explanation or convenient difference when the shoes go on the other feet.

 

Pastor Larry, I now understand why people get so frustrated with you.

But since reading and comprehension are not strong points of yours, let me simplify it....

Me, put news up, no words on feelings about it, a link to a news source, on a newsworthy item. Again, no personal feelings attached, no questioning of anybody's morals, or faithful walk with God. I posted a CNN article. I don't think that when God called you to pastor, he gave you the power of clairvoyance.

Crabtownboy put a news article up, and started gossiping before the end of the post. Then a lot of others joined in. If I remember correctly, my thread contained only gossip by you.

If you can't see a difference, or if it doesn't make sense to you, go find a hobby that doesn't require so much thought.

Good day.

 

I already know why some do ...

Nicely done ... yet another personal attack.

Having had more than 275 hours of post high school education up to and including PhD work, I imagine my reading and comprehension are fairly high ... But if you like to think otherwise, that's fine with me. But I would lay off the personal attacks.

The very act of posting it was an expression of your view of it. You thought it was significant. I didn't think it was and questioned why you thought it was. You didn't give an answer. You responded then (as now) with a personal attack. I reject those kinds of tactics.

I don't either. That's why I have never pretended to have it. If you recall, I never questioned your motives there. In fact, I told you explicitly that I wasn't questioning your motives.

What definition of "gossip" includes asking a question about what someone will do with their money? I have never heard that (but then I remember that my reading and comprehension are low).

Where did I gossip? All I asked was about the reason for posting, so far as I remember.

Having given it a lot of thought (perhaps more than you), I still can't see the difference. I don't think either was newsworthy. I think personal attacks are always wrong.

It is unfortunate that you have decided to make this personal and take this thread in a direction off topic. Honestly, I don't care. I don't understand your opposition to this one after posting the other one. IMO, if you take time to think about it, they are very similar, and neither have any news value. They are, at best, tabloid issues. So don't go after me for raising the question of what "news" is. If you disagree fine; but that's no reason to launch personal attacks.

Let's get it back on topic. As I said before, I don't know what they will do with their money. But if they tithe, they are cheap. They should give a lot more.

 

Senator Byrd a democrat was with the KKK but nobody raises eyebrows about it. The Senator Kennedy killed Mary Jo 40 years ago and there was nothing done about it his wealth and family's power not being taken into consideration

 

Please.

First of all, this isn't "compensation" for intrusion.

Second, let's be upfront that both sides of the blogosphere has this issue. Let's not pretend this is a "GOP only" issue. Furthermore, if private citizens are doing this without party endorsement...how is that the party's fault? (either party)

Third...how is this thread about Obama?

 

Spot on.

I concur.

 

It is not anyone's place to say how much they should or should not give.

 

PL, nobody, including you there, preacher, stuck up for Sarah Palin more than I did in these very fora, so I completely resent you assuming you know why I posted that.

Back to Bristol, and the leftist accusation. The liberals like to call us fundies "Pharisees", yet it was those very Pharisees who liked to hang out in the temple and gossip about what people gave.

Look it up.

 

His membership was back in the 60's of which he later said joining the KKK was "the greatest mistake I ever made". Jesus forgives so I don't know why we shouldn't. Also, his constituents voted him in knowing of his past so what else can the party do but accept him. It would be very different if he was a current member of the KKK but everyone on the hill has something in their past that aren't proud of.

If I recall, Kennedy was guilty of negligent driving and leaving the scene of an accident. I think that would have made it more involuntary manslaughter and not murder. But you do have a good point, Kennedy should have been put up on criminal charges but his wealth and family power got him our of the charges.

However, you really make my point, look how you remember so clearly the things Liberals on the hill have done. Is this to say no Republican politician has been guilty of any wrong doing or have avoided prosecution? None? They are all angels? If not, why didn't any of them make your list?

 

I agree but you failed to see carpro response in post #5 so you are really addressing the wrong person. I simply said if we're going to start compensating for those condition (or justify compensation based on these conditions) then Obama certainly deserves a bank vaulf full of cash after when he went through. I could have inserted Palin's name just as easily.

Same here, it was not the Obama campaign or the democratic party that jumped on the Bristol story. Obama called it off limits from day one. So why does the liberal party have to take ownership for every piece of anti-GOP news. For that matter, how did it become the liberal press when what they report is the news.

I admit there were more negative stories on Palin, did anyone consider there was more negative stories to report on Palin? We'd heard all the dirt on McCain and Obama for the last year and a half. Now when the VP candidate counts seeing Russia as foreign policy experience, can't name a periodical, a supreme court decision she agrees with or any legislation the top of her ticket passed, that is news and it will appear negative...

 

Excellent point.... :thumbsup:

 

That newfound celebrity status! The price we pay!

 

Well, don't count me in the WE. I don't plan to buy Us Weekly, InTouch, or OK. :laugh:

 

Don't count me in either. I'm probably see them at the checkout somewhere. :laugh:

 

I do think there is nothing news worthy of this story except for the curious..... And on a baptist board, its appearance along with the question posed in the opening post...... is just confirmation to the undiscerning public..... that all Baptist, and most Christians, are nosey legalist and self-rightheous judges who care more for the content of the offering plate and the size of a building than they do about the change or contents of the heart. Shall we keep feeding those who think this way by ''should-in" on people and noticing money more that life? :smilewinkgrin:

 

LB,

Be honest. You were the first to mention Obama. And your statement above was based upon this quote

Which addressed the liberal press.

So, unless you are admitting that the press is in the pockets of a candidate.... just because the liberalness of one is identified doesn't establish its connection to the other...... but you are a liberal and therefore your view is lending credibility to the view that both parties and press and in together when you read 'liberal press' (which is one entity) but you recognize it and defend as an attack on another, like a candidate or a party....

Methinks, the real reason you think liberals and yourself in particular, are under so much attack...... and have difficulty accepting what others recognize in you ..... and that is that you are overly sensitive and defensive...... is because you OVERLY identify with your political or social leanings or liberalness.

As in your more recent post..... just because a person doesn't go around talking about Craig, or Stevens, or Rove doesn't mean they aren't conscious of problems in people of other parties besides the liberal/socialist Party. But it is funny how you and others of your ilk will draw from McCains' past and mention his about 30 years ago divorce and remarriage....... Of Byrd you say "His membership was back in the 60's of which he later said joining the KKK was "the greatest mistake I ever made". Jesus forgives so I don't know why we shouldn't. " But it is real funny that you are the one who indicts Byrd by your own recognition ....... when faith girl only mentions his association with the KKK and that there was no judgenment.... which is what I take 'no eyebrows risen' to mean. So are you saying he (Byrd) was wrong? faith only said no one raised eyebrows. Also are you saying Jesus selectively forgives..... like he forgives Byrd and Kennedy.... but it's unacceptible for McCain, having come through the many circumstances which would have been hard on any healthy marriage...... to divorce and remarry........ and it not be remembered these many years since..... nor his own statement that it was his greatest moral failure.... be accepted as both an acknowledgement by him of his mistake .... but also of his 180* change from those days?

I really don't understand your whine... nor why a thread regarding two barely grown adults and their family gets you involved with a candidate when the onlly mention before that point was related to the curiousity of the press. What a noodle! What a wimp!

 

:BangHead:Yeah! What WC said!!!:BangHead:

 

I didn't assume. I asked. Go back and look if you don't believe me. At least two others did as well before the thread was prematurely shut down. So there is nothing for you to resent.