Bristol Palin and her white trash boyfriend break up

[K. A. Pital]

Yes, it's tabloid trash news.

Yeah. But the discussion seemed to be more centered around the legitimacy of this thread and Sanchez' choice of words itself than about it's actual news. That's not the kind of discussion which seems to relevant to N&P, even if the news itself is relevant.

[seanrobertson]

Nonsense. The phrase "cheap white-trash whore" is obviously an insult, and not meant to be a literal scientific assessment, hence it does not require the kind of literal justification that a scientific assessment would.

Ah come on, boss. Several of us wanted to know why Sanchez was gloatingly calling the little girl a "whore" which, you gotta admit, is pretty extreme. Asking for an explanation certainly wasn't out-of-order.

She most likely does not fit the literal definition of "whore" which is "prostitute", although she is obviously white trash.

I can't necessarily agree that she's white trash; I don't know where you're setting the bar on that. She might make something of herself yet ...

And that's really why I took issue with the thread as a whole. Where some of y'all want to mock her and gloat, I can't do that. That there's some reason to mock the kid makes the situation all the more pathetic and sad to me, but ultimately I can't see myself picking at a seventeen-year-old. In my book, that's just a little kid.

[Darth Wong]

Nonsense. The phrase "cheap white-trash whore" is obviously an insult, and not meant to be a literal scientific assessment, hence it does not require the kind of literal justification that a scientific assessment would.

Ah come on, boss. Several of us wanted to know why Sanchez was gloatingly calling the little girl a "whore" which, you gotta admit, is pretty extreme. Asking for an explanation certainly wasn't out-of-order.

Dishonesty does not suit you. You were challenging him to provide evidence of his claim, which means you were treating it as if it was a literal objective claim, even though you know perfectly well that it was just being used as an insult. Are you going to do this every time we call somebody a "retard" too?

She most likely does not fit the literal definition of "whore" which is "prostitute", although she is obviously white trash.

I can't necessarily agree that she's white trash; I don't know where you're setting the bar on that. She might make something of herself yet ...

You do know that the white trash culture is associated with unattached teen pregnancy, right? And she's from a small rural community in Alaska? And she was raised by fundie parents? And her father races snowmobiles? Just how many "white trash" credentials do you require?

And that's really why I took issue with the thread as a whole. Where some of y'all want to mock her and gloat, I can't do that. That there's some reason to mock the kid makes the situation all the more pathetic and sad to me, but ultimately I can't see myself picking at a seventeen-year-old. In my book, that's just a little kid.

See the site motto. We mock stupid people, and she's a stupid person. Perhaps you feel this should be treated differently because she's a young female, out of some sense of chivalry?

[ArmorPierce]

She is a dumb ass that is just breeding and perpetuating more dumb asses. Her being young does not mean that she gains shield from being called as such. You can bet that they will try to spin this and use her as an example of single young moms being actually able to take care of the kids and argue against abortion or some other such nonsense.

When has the definition of the 'internet tough guy' devolve from the guy that swears if he was there he would have kicked someone's ass if he was there and be the hero of the day when no one that was there would have to the guy that calls stupid people names?

[seanrobertson]

Dishonesty does not suit you. You were challenging him to provide evidence of his claim, which means you were treating it as if it was a literal objective claim, even though you know perfectly well that it was just being used as an insult.

Dishonesty?

Coming from you, of all people ... that hurts, man.

You're mistaken, Mike. You think I'm lying because of a faulty assumption: unlike you, I didn't think Sanchez's insults and objective claims have to be mutually exclusive.

Call that shitty reasoning on my part, but it's certainly not without precedent. I know when you were insultingly called "anti-American," you wanted some proof for that assertion, right?

I recognize the difference: the latter's easily quantifiable. And in retrospect, I see your point. I also recognize that Sanchez was just being crass ...

... But at the time, when he says, "[She's] just a cheap, stupid whore and her meathead ex-boyfriend breaking up after she pops out the kid," what conclusion should I draw?

I can't read his mind, of course, but given the vitriol -- and given that Sanchez generally seems like a smart, level-headed guy -- I assumed he was calling her a whore for a reason.

I wanted to know what that reason was (unprotected and/or promiscuous sex, coupling with "white trash"?); hence, asking him to back his shit up.

It was a poor assumption. If anything, I should've assumed the opposite.

You do know that the white trash culture is associated with unattached teen pregnancy, right? And she's from a small rural community in Alaska? And she was raised by fundie parents? And her father races snowmobiles? Just how many "white trash" credentials do you require?

I assumed the former and knew the rest, though I fail to see how snowmobile racing, being born in a rural community or fundie parents necessarily correlate to white trash, even when taken as a whole. The unattached teen mother thing seems to be the only definitive example of her "white trashhood."

Do not misunderstand me. I know what rural community folk can be like. I certainly know what fundies can be like. But the operative words there are "can be." I have known people from such backgrounds who pursue higher educations, work hard and make meaningful contributions to large, diverse communities. Many eschew their Bible-thumping indoctrination.

See the site motto. We mock stupid people, and she's a stupid person. Perhaps you feel this should be treated differently because she's a young female, out of some sense of chivalry?

Not out of chivalry -- moreso simply given her age and own child. You know I'm a sensitive type, however, so if you say all this isn't in very bad taste, I'll listen to you.

[seanrobertson]

When has the definition of the 'internet tough guy' devolve from the guy that swears if he was there he would have kicked someone's ass if he was there and be the hero of the day when no one that was there would have to the guy that calls stupid people names?

Huh?

[ArmorPierce]

When has the definition of the 'internet tough guy' devolve from the guy that swears if he was there he would have kicked someone's ass if he was there and be the hero of the day when no one that was there would have to the guy that calls stupid people names?

Huh?

I'm saying that people seem to be calling others 'Internet tough guys' for the most mundane things like name calling these days.

Frankly sounds like a pile of rah rah internet tough guy to me.

[Darth Wong]

Dishonesty?

Coming from you, of all people ... that hurts, man.

You're mistaken, Mike. You think I'm lying because of a faulty assumption: unlike you, I didn't think Sanchez's insults and objective claims have to be mutually exclusive.

Call that shitty reasoning on my part, but it's certainly not without precedent. I know when you were insultingly called "anti-American," you wanted some proof for that assertion, right?

The phrase "anti-American" was actually being used by certain trolls as a rebuttal of my arguments, ie- my arguments are flawed because they are anti-American. In that context, then yes, it should be treated as a claim, because it's being used as one. Totally different context here.

... But at the time, when he says, "[She's] just a cheap, stupid whore and her meathead ex-boyfriend breaking up after she pops out the kid," what conclusion should I draw?

The conclusion you should draw is that he thinks she's skanky white trash. It's the same thing we say about people like Paris Hilton.

I can't read his mind, of course, but given the vitriol -- and given that Sanchez generally seems like a smart, level-headed guy -- I assumed he was calling her a whore for a reason.

Of course he is. She got impregnated by some random trailer trash guy.

I assumed the former and knew the rest, though I fail to see how snowmobile racing, being born in a rural community or fundie parents necessarily correlate to white trash, even when taken as a whole. The unattached teen mother thing seems to be the only definitive example of her "white trashhood."

So what is your list of requirements for "white trash" then? Frankly, any girl who gets pregnant in high school is an idiot already, and any other insults are just icing on the cake.

Do not misunderstand me. I know what rural community folk can be like. I certainly know what fundies can be like. But the operative words there are "can be." I have known people from such backgrounds who pursue higher educations, work hard and make meaningful contributions to large, diverse communities. Many eschew their Bible-thumping indoctrination.

If there was any evidence that Bristol Palin was something other than what she appears to be, I'm sure someone would have presented it by now. It's not as if there weren't scads of Republicans who wanted to defend her.

See the site motto. We mock stupid people, and she's a stupid person. Perhaps you feel this should be treated differently because she's a young female, out of some sense of chivalry?

Not out of chivalry -- moreso simply given her age and own child. You know I'm a sensitive type, however, so if you say all this isn't in very bad taste, I'll listen to you.

I never said it wasn't in bad taste. Obviously, it was a very insulting, derisive comment. But we don't have rules against insulting and derisive comments here, and so that is not a valid rebuttal.

[seanrobertson]

When has the definition of the 'internet tough guy' devolve from the guy that swears if he was there he would have kicked someone's ass if he was there and be the hero of the day when no one that was there would have to the guy that calls stupid people names?

Huh?

I'm saying that people seem to be calling others 'Internet tough guys' for the most mundane things like name calling these days.

Frankly sounds like a pile of rah rah internet tough guy to me.

Ah, okay. I didn't understand your meaning.

I think that, in the course of busting Sanchez's balls, I called him that, too.

Sorry, Sanchez. I was too harsh.

[seanrobertson]

The phrase "anti-American" was actually being used by certain trolls as a rebuttal of my arguments, ie- my arguments are flawed because they are anti-American. In that context, then yes, it should be treated as a claim, because it's being used as one. Totally different context here.

Let me be sure we're on the same page.

Sanchez called the Palin girl names. You maintain he wasn't making a claim in so doing; thus, he was under no obligation to explain his reasoning (as I asked him to).

In lieu of arguing with you, someone claimed you/your points were anti-American; thus, they were obligated to explain why your points are anti-American.

Right so far?

I can't read his mind, of course, but given the vitriol -- and given that Sanchez generally seems like a smart, level-headed guy -- I assumed he was calling her a whore for a reason.

Of course he is. She got impregnated by some random trailer trash guy.

That's my point. Sanchez had at least one premise -- getting knocked up by trailer trash -- to support calling Bristol a whore. Is that correct?

But I don't understand how that's different from making the claim, "Bristol is a whore"; thus, I also don't understand why I was being unreasonable when I asked him to support that "claim."

I fully grant you, it's been years since I've taken logic courses ... I also know that I'm woefully out-of-practice from my lack of time here

So what is your list of requirements for "white trash" then? Frankly, any girl who gets pregnant in high school is an idiot already, and any other insults are just icing on the cake.

I'm down with that criterion Mike, but honestly, I've never given any thought to what constitutes "white trash." Like I said in an earlier post, that term's taboo in my area. I know in other parts of the country and world it's more akin to redneck or trailer trash.

If there was any evidence that Bristol Palin was something other than what she appears to be, I'm sure someone would have presented it by now. It's not as if there weren't scads of Republicans who wanted to defend her.

No argument there. The PR machine runs 24/7.

I never said it wasn't in bad taste. Obviously, it was a very insulting, derisive comment. But we don't have rules against insulting and derisive comments here, and so that is not a valid rebuttal.

I concur, but I'm confused: if Sanchez wasn't making a claim and, therefore, wasn't making an argument, is there any way to rebut what he said?

I'm not trying to be obtuse. That comes naturally But on review of my old logic text, I don't understand where I'm going wrong and that frustrates me.

[Darth Wong]

Sanchez called the Palin girl names. You maintain he wasn't making a claim in so doing; thus, he was under no obligation to explain his reasoning (as I asked him to).

He was making a claim; it just was not a literal claim. He was saying she's stereotypical white trash. The word "whore" was obviously not meant to refer to her literally being a prostitute. Why is this so difficult to understand?

In lieu of arguing with you, someone claimed you/your points were anti-American; thus, they were obligated to explain why your points are anti-American.

I was making serious arguments about social and political issues at the time, not saying something like "hey, that girl over there is a fucking stupid whore". Do you not understand how this changes the context?

That's my point. Sanchez had at least one premise -- getting knocked up by trailer trash -- to support calling Bristol a whore. Is that correct?

No. It's an insult, designed to highlight the fact that he has no respect for her and thinks she's a stupid trailer trash. It is not meant to be the sort of accusation which is actually analyzed. Moreover, you accused him of actually breaking the rules of the site concerning evidence for factual claims, which was an utterly ridiculous accusation and which did directly require that you be treating his statement as an objective claim subject to analysis.

I'm down with that criterion Mike, but honestly, I've never given any thought to what constitutes "white trash." Like I said in an earlier post, that term's taboo in my area. I know in other parts of the country and world it's more akin to redneck or trailer trash.

Well, to be blunt, this forum covers a much wider region than your particular locality, which is probably unusually sensitive to the term because it applies to many of the people living in it (yourself excluded).

I concur, but I'm confused: if Sanchez wasn't making a claim and, therefore, wasn't making an argument, is there any way to rebut what he said?

He was not making the kind of factual claim that we normally demand evidence for. How can you seriously stand there and tell me you can't tell the difference between a claim like "Republicans are more likely to be creationists than Democrats" and "That girl is a stupid fucking whore"? You actually started arguing with him about the correct definition of "whore", ie- just how loose and stupid a girl has to be in order to qualify for the term, as if there's an objective test.

The problem here is that you had a negative gut reaction so you jumped in guns blazing, and then you tried to rationalize your reaction after the fact. Take a deep breath and think about it again: unless the pregnancy itself didn't actually happen, just how objectively do you think a claim like "she got knocked up in high school, what a stupid whore" should be analyzed? I'm not trying to publicly crucify you here, Sean. Even the best of us can sometimes jump into something for irrational reasons and then try to logically retrofit it afterwards (well, except for Kuroneko; that man has achieved some sort of higher state of consciousness).

[seanrobertson]

I'm not trying to publicly crucify you here, Sean. Even the best of us can sometimes jump into something for irrational reasons and then try to logically retrofit it afterwards (well, except for Kuroneko; that man has achieved some sort of higher state of consciousness).

I know you aren't, Mike, and I appreciate the kind words. They mean a lot.

Your assessment's spot-on. I did have a negative gut reaction and did try to rationalize it after the fact.

Thanks for the clarification. I reiterate my apologies for busting Sanchez's balls so hard.

[Schuyler Colfax]

Sean, while I agree with you completely on the whole she doesn't deserve to be insulted like this, most of the insults going toward Bristol are assumptions based on stereotypes, seeings how they don't have all of the facts (or even half for that matter). Since they are assumptions based on stereotypes they don't really need to be explained. Yes, it is unfair, but I just manage to roll my eyes on it and move on. I can't really blame you for arguing this, seeings how she's just a kid barely older than myself.

And yes, Sanchez is normally like this.

Seriously Sanchez, how the hell are you going to call someone Miss Manners because they don't want to call a 17 year-old a stupid whore?

Frankly, any girl who gets pregnant in high school is an idiot already, and any other insults are just icing on the cake.

This right here is just one huge generalization that I hope you don't mean literally, because, just no Mike, no.

[CmdrWilkens]

Just to throw my two cents out there: Bristol Palin did something stupid (and far too common) which was likely exacerbate dby her upbringing and surroundings. If her mom was a nobody or even had she just remained the Governor of Alaska and not McCain's runnign mate we woudl never even be talking about her. I think there are plenty of viable and valid criticisms of the girl but the question does come to mind...would someone have the same vitrol if this happned to a girl down the street or is the vitrol the result of Bristols inescapable connection to Srah Palin?

In other words I have no problem with accusing her of being white-trash or any of the other insults which may be tossed out but I do wonder if the folks who toss those insults out would bother to do so if she weren't Sarah Palin's daughter? If someone would insutl the girl regardless then I've got no issue but if the girl is getting berated because of who her mother is then that is wrong.

[General Zod]

Just to throw my two cents out there: Bristol Palin did something stupid (and far too common) which was likely exacerbate dby her upbringing and surroundings. If her mom was a nobody or even had she just remained the Governor of Alaska and not McCain's runnign mate we woudl never even be talking about her. I think there are plenty of viable and valid criticisms of the girl but the question does come to mind...would someone have the same vitrol if this happned to a girl down the street or is the vitrol the result of Bristols inescapable connection to Srah Palin?

In other words I have no problem with accusing her of being white-trash or any of the other insults which may be tossed out but I do wonder if the folks who toss those insults out would bother to do so if she weren't Sarah Palin's daughter? If someone would insutl the girl regardless then I've got no issue but if the girl is getting berated because of who her mother is then that is wrong.

I think the big issue here is why does the media even give a shit and keep putting her in the papers? She stopped being relevant to anything the moment caribou Barbie and McGimp lost the election, and they certainly wouldn't be putting her in the news at all if it were some random bimbo down the street.

[Schuyler Colfax]

^
Because if you people actually know who you are (whether if they give a shit about you or not) anything you do is newsworthy. Just let her have 15 more minutes of fame, though I doubt even she wants it.

[Kanastrous]

Maybe it's a sort of humor that I just totally fail to get. But it comes off like really heartfelt malice toward a seventeen-year-old who did something typically careless, stupid and impulsive and drew serious and long-lasting consequences. Sure, it's reasonable to posit that she's basically kind of a dumbass.

Show of hands, who was a dumbass when they were seventeen? I'll show my hand. Sure I will. I did all kinds of stupid shit around that age, and it's mostly a matter of luck that none of it turned out to be serious and/or fatal and/or pregnancy.

The people who say she's probably trailer-park fool-on-a-stick are right; so are the people who just mostly see a scared kid. But neither one really seems to underwrite the degree of venom invested in slamming her.

[The Romulan Republic]

Maybe it's a sort of humor that I just totally fail to get. But it comes off like really heartfelt malice toward a seventeen-year-old who did something typically careless, stupid and impulsive and drew serious and long-lasting consequences. Sure, it's reasonable to posit that she's basically kind of a dumbass.

Show of hands, who was a dumbass when they were seventeen? I'll show my hand. Sure I will. I did all kinds of stupid shit around that age, and it's mostly a matter of luck that none of it turned out to be serious and/or fatal and/or pregnancy.

The people who say she's probably trailer-park fool-on-a-stick are right; so are the people who just mostly see a scared kid. But neither one really seems to underwrite the degree of venom invested in slamming her.

Perhaps some people feel she's fair game because she's the daughter of a despised polititian?

[Mr Bean]

On that note the reason she's put into the papers is twofold.

One because as so often is said. The Media loves winners and respects power. With Palin down and out Bristol becomes easy headline padding and putting stories in will garner more sold papers/clicks/viewers.

Second because Bristol is such a damn perfect... almost shining example of the inevitable conclusions of her mother's preferred policies. Her mother supports abstinence only education(Bristol got knocked up) fights against family planning funding(Without her family to support her this child would have economically ruined her for at least a decade) the sanctity of marriage(a classic shotgun wedding to an clearly unwilling father) and now it's broken off.

It's a three-fer. Every time she opens her mouth to say Abstinence only the media gets to point out. "Say Governor if Abstinence only education works so well how the hell did your daughter get knocked up?" Every time she decides family planning(Because birth control is part of family planning) you get to ask how your daughter would have done without the family to support her. And whenever she goes on about the sanctity of marriage you get to push her and ask her about her daughter's oh so brief engagement.

So that's why we care about Bristol, because Palin is going to come back on the National scene one day. Colbert and Stewart would fund her campaign themselves if the Republican Party would not support her.

[Tolya]

Regarding OP: Ahhh, I love the smell of irony in the morning. Daughter of a conservative fundie stuck up bitch will be a single mother due to unprotected unmarried sex at teen age.

[cosmicalstorm]

Here's a hilarious write-up of the Freeper response to this event:

“It is not their love for us but their lack of faith that prevents today’s Christians from burning us.”
—Nietzsche

For sheer gloating pleasure, you can’t beat the lunkheads on Free Republic trying to deal with the news that Palin’s daughter not only isn’t going to marry Levi, but is breaking up with him.

It’s what they call the whole spectrum of human emotion, or primate anyway. They’re so stunned they wander for a while through digressions like whether the sperm donor in question was named after a pair of pants or not.

One loyalist with the wonderful moniker “Solid Wood” insists it can’t be true, must be a liberal media lie, until someone sends the two-word death sentence: “Fox confirms.” Then he settles for calling everyone who mentions the story a leftwing troll.

The problem with shutting down the story, a Freeper’s natural response to embarrassing news, is that it conflicts with the social conservative’s Prime Directive: butting in to everybody else’s business as often and as loudly as possible. So when one blushing Palin fan tries to dismiss the story as “No biggie,” another chastens him: “Yeah it is; the kid needs a father.”

Others try blaming the media and the dems (known as “demonrats” on FR) for the pregnancy, as if Nancy Pelosi and Katie Couric were leaning over the back seat of Levi’s F150 chanting to Bristol, “Do it! Do it!”

A poster calling himself Popdonnelly recalls with a sigh the happier days of his youth: “Back in the day, they’d get out the shotgun.”

The shock of the story caused it to be posted a half dozen times on FR, and one of the more remarkable threads is the one responding to a suggestion by rightwing columnist Cal Thomas that the Palin family shut up for a while. You don’t say that about Sarah on FR:

“Deannadurbin” holds out for stigmatizing the kid the old-school way, because God has left clear instructions that bastards should be reminded of their status early and often:

“It does reflect badly on Sarah’s conservatism that her own daughter doesn’t seem to realize the biblically right thing to do is to get married. There has been ample time to do what God would have Bristol do. Why the delay until after the baby is born? Right now the baby is illegitimate and that used to be a stigma and rightly so.”

But the Biblical sharia solution is so cruel and stupid that all sorts of other posters, almost all women, react violently to “deannadurbin’s” posts. “Tax-Chick” points out the obvious: “In the long run, her NOT marrying a loser might turn out to be the best thing for the baby,” then goes on to paste a happy ending on the story: “In a couple of years, Bristol might meet a nice man with an education and a future.” Another freeperette responds more aggressively: “How nasty to brand an infant with a stigma when the infant had no say in the matter. That was disgusting.”

Deannadurbin stands her ground: “Then you probably think past generations of your ancestors were “disgusting” too because they considered out of wedlock births illegitimate and shameful. Such families were ASHAMED because they couldn’t control their trampy daughters who opened their legs for men not their husband.”

What upsets the relatively sane Freepers is that Deanna unquestionably has the ideology on her side: “You can’t have it both ways, calling yourself a conservative and then say “anything goes” regarding social mores and principles.”

This is too much for “Ace of Spades”: “If my ancestors stigmatized children for conditions they had no control over, such as the marriage status of their mother, then they were disgusting, as a matter of fact. And so are you.”

Deanna’s antagonist, “phikapmom,” simply breaks off the discussion: “Don’t ever reply to me again on this website and I will do the same to you.” Deanna wants the last word, implicitly conceding that history may not be on her side: “If you are the future of conservatism then it is dead, woman.” Deanna’s argument is based upon a rock, and is not susceptible to appeals to real people living on this planet. She ignores the question of the pain her precious stigma would inflict—is entirely designed to inflict—on the baby in favor of Spike Lee’s catchphrase, as filtered through the Southern Baptists: “Do the RIGHT THING and the GODLY THING and give your baby his father’s name.”

The funny, creepy thing here is that Deanna really does have the Bible on her side, and can’t help saying so, even when the opposable-thumbs faction on FR would rather tiptoe past the matter. She screams, “I guess you call God Himself “disgusting”, for God is clear in His word that babies are conceived in SIN. How dare God be so mean to babies as to call them sinners? When you croak and face judgement will you have the temerity to tell God He was mistaken? ‘Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.’ - Psalm 51:5”

Yup, that’s the real old-school sound of true scripture, all right. There’s no mistaking that combination of wordy pomposity with vicious misogyny.

Since very, very few Freepers are willing to say that God is, indeed, a disgusting old lunatic, the debate dribbles away into pure comedy. One bright spark tries to disarm Deanna by reminding her that Jefferson was an adulterer: “I guess you hate Jefferson too.” But she is not to be moved from that aged rock, replying with a response that would have Charles Portis scrambling for his notebook: “I like Thomas Jefferson fine enough, but God’s word is more important.”

The funniest moment comes when one of FR’s many pseudointellectuals tries to heal the rift by offering a compromise: stigmatize the mother, but not the baby. “People need to distinguish between stigmatising the illegitimate child, which I haven’t seen anyone advocating here, and stigmatising the parents.”

That’s thinking outside the box! “Kid, your mother is a filthy whore…but of course that’s no reflection on you.”

[Zixinus]

You know, I wonder: when you rely on human stupidity and iconism to carve power and base ideology, are you essentially just undermining yourself?

I mean, take a look at this: The Republican party took biblical values and called them basic, which got into absentees-only family planning (or rather, the lack of it). A set of values/ a guideline that simply do not work because it makes assumptions about human beings that do not fit reality. In fact, these assumptions are directly opposed to reality and very few people can truly follow them on their own volition.

So, it is only a matter of time until you fall flat on your face when one of your puppets/iconic representatives fail to live up to a standard that they can't live up to.

Thus, here we are. The Republican party has humiliated itself. As a few members know, they have done such things before and will continue to do so, "staying the course".

So, is the Republican party in a situation where its most dangerous opponent is itself, due to its reliance on rhetoric, iconism and general flawed ideology?

[Darth Yoshi]

"Demonrats." That's not one I've heard before. But wow, good on deanna for revealing hypocrisy, even if her position is barbaric and disgusting.

[Patrick Degan]

You know, I wonder: when you rely on human stupidity and iconism to carve power and base ideology, are you essentially just undermining yourself?

I mean, take a look at this: The Republican party took biblical values and called them basic, which got into absentees-only family planning (or rather, the lack of it). A set of values/ a guideline that simply do not work because it makes assumptions about human beings that do not fit reality. In fact, these assumptions are directly opposed to reality and very few people can truly follow them on their own volition.

So, it is only a matter of time until you fall flat on your face when one of your puppets/iconic representatives fail to live up to a standard that they can't live up to.

Thus, here we are. The Republican party has humiliated itself. As a few members know, they have done such things before and will continue to do so, "staying the course".

So, is the Republican party in a situation where its most dangerous opponent is itself, due to its reliance on rhetoric, iconism and general flawed ideology?

Ideologically and demographically, the GOP is presently on the road to nowhere. Each new hypocrisy from the higher ups damages the party's brand label, and the business people are getting sick and tired of being wedded to a bunch of Calvinist freaks who want to turn the calendar back to the 17th century. That's over and above the fact that it is still trying to be, covertly, a party attempting to preserve the privilege of old white men in a country rapidly turning multiethnic in character.

I guess you call God Himself “disgusting”, for God is clear in His word that babies are conceived in SIN. How dare God be so mean to babies as to call them sinners? When you croak and face judgement will you have the temerity to tell God He was mistaken? ‘Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.’ - Psalm 51:5

Actually, Deanna, we also call your favourite fictional character a psychotic mass murderer and an obsessive pervert for his manifestly unhealthy interest in the sex lives of ordinary people. That is, of course, when we're not just pointing out that he's nothing but a fictional character in a rather badly edited book.

[Darth Yoshi]

When did the Bible-thumpers hook up with the GOP anyway? The party's been big-business since Reconstruction, but did Reagan bring in the fundies?