“Levi Johnston Is Trash (no offense, trash)”

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

“Levi Johnston Is Trash (no offense, trash)”

Written By : John Hawkins

If Sarah Palin had been a Democrat, no show more credible than Jerry Springer would be giving Levi Johnston a chance to spread scurrilous gossip about her.

Why would they? Levi Johnston is a 19-year-old high school drop out whose mother is in jail for selling Oxycontin. Johnston’s sister Mercede? She got her pockets filled by the trashy Star magazine to talk about the Palin family. Read that description of the Johnston family and you tell me that you’d trust any of them to so much as mind the till at your child’s lemonade stand for five minutes.
Setting that aside, Levi Johnston isn’t Sarah Palin’s friend, her husband, her business partner, her adviser, or even a staffer. To the contrary, he’s a 19-year-old kid who got to spend a little time around the family and their daughter. Do you really think Sarah Palin is spilling her deepest darkest secrets in front of Levi? Do you think she’d talk about divorcing her husband in front of him? Do you think she’d call her son a “retard” in his presence? Common sense says “no.”

Of course, anything’s possible and common sense isn’t always common. But, if someone’s lying, who do you think it’s more likely to be? The woman who knowingly chose to have and raise a child with Down’s syndrome or the kid who parlayed being the source of malicious gossip about Sarah Palin into a Pistachio commercial? Who’s lying? A woman who made a reputation for herself fighting corruption in politics or a kid who now refers to himself as “Ricky Hollywood?”
Perhaps Levi Johnston hasn’t thought through the long-term ramifications of his actions. He probably didn’t get much of a moral education from his drug-dealing mother and there isn’t much of an indication that he’s bright. Have you seen his Twitter feed? Twitter isn’t exactly an intellectual medium, but read some of these tweets from the last 48 hours and ask yourself if Levi Johnston is smart enough to fully understand how he’s being used:

i FEEL LIKE I’M IN A RAP VIDEO EVERYTIME I COME HERE.. !! WHATS THE DEAL WITH THE TAXI DRIVERS NOT SPEAKING ENGLISH IS IT A LAW AGAINST IT?

Is it true that NYC doesn’t have a drinking law .. !!! you can buy alcohol any time , all day all night ??? SWEEEETTTTTTTTT

You ever feel like doing everything in a city you visit but always end up not doing sh*t , just watching TV at the hotel & eating out !

Would you show your WANG for $35,000 ?

Levi Johnston is not trash because of those tweets. He’s not trash because of the family he was born into. He’s not trash because he’s a high school drop out and not the brightest guy in the world. He’s not even trash because he doesn’t like Sarah Palin. Not everybody likes her. It doesn’t make them bad people.

Levi Johnston is trash because he’s behaving like a combination of Kato Kaelin and Joey Buttafuoco. This is a guy who’s trying to make a living by hurting the family of the woman he had a child with. What does that say about Levi Johnston?

What does his lack of regard for his own son say about him? He’s utterly poisoned his relationship with the mother of his child and her family. He’s in talks to do full frontal nudity for Playgirl. In another few years, when Bristol and Levi’s son Tripp is in school, is he going to have someone thrusting pictures from Levi’s Playgirl spread in his face? Is Tripp going to be proud of the way his father earned his 15 minutes of fame? A “man” like Levi Johnston who sees nothing wrong with putting his own child through that for his own tawdry self-aggrandizement doesn’t deserve to truly be referred to as a man.

So, Levi can try to make a career out of spreading lies about the grandmother of his child if he likes. There’s very little anyone can do to stop him since it’s a he-said/she-said situation. Some people will even believe him. Malevolent sociopaths like Johnston often manage to fool people — at least for a little while. So let him mouth off about his huge secret on CBS. He’s probably talking with his agent right now trying to figure out what it is and the biggest media outlet he can get to cover it. That’s what snakes like Johnston do when they get a chance.

The people who really deserve to be ashamed are the people who know better. Those are the people in the media who figure Johnston is a liar, don’t have any more respect for him than they do for something they scraped off their shoe, and yet still give him an outlet to peddle his fabrications because they hate Sarah Palin. Levi Johnston may be trash, but it’s the people who are spreading that garbage everywhere as if it’s credible who should retch every time they look at their own faces in the mirror.

(Hawkins’ Notes: The tweets referenced above were apparently part of an extremely well done hoax account.)

http://www.reddirtdude.blogspot.com President_Friedman

Yes, he is a first rate asshole, and it is a shame Palin's daughter got him involved with thier family, becasue he only hurts thier image. One thing's for sure, watching the Palin/Johnson feud unfold, I realize just how relieved my mom must have been when I ended up not marrying my high school girlfriend (who was high drama white trash to the core, but hotter than the hinges of the gates of Hell).
D-Vega

Wow, this guy is a complete fool. No matter what happens, he has to deal with this family for the rest of his life.

He doesn't seem to care about his child.
aharris

Yeah, this is what happens when you get a piece of work involved in your family. My aunt didn't escape that fate, and she and my cousins have paid for it ever since. I had a brush with it, but the amount of spine I grew in college get me free. My sister had a brush with it, and looked to be lost to it for few years, but thankfully, she found her way out.

It wouldn't surprise me to find out that this was Bristol's first serious crush (not first boyfriend, first really strong crush, there's a difference), and she was unfortunate enough to fall for it hook, line, and sinker.
http://www.reddirtdude.blogspot.com President_Friedman

Posted by aharris

2009-10-30 10:22:11

I'm not one who thinks abstinence only programs are worth thier salt, but Palin/Johnson saga certainly makes a good argument for them… and chastity belts… and dads with shotguns.
D-Vega

Sexual Abstinence, or Moron Abstinence?
Tom_pinko_Delay

Condoms work, people.
http://PatriotPost.US bthewolf

Sexual Abstinence, or Moron Abstinence?

Posted by D-Vega

2009-10-30 10:57:07

YES(both)!!
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

Condoms work, people.

Funnily enough, Bristol Palin was educated about condoms. Contrary to the fraudulent liberal claims that she received an "abstinence only education".

Not exactly a good argument for the usefulness of condoms, is it Pinko?
http://TheNixonTape.Blogspot.Com Dick_Nixon

Condoms work, people.

Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay

2009-10-30 11:03:48

Abstinence works 100% of the time as well.
Tom_pinko_Delay

Not exactly a good argument for the usefulness of condoms, is it Pinko?.

The only thing that is a good argument for how poor a student Bristol was.
Tom_pinko_Delay

Abstinence works 100% of the time as well.

Posted by Dick_Nixon

2009-10-30 11:26:08

Then how do you explain the Virgin Mary?
D-Vega

I think Moron Abstinence could be more effective than Sexual Abstinence.

Tell your kids "You can have sex with your boyfriend/girlfriend, as long as they pass this I.Q. test."
karensp9

Have you guys seen the latest commercial with him and pistachios? Oh my lord it is soooo bad. I couldn't believe they aired it.
http://www.reddirtdude.blogspot.com President_Friedman

Posted by D-Vega

2009-10-30 11:33:54

Won't work. Show me the father who thinks there's a boy out there smart enough or good enough to bed his daughter, and I'll show you a shitty father.
http://TheNixonTape.Blogspot.Com Dick_Nixon

Has Levi paid that back child support or disclosed his income sources yet? Bet one of him checks is either from Media Matters or a personal check from George Soros.
Benzene265

<blockquote cite="Tom_pinko_Delay">The only thing that is a good argument for how poor a student Bristol was.

It takes two to tango.
http://TheNixonTape.Blogspot.Com Dick_Nixon

Then how do you explain the Virgin Mary?

Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay

2009-10-30 11:29:35

Well, if you except the whole God is omnipotent thing, creating the Universe, etc., the Immaculate Conception thing should have been easy for Him.
http://huckupchuck.blogspot.com huckupchuck1

Yes, he is a first rate asshole, and it is a shame Palin's daughter got him involved with thier family, becasue he only hurts thier image.

I agree with you, P_F, that Levi Johnston is a first rate asshole. I don't give anything he says any credibility at all. But, at the same time, I also don't give the Palins a pass for their associations. And while it is a shame that Levi can hurt the Palin family image, it is also true that the Palins themselves bear some responsibility for the damage being done to their image from this whole pathetic family feud. I teach my kids, as I am sure many others do to, that part of who they are is defined by who they choose to associate with. And the Palins are not only tied in to an assocation with the Johnstons, which they not only chose but even highlighted (remember Levi at the GOP Convention?), but they continue to engage the dysfuntional mess of that association.

The Palins are playing the same pathetic, manipulative, Jerry Springer game that Levi is playing. It doesn't become any of them.
http://TheNixonTape.Blogspot.Com Dick_Nixon

And the Palins are not only tied in to an assocation with the Johnstons, which they not only chose

Really? The Palins made Levi and Bristol date and mate?
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

The only thing that is a good argument for how poor a student Bristol was.

LOL You sound like the neo-communists who like to claim that "communism would work perfectly if only it were really tried".

Face it. Bristol Palin is nothing less than a high profile example of how "comprehensive sex ed" FAILED to prevent teenage pregnancy.
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

But, at the same time, I also don't give the Palins a pass for their associations.

Of course you don't. The Palins are conservatives, aren't they?

Of course, when it comes to liberals your policy on "associations" don't always apply, do they? Just look at the way you described the Democratic Party's association with the so-called "Dixiecrats" a few threads above this one:

Passage of the Civil Rights Act for the most part shed the Dixiecrat segregationists from the Democratic Party. And as a Democrat in 2009, I'll take that outcome every single time.

…

The Democratic Party, with its majority support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in defiance of the segregationist Dixiecrats, for the most part shed these Dixiecrats from their ranks…

Setting aside the fact that this is mostly nonsense, you seem awfully eager to "give a pass" to the Democratic Party for their association with the so-called "Dixiecrats". Yet when it comes to a conservative politician like Sarah Palin, suddenly you can't manage to "give a pass" for an unfortunate association.

But then, why on Earth would we expect you to give a conservative the same amount of leeway as you would a liberal? After all, you only see what you want to see and hear only what you want to hear, right Huck?
aharris

Condoms work, people.

Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay

2009-10-30 11:03:48

So does responsibility when it's applied. But no matter how effective a condom is, it can't leap onto a guy's penis all by itself. Both the people involved need to be responsible enough to decide to use it. You can know everything there is to know about how well a condom works, and it won't spare you if you don't choose to use it.

I teach my kids, as I am sure many others do to, that part of who they are is defined by who they choose to associate with. And the Palins are not only tied in to an assocation with the Johnstons, which they not only chose but even highlighted (remember Levi at the GOP Convention?), but they continue to engage the dysfuntional mess of that association.

You know. My parents taught my sister and I that, too, but it didn't stop my sister from hanging with the wrong crowd. No doubt, the Palins took and are taking a similar approach with their children to the one that you take, but in the end, a child, as it becomes a teen, will make its own way. The best you can do is hope they took your teachings to heart, and when it becomes clear that they haven't, you do your best to make lemonade out of the lemons.
http://www.reddirtdude.blogspot.com President_Friedman

"…I also don't give the Palins a pass for their associations."

It is a fair point to bring up, but there are two sides that play into it. On one side, yes, your family says something about you. On the other side, people are individuals who make mistakes, and how a family deals with those mistake says something about the family. (Let's not forget President Obama has brother who lives in a Kenyan slum and was arrested for drug posession a few months ago. So he chooses not associate with his trashy brother, but does that choice make him a better or worse person?)

But another thing that plays into this, Huck, is social class, and among many of her supporters I think Palin's appeal is more about class than politics. Obama's kids would never get caught up in a mess like this (knock on wood) because the Obamas would never stoop so low as to let their kids hang out with trailer trash. If one of the Obama girls gets into boy-trouble later in life, it will undoubtedly be with a higher class of unscruplous asshole. What I'm saying is, the fact that Palin's daugther got mixed up with the same kind of kid that most Ameircans worry about their kid getting mixed up with is actually one of the things that draws some people to her.

"The Palins are playing the same pathetic, manipulative, Jerry Springer game that Levi is playing."

I think that is hyperbole, Huck. The Palins aren't playing the same game Levi is playing at all. They are just defending themselves from his repeated attacks and lies, which is completely justifiable and not manipulative or self-serving.
Tom_pinko_Delay

Face it. Bristol Palin is nothing less than a high profile example of how "comprehensive sex ed" FAILED to prevent teenage pregnancy.

Posted by mightysamurai

2009-10-30 13:16:07

Uh, no. It's an example of how Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston failed to prevent a teenage pregnancy.
TheBaud

Uh, no. It's an example of how Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston failed to prevent a teenage pregnancy.

Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay 2009-10-30 14:11:09

So when a young couple schooled in the use of condoms fail to prevent pregnancy, it is their own fault. But when a young couple schooled in abstinence fail to prevent pregnancy, it is the fault of the entire system, mandating that said system be scrapped.

Could you possibly be any more of a hypocrite?
http://huckupchuck.blogspot.com huckupchuck1

P_F – Do you think Levi is responding the way he is because he doesn't feel aggrieved by the Palins? Wasn't Levi kicked around, and then out, of the Palin family when it was no longer convenient for him to be around? Wasn't Levi's mother's troubles highlighted by the Palin family as a means to set themselves up on a higher moral plane in their squabbles with Levi and his role in his son's life? Again, I don't think Levi is anything but a first class asshole. He's a cocky and classless punk who manipulates and abuses his relationships for personal gain. But he's also someone who I think is responding in kind to what he perceives as poor treatment on the part of the Palins. The Palins enabled the dysfunction of this relationship. And they have shown themselve not to be above questionable behavior in the past. For instance, we know how the Palins responded to the Trooper-gate situation. It, also, was manipulative and vindictive and petty. Classless, essentially. And we also know the public relations campaign the Palins have mounted to distance themselves from the Johnstons and make the Johnstons seem less "classy" than the Palins are. The Palins are not just defending themselves from Levi's predations, they are also involved in a tit-for-tat predatory game with Levi and his family. Do you really think the Palins are hapless victims to an unfortunate "mistake" in their association with the Johnstons? Do you think they are incapable of responding in kind (or that they haven't done so already)? Fact is, it's unbecoming all the way around, and the Palins cannot deny their own part in being responsible for it.

I know some humble working class people who don't behave the way the Palins and Johnstons behave. Who don't tolerate, accept, or engage the drama of petty family feuds.
http://TheNixonTape.Blogspot.Com Dick_Nixon

For instance, we know how the Palins responded to the Trooper-gate situation. It, also, was manipulative and vindictive and petty.

So you support the beating of women by authority figures. Let Nixon write that down to keep.
Tom_pinko_Delay

But when a young couple schooled in abstinence fail to prevent pregnancy, it is the fault of the entire system, mandating that said system be scrapped.

Could you possibly be any more of a hypocrite?

Posted by TheBaud

2009-10-30 14:13:50

The flaw in your argument, TheBaud, is that you assume that there is nothing in between the 2 extremes (if you will) of abstinence and having unprotected sex.

If 2 teens have never been exposed to condom education, and they have choose to have unprotected sex, then, yes, the system is at fault.
http://soliver.typepad.com Major_O

(who was high drama white trash to the core, but hotter than the hinges of the gates of Hell).

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
TheBaud

The flaw in your argument, TheBaud, is that you assume that there is nothing in between the 2 extremes (if you will) of abstinence and having unprotected sex.

Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay 2009-10-30 14:44:18

No flaw in my argument, Tom_pinko_Delay. I'm just exposing the duplicity of the Left.

When a girl becomes pregnant and has had abstinance-only education, the Left claims the fault is the education and that entire line of thinking must be stopped and given over to the Left's brand of sex-education. But when a girl becomes pregnant and has been fully schooled in the use of condoms and other birth control methods, the game changes. Now, the girl and boy are INDIVIDUALLY responsible for the resulting pregnancy, while the education they received is pure and correct and above reproach.

In both cases, they took what they learned and did not apply it; resulting in a pregnancy. But in only one case do you blame the system.

There is your hypocrisy, plain and for all to see.
http://www.reddirtdude.blogspot.com President_Friedman

"Do you think Levi is responding the way he is because he doesn't feel aggrieved by the Palins?"

He never responsds to anything, in every media exchange I can recall, he was the instigator.

"Wasn't Levi kicked around, and then out, of the Palin family when it was no longer convenient for him to be around?"

I don't recall them kicking him around, but yeah, they sure as hell cut him off the gravy train when he refused to man up and be a father or a husband. HE was the one who refused to be inconvenienced, not the Palins.

"Fact is, it's unbecoming all the way around, and the Palins cannot deny their own part in being responsible for it."

They had a part in it, sure, and it is absolutely unbecoming… but I think the vast lion's share of the blame is no Levy Johnson and not the Palins.

"I know some humble working class people who don't behave the way the Palins and Johnstons behave. "

You missed my point. I didn't say working class people would all behave this way (how many workng class families have MSNBC trying to dig up dirt on them 24 hours a day), I said a lot of working class (and middle class white collar) people relate to the situation the Palins are in, in a way that would never translate to an upper crust family, and that this ability to relate has a lot to do with Palin's appeal.
Tom_pinko_Delay

In both cases, they took what they learned and did not apply it; resulting in a pregnancy. But in only one case do you blame the system.

There is your hypocrisy, plain and for all to see.

Posted by TheBaud

2009-10-30 14:50:55

In one case I blame the system, because it did not give them all the tools that are available for them to use to prevent pregnancy. Can you really not see the difference between the 2 methods of sex education?
TheBaud

Can you really not see the difference between the 2 methods of sex education?

Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay 2009-10-30 15:17:10

The only difference in the two is you think one is right and the other is wrong.

In both cases, a pregnancy occurs because the girl did not follow what she was taught. In the case of abstinance, you hate that program and think it is evil, so you use even a single instance to denegrate the entire program. In the case of your "Use a condom" sex-education, you believe in the program and will never allow anyone to speak ill against it, so when it fails, you blame the participants.

Abstinance education gives kids all the tools they need. Don't have sex and you won't get pregnant. And it works ever time it is tried. You tell them to have sex, but use a condom, which is not 100% effective. There are your differences.
Tom_pinko_Delay

In both cases, a pregnancy occurs because the girl did not follow what she was taught. In the case of abstinance, you hate that program and think it is evil, so you use even a single instance to denegrate the entire program. In the case of your "Use a condom" sex-education, you believe in the program and will never allow anyone to speak ill against it, so when it fails, you blame the participants.

Posted by TheBaud

2009-10-30 15:40:22

First of all, its not just the girl who didn't do what she was taught. It most certainly does take 2 to tango.

Secondly, abstinence-only sex education does NOT give teens all of the tools they need. In fact, the terms "abstinence-only" and "sex education" are oxymorons when used in conjunction with each other. The best and most comprehensive sex education programs should go like this: If you don't want an unwanted pregnancy, or an STD, then abstain. It is the only 100% sure way to prevent those from happening. But, judging by human nature and human history, we know not all of you teens will abstain. So, if you choose to have sex, protect yourself in the following manner: Use a condom.

You keep harping on the notion that "the girl" didn't follow what she was taught. And all the while you keep ignoring the fact that abstinence-only education gives you only about 50% of the necessary course material.
D-Vega

We don't tell them to have sex. We tell them IF they are going to have sex to use contraception, preferably a condom so you don't catch a disease that could kill or maim you.

It's so easy to say "Well, just don't do it." That approach has been tried, and FAILED, time and time again. Because young kids are horny, and that will trump everything else usually.
TheBaud

It's so easy to say "Well, just don't do it." That approach has been tried, and FAILED, time and time again. Because young kids are horny, and that will trump everything else usually.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-10-30 16:01:49

Just like telling kids "IF they are going to have sex to use contraception", which has also failed.

Only you condemn the system in one case, but the individual in the other. Liberal=Double Standard!
D-Vega

The best and most comprehensive sex education programs should go like this: If you don't want an unwanted pregnancy, or an STD, then abstain. It is the only 100% sure way to prevent those from happening. But, judging by human nature and human history, we know not all of you teens will abstain. So, if you choose to have sex, protect yourself in the following manner: Use a condom.

And that's the way its been taught for a generation. When support began pulling away from this approach in 2000, teen pregnancy increased.
D-Vega

Just like telling kids "IF they are going to have sex to use contraception", which has also failed.

No, it hasn't. When this approach was pushed under Clinton, both disease and teen pregnancies decreased.
TheBaud

No, it hasn't. When this approach was pushed under Clinton, both disease and teen pregnancies decreased.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-10-30 16:10:32

Sorry, but wrong. Condoms are not 100% effective in stopping diease or pregnancy. And we are talking about the Palin case, where abstinance education was blamed for her pregnancy, until it was pointed out that she got your brand of sex education and got pregnant anyway, at which point the Left began baling the girl and not the system.

Abstinance education works.
Tom_pinko_Delay

Abstinance education works.

Posted by TheBaud

2009-10-30 16:16:32

Obviously Bristol and Levi prove otherwise!
TheBaud

Obviously Bristol and Levi prove otherwise!

Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay 2009-10-30 16:19:23

As has already been show, Tom_pinko_Delay, Bristol recieved your version of sex education as well. THAT FAILED!

Typical, blame the system in one case and the individual in the other.

Does this double standard surprise anyone here? Anyone at all?
D-Vega

Baud no one said anything about 100%, its about whether it worked in terms of decreasing disease and pregnancy, and that is true.

Abstinence was advocated for generations, and it only resulted in large swaths of teenage pregnancies and dozens of widespread diseases.
Tom_pinko_Delay

If one case teaches you 50% of the needed information, and the other one teaches you 100%, then its hardly a double standard to come down on one and not the other.
D-Vega

As has already been show, Tom_pinko_Delay, Bristol recieved your version of sex education as well. THAT FAILED!

She received abstinence ed as well, Baud. Wake up. She herself admitted that ab-only ed doesn't work.
TheBaud

Abstinence was advocated for generations, and it only resulted in large swaths of teenage pregnancies and dozens of widespread diseases.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-10-30 16:29:06

And that is not true. Abstinance education is generations old, as you said, but those instances of teenage pregnancies and disease are a product of the recent generation. There are many other factors involved that change the rate of teen pregnancies, and I don't think you can credit or blame either method, although you hypocritically do.

My point all along has been it is a duplicious lie to say one teen pregnancy can be blamed on abstinance educations, but not on condom-sex-education. In both case, failure occurs when not following what was taught. But if teaching abstinance and a girl gets pregnant tants the entire system; then it logically follows that that teaching condom sex education and a girl gets pregnant tants that entire system.
TheBaud

If one case teaches you 50% of the needed information, and the other one teaches you 100%, then its hardly a double standard to come down on one and not the other.

Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay 2009-10-30 16:32:10

BULLSHIT!

Abstinance education teaches you not to have sex to avoid pregnancy. That is 100% true and 100% effective.

And it is a double standard on your part, clearly. You are blinded by your partisan feelings. Either it is the individual responsibility in both cases to adhere to the program, or it is the system's responsibility in both case.
TheBaud

She received abstinence ed as well, Baud. Wake up. She herself admitted that ab-only ed doesn't work.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-10-30 16:32:34

She received both, but only abstinace education failed? Seems like your condom sex education failed as well.
Tom_pinko_Delay

Sex education without mentioning birth control cannot be considered on the same level abstinence only education, The baud!

It's like teaching 2 children about the American Revolution, but with one child, you leave out the years 1775-1777. And then treat both currucilums on the same level when judging their effectiveness.
D-Vega

Baud doesn't understand. What we are advocating here is comprehensive sex ed, Baud.

That means a) the only way you can be %100 sure of not contracting a disease or getting pregnant is to abstain, AND b) if you are going to have sex, then use some sort of disease & pregnancy protection.

We are not arguing against abstinence ed, we are arguing against ab-only ed. Understand?

It still did not work for Bristol, but that's because she didn't use a condom AND she didn't abstain. So it's not that neither worked, its that she ignored both.
Raposa

Gee, I was taught that even the best (latex) condoms still have a 5% failure rate.

And they don't fully protect against disease because much more comes in contact besides just penis+vagina, which is all condoms cover.

That's comprehensive sex education, but most advocates of "safer sex" don't bother arguing about that.

In any case, Levi Johnston is a toad. He and his mother have no room to complain about the Palins not talking to them anymore. The Johnstons started it off by trying to cash in. Of course nobody with any sense would let a bunch of users like that (in all senses of the word) stay connected to the family.

I was once a girl who narrowly escaped a serious relationship with a guy like that, and I have sympathy for Bristol. Far harder that she has a kid, too. I'm glad Bristol has a supportive family that's willing to stand by her – and stand up for her.
D-Vega

Gee, I was taught that even the best (latex) condoms still have a 5% failure rate.

That is because that rate includes not putting the condom on correctly.

Condoms are about 99% effective, but you are right about skin to skin contact.

And yes, ALL OF THAT is included in comp-sex-ed.

But I do agree that this guy is a toad.
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

Uh, no.

Uh, yes.

Remember, you guys are the ones who are always claiming "comprehensive sex ed" can "prevent" teen pregnancies. Now all of a sudden you claim the opposite? That every individual makes individual choices and "comprehensive sex ed" suddenly can't prevent teenage pregnancies? Awfully convenient, don't you think?

It's so easy to say "Well, just don't do it." That approach has been tried, and FAILED, time and time again. Because young kids are horny, and that will trump everything else usually.

I really do love this liberal logic that kids aren't responsible enough to abstain from sex but they are responsible enough to use protection every time.

Obviously Bristol and Levi prove otherwise!

Now you're just lying.
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

If one case teaches you 50% of the needed information, and the other one teaches you 100%, then its hardly a double standard to come down on one and not the other.

Objection. Assuming facts not in evidence.

Just because you say that abstinence-only only teaches "50% of the needed information" doesn't make it so. You have yet to prove that anything taught in "comprehensive sex ed" is "necessary information".

She received abstinence ed as well, Baud. Wake up. She herself admitted that ab-only ed doesn't work.

Wow but you're dumb, D-Vega.

Okay, let's assume that's true for a moment (it isn't, it's just another one of your lies, but let's pretend it's true for just a moment). Are you saying that if a child gets an abstinence-only education in addition to "comprehensive sex ed" somehow it cancels out the "comprehensive" lessons? Does the child suffer acute amnesia that causes them to forget about all the "lessons" they learned in their "comprehensive sex ed" classes?

I guess that's what you're saying, D-Vega. Bristol Palin's (mythical) abstinence-only education caused her to spontaneously forget everything she learned in her "comprehensive sex ed" classes.

Baud doesn't understand. What we are advocating here is comprehensive sex ed, Baud.

Yes, the same "comprehensive sex ed" that FAILED to prevent this teenage pregnancy.

This liberal hypocrisy is really a thing to behold. When a child exposed to abstinence-only sex ed gets pregnant or gets a disease, this is cited as "proof" of the "failure" of abstinence-only sex ed. But when a child is given "comprehensive sex ed" and the exact same thing happens, it's nothing to worry about.
D-Vega

That's like saying math doesn't work because some dumb kid can't add two plus two…
http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

Strange that having a cartoon camel on a cigarette package will lead kids to smoke but telling them about birth control will not lead them to have sex.
aharris

Uh, the AIDS virus is able to pass through an intect condom. The pores in the latex are larger than the virus itself, so while it will help protect you somewhat, it's only about as effective for preventing the spread of AIDS as just using spermacide is in preventing pregnancy. In other words, it works almost all the time, but it's that time it doesn't that's the doozy.
Genghis_Shan

That's like saying math doesn't work because some dumb kid can't add two plus two…

I was just about to use that same analogy to argue AGAINST your point. When has a girl who has abstained from having sex ever gotten pregnant?
D-Vega

Since when has 2 plus two equaled five, unless you are too dumb to know the difference?
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

That's like saying math doesn't work because some dumb kid can't add two plus two…

Yes, I agree. Your argument that abstinence-only doesn't work just because a few dumb kids refuse to follow it is a profoundly stupid argument. Thank you for conceding the argument.
http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

Given that teen pregnancy and the number of single mothers has increased massively as a percentage of the population since the big push for sex ed and teaching birth control was started, I find it hilarious anyone would argue that it is some sort of protection against these problems.

Obviously, your approach is not working. Maybe we should try something different?
Pingback: rewfarasfvmsdr
Pingback: John Hawkins’ Columns | Right Wing News