The Parade Of Shame -- Palin's Corporate Sponsors

[Sheldon]

I particularly enjoy seeing Google and Crayola on the list.

GOOG is truly EVUL, but who amongst us suspected the truly diabolical agenda of the seductive Crayola Crayon?

palin is as qualified to be president of the U.S. as my pet gerbil

if conservatives are as rational and intelligent as they claim why do they support palin for pres instead of colin powell, or john mccain, 2 people who are far more qualified than palin....??

I have a feeling that conservative support for palin is proportional to liberal contempt for her

Just to be fair, I see way way more self-proclaimed conservatives on here say she'd be a terrible President than those who support her run for that office. I think her popularity and influence in public discourse is over-inflated by the media.

 

[Madeline]

Immie wrote:

Your first post on this indicates that you don't like Sarah Palin because she opposes "explicit" sex education. Explicit sex mean porn. That seems to say to me that you support showing children porn in school.

I find it disturbing when any intelligent adult, and I do believe you are intelligent, says they are opposed to teaching abstinence to children. I do not believe in "abstinence only" sex education, but I believe we should be teaching our children that there is not a damned thing wrong with waiting to have sex. Not a damned thing at all.

Why on earth do you oppose teaching kids that it is okay to wait?

Immie

Immie, I want public schools to teach kids the "plumbing", the risks of sexual behavior and how to avoid or manage them. IMO, the values that will shape a child's sexual conduct into adulthood are better left to parents to teach. This is partially due to the paucity of time anyone can bear for the topic to be under discussion and partially due to the reluctance I have for schools to replace parents in such a sensitive area.

IMO, middle school kids are too diverse in their experience and maturity for a meaningful discussion of sexual values to benefit them all. I'd prolly not advocate for such a class until college, although if a HS wanted to offer one as an elective in addition to sex ed I would not agitate against it.

For example, a deadly form of throat cancer caused by or related to the HPA virus has been occurring at steeply rising rates among middle school children, who falsely believe oral sex carries no health risks. Teen pregnancy rates continue to climb, as do new HIV infections for this age group. I want the children in my community to have solid, scientifically reliable, up to date information so they can protect themselves and one another.

I dun want to divert 30 minutes or 30 classes that might could save lives onto a discussion about the positive effects adult virginity can have -- especially when the schoolroom audience is not even clear on how virginity can be lost, and what other sexual behaviors may also cause harm.

Thankies for the compliment on my brains. I think you have wits as well, Immie.

 

[Immanuel]

Immie wrote:

Your first post on this indicates that you don't like Sarah Palin because she opposes "explicit" sex education. Explicit sex mean porn. That seems to say to me that you support showing children porn in school.

I find it disturbing when any intelligent adult, and I do believe you are intelligent, says they are opposed to teaching abstinence to children. I do not believe in "abstinence only" sex education, but I believe we should be teaching our children that there is not a damned thing wrong with waiting to have sex. Not a damned thing at all.

Why on earth do you oppose teaching kids that it is okay to wait?

Immie

Immie, I want public schools to teach kids the "plumbing", the risks of sexual behavior and how to avoid or manage them. IMO, the values that will shape a child's sexual conduct into adulthood are better left to parents to teach. This is partially due to the paucity of time anyone can bear for the topic to be under discussion and partially due to the reluctance I have for schools to replace parents in such a sensitive area.

IMO, middle school kids are too diverse in their experience and maturity for a meaningful discussion of sexual values to benefit them all. I'd prolly not advocate for such a class until college, although if a HS wanted to offer one as an elective in addition to sex ed I would not agitate against it.

For example, a deadly form of throat cancer caused by or related to the HPA virus has been occurring at steeply rising rates among middle school children, who falsely believe oral sex carries no health risks. Teen pregnancy rates continue to climb, as do new HIV infections for this age group. I want the children in my community to have solid, scientifically reliable, up to date information so they can protect themselves and one another.

I dun want to divert 30 minutes or 30 classes that might could save lives onto a discussion about the positive effects adult virginity can have -- especially when the schoolroom audience is not even clear on how virginity can be lost, and what other sexual behaviors may also cause harm.

Thankies for the compliment on my brains. I think you have wits as well, Immie.

If I remember correctly, "Sex Education" classes in my school district was in fifth and sixth grade. We needed our parent's permission to attend the classes. Those classes taught the "plumbing", what happens during puberty and the issues of STD's. I've got no problem with sex education being taught like that and if that is what liberals refer to when they say "explicit" sex education, then I am okay with it.

However, (I realize you took that stuff from links) explicit to me means porn and I don't believe a public school should be showing porn. I highly doubt you this they should either. When liberals talk about sex education, they indicate that they want the full shabang taught and what is frustrating to me is that they seem to say that they don't even want the word abstinence on school grounds let alone in a sex ed class.

And quite frankly, teaching kids abstinence can save lives. It is a fallacy promoted by PP that says that kids can't wait until marriage. And I believe, that fallacy only increases the number of kids that don't wait.

Immie

 

[Madeline]

Immie, I suspect you and I want the same things for our children and merely disagree somewhat as to how to get them. Let me refresh your recollection, though. This is a thread urging people to oppose Palin's appearance on TLC. When's the last time you can recollect anyone running for Veep on a platform that included opposing sex ed in public schools? I'm gonna say "never" as I am fairly confident it has not happened before.

Palin is a dangerous wingnut who is a very appealing to the Religious Right and others who yearn for the US of the 1950's. Electing her would be treasonous and that's why I'm active in opposing her as a politician.

As for what exactly a middle school sex ed course should include, we can continue to debate it but in my whole life, I have never heard anyone suggest that porn flicks should be included. I rather doubt you have either....it makes zero sense to me that anyone would wish to, so can we drop this flutter?

 

[Immanuel]

Immie, I suspect you and I want the same things for our children and merely disagree somewhat as to how to get them. Let me refresh your recollection, though. This is a thread urging people to oppose Palin's appearance on TLC. When's the last time you can recollect anyone running for Veep on a platform that included opposing sex ed in public schools? I'm gonna say "never" as I am fairly confident it has not happened before.

Palin is a dangerous wingnut who is a very appealing to the Religious Right and others who yearn for the US of the 1950's. Electing her would be treasonous and that's why I'm active in opposing her as a politician.

As for what exactly a middle school sex ed course should include, we can continue to debate it but in my whole life, I have never heard anyone suggest that porn flicks should be included. I rather doubt you have either....it makes zero sense to me that anyone would wish to, so can we drop this flutter?

We can drop it when you edit your post to remove "explicit". Remember, you said it, not me.

I am not a Palin fan. In fact, she had the same affect on me as President Obama did. At first, I really liked them both, then as time went on and I heard more from both of them, I began to dislike them both. I seem to dislike politicians that think their shit doesn't stink but even the flowers of their opponents smell like rotting corpses. Thus, I can't stand Palin, Obama, Pelosi, McCain, Boxer, Feinstein, Reid, Kerry, Cheney and the list goes on. I left President Bush off that list because he just seemed to be too naive and led around by others to actually earn a spot on that list.

Immie

 

[The Infidel]

What a hoot.... I see someone still has sand in their



Nevermind....

Im outta here

 

[Madeline]

Immie, I suspect you and I want the same things for our children and merely disagree somewhat as to how to get them. Let me refresh your recollection, though. This is a thread urging people to oppose Palin's appearance on TLC. When's the last time you can recollect anyone running for Veep on a platform that included opposing sex ed in public schools? I'm gonna say "never" as I am fairly confident it has not happened before.

Palin is a dangerous wingnut who is a very appealing to the Religious Right and others who yearn for the US of the 1950's. Electing her would be treasonous and that's why I'm active in opposing her as a politician.

As for what exactly a middle school sex ed course should include, we can continue to debate it but in my whole life, I have never heard anyone suggest that porn flicks should be included. I rather doubt you have either....it makes zero sense to me that anyone would wish to, so can we drop this flutter?

We can drop it when you edit your post to remove "explicit". Remember, you said it, not me.

I am not a Palin fan. In fact, she had the same affect on me as President Obama did. At first, I really liked them both, then as time went on and I heard more from both of them, I began to dislike them both. I seem to dislike politicians that think their shit doesn't stink but even the flowers of their opponents smell like rotting corpses. Thus, I can't stand Palin, Obama, Pelosi, McCain, Boxer, Feinstein, Reid, Kerry, Cheney and the list goes on. I left President Bush off that list because he just seemed to be too naive and led around by others to actually earn a spot on that list.

Immie

"Explicit" as in "part A goes in slot B" or "putting part A in slot B may cause pregnancy or STIs". Not "explicit" as in "XXX rated". It would not even be necessary to qualify sex ed with an adjective of any kind if we did not have BS artists claiming that "teaching abstinence" was a substitute for sex ed, Immie. What a ginormous waste of time and money; it's like "teaching" how to avoid the flu by suggesting we all move to Unabomber cabins but never mentioning what a virus is.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Immie, I suspect you and I want the same things for our children and merely disagree somewhat as to how to get them. Let me refresh your recollection, though. This is a thread urging people to oppose Palin's appearance on TLC. When's the last time you can recollect anyone running for Veep on a platform that included opposing sex ed in public schools? I'm gonna say "never" as I am fairly confident it has not happened before.

Palin is a dangerous wingnut who is a very appealing to the Religious Right and others who yearn for the US of the 1950's. Electing her would be treasonous and that's why I'm active in opposing her as a politician.

As for what exactly a middle school sex ed course should include, we can continue to debate it but in my whole life, I have never heard anyone suggest that porn flicks should be included. I rather doubt you have either....it makes zero sense to me that anyone would wish to, so can we drop this flutter?

We can drop it when you edit your post to remove "explicit". Remember, you said it, not me.

I am not a Palin fan. In fact, she had the same affect on me as President Obama did. At first, I really liked them both, then as time went on and I heard more from both of them, I began to dislike them both. I seem to dislike politicians that think their shit doesn't stink but even the flowers of their opponents smell like rotting corpses. Thus, I can't stand Palin, Obama, Pelosi, McCain, Boxer, Feinstein, Reid, Kerry, Cheney and the list goes on. I left President Bush off that list because he just seemed to be too naive and led around by others to actually earn a spot on that list.

Immie

"Explicit" as in "part A goes in slot B" or "putting part A in slot B may cause pregnancy or STIs". Not "explicit" as in "XXX rated". It would not even be necessary to qualify sex ed with an adjective of any kind if we did not have BS artists claiming that "teaching abstinence" was a substitute for sex ed, Immie. What a ginormous waste of time and money; it's like "teaching" how to avoid the flu by suggesting we all move to Unabomber cabins but never mentioning what a virus is.

Going by your reasoning, one could also surmise that "Putting part A in slot B" or "putting part A in slot B may cause pregnancy or STI's", is fully tought in basic biology in 7th grade......So, maybe it's "sex ed" that is a big waste o' money.

 

[GWV5903]

Am I supposed to infer some sort of point from your post, GWV5903?

 

[Madeline]

Am I supposed to infer some sort of point from your post, GWV5903?

Use your words, GWV5903. I'm not doing Vulcan mind-melds here.

 

[Immanuel]

Immie, I suspect you and I want the same things for our children and merely disagree somewhat as to how to get them. Let me refresh your recollection, though. This is a thread urging people to oppose Palin's appearance on TLC. When's the last time you can recollect anyone running for Veep on a platform that included opposing sex ed in public schools? I'm gonna say "never" as I am fairly confident it has not happened before.

Palin is a dangerous wingnut who is a very appealing to the Religious Right and others who yearn for the US of the 1950's. Electing her would be treasonous and that's why I'm active in opposing her as a politician.

As for what exactly a middle school sex ed course should include, we can continue to debate it but in my whole life, I have never heard anyone suggest that porn flicks should be included. I rather doubt you have either....it makes zero sense to me that anyone would wish to, so can we drop this flutter?

We can drop it when you edit your post to remove "explicit". Remember, you said it, not me.

I am not a Palin fan. In fact, she had the same affect on me as President Obama did. At first, I really liked them both, then as time went on and I heard more from both of them, I began to dislike them both. I seem to dislike politicians that think their shit doesn't stink but even the flowers of their opponents smell like rotting corpses. Thus, I can't stand Palin, Obama, Pelosi, McCain, Boxer, Feinstein, Reid, Kerry, Cheney and the list goes on. I left President Bush off that list because he just seemed to be too naive and led around by others to actually earn a spot on that list.

Immie

"Explicit" as in "part A goes in slot B" or "putting part A in slot B may cause pregnancy or STIs". Not "explicit" as in "XXX rated". It would not even be necessary to qualify sex ed with an adjective of any kind if we did not have BS artists claiming that "teaching abstinence" was a substitute for sex ed, Immie. What a ginormous waste of time and money; it's like "teaching" how to avoid the flu by suggesting we all move to Unabomber cabins but never mentioning what a virus is.

The only people I know of that discuss substituting teaching abstinence for sex ed as I described earlier, are Planned Parenthood and other liberals who accuse conservatives of doing just that. I honestly cannot recall having read anyone promoting abstinence only sex ed. The only places I have seen the term, that I can recall, is on Planned Parenthood's site where they accuse the right of wanting to teach abstinence only and quite frankly, that tells me that the liars are Planned Parenthood.

I suppose you might find a far right organization, maybe Pat Robertson's 700 Club or maybe even Focus on the Family, which I used to really enjoy until they went from being a Christian Organization to being a Political Organization, that promotes it, but I don't know of any people, none in my Christian circles, who actually believe abstinence only education works or who support it. That does not mean that I do not believe that we should not be teaching that abstinence is not only acceptable, but preferred and can be obtained.

Earlier you said something about not teaching kids values in school. We teach kids values in school all the time, the threads on the kid who rides to school with a flag behind his bike every day is about the school trying to teach kids certain values i.e. political correctness.

It seems to me that all of us are fine with the school teaching values as long as it is our values that the school teaches. Stray to far from my values and look out! I know I am guilty of that and I suspect that anyone who is honest with themselves will see it in themselves as well.

Immie

 

[Samson]

Ilovealpacas.com

I intend to write the executives of each and every one of these companies to tell them I plan to boycott their products unless the stop advertising on Palin's Nature show on TLC. I hope you will do the same.

Get this fuckwhit off the air.

I'm sure the executives at Ilovealpacas.com are already hearded together in a Damage Control Meeting

 

[Madeline]

Personally, I view sex ed in public schools as 100% a Public Health issue, period. Values are the province of the parents; hard data on how people get pregnant or sick is the school's.

BTW, Palin was/is a candidate for national office who opposes "explicit" sex ed and supports no sex ed or, if there must be some, "abstinence only". This is a program she would carry to the White House -- stamping out sex ed in American public schools. Imagine the misery that would cause if she succeeded.

Getting a sense of why I find her dangerous yet, Immie?

 

[Madeline]

Ilovealpacas.com

I intend to write the executives of each and every one of these companies to tell them I plan to boycott their products unless the stop advertising on Palin's Nature show on TLC. I hope you will do the same.

Get this fuckwhit off the air.

I'm sure the executives at Ilovealpacas.com are already hearded together in a Damage Control Meeting

There is a point to this post, Samson? May I have a hint as to what that might could be?

 

[Immanuel]

Personally, I view sex ed in public schools as 100% a Public Health issue, period. Values are the province of the parents; hard data on how people get pregnant or sick is the school's.

BTW, Palin was/is a candidate for national office who opposes "explicit" sex ed and supports no sex ed or, if there must be some, "abstinence only". This is a program she would carry to the White House -- stamping out sex ed in American public schools. Imagine the misery that would cause if she succeeded.

Getting a sense of why I find her dangerous yet, Immie?

No, because I doubt those are her beliefs. Maybe those are the words assigned to her by her enemies, but I doubt that is what she promotes.

She's dangerous, but not for that reason.

Values are the province of the parents? Then possibly you think that the schools should not be running their anti-bullying campaigns after all, it is a value that we teach our kids that they should not bully other kids. Perhaps you don't think that the schools should be teaching tolerance of GLBT students? After all, tolerance is a value. I could go on and on with more examples if I needed to. And for the record, I think that schools should be teaching those values.

Immie

 

[Madeline]

We did it!

Dear Sir or Madam,

I understand your concern. We buy time with TLC among a number of networks, and we do designate categories of programming to stay away from. However, cable media buys tend not to be program-specific, and this is not considered a political show. I was honestly unaware that this was part of our TLC buy until this e-mail and another one I received. As a company, we’re adamant that we don’t take positions on content or politics, as it’s not our role in the community. We’ve received similar boycott complaints from organizations sending lists based on comedy programming that’s honestly fairly innocuous in my opinion. I understand your sentiments, but I also think that if you saw some of the emails I receive from the other side, you’d be more understanding that it’s not our place to select programming for the most part. It’s the job of the viewer to decide what they want to view. However, I have just asked to deselect from this program. I don’t think the program fits with our brand more generally and isn’t typical of TLC. I hope that you’re able to enjoy the unique and free services that let you compare from hundreds of travel sites in just one search. You can close your account by selecting My Account at the top of the page.

Regards, Robert Birge, CEO, Kayak.com

Shame on all of you who claim their excuse for doing nothing is that you cannot have an effect. Whether you agree with the object my wee boycott has or not, you now have no excuse for your own apathy.

 

[Madeline]

Personally, I view sex ed in public schools as 100% a Public Health issue, period. Values are the province of the parents; hard data on how people get pregnant or sick is the school's.

BTW, Palin was/is a candidate for national office who opposes "explicit" sex ed and supports no sex ed or, if there must be some, "abstinence only". This is a program she would carry to the White House -- stamping out sex ed in American public schools. Imagine the misery that would cause if she succeeded.

Getting a sense of why I find her dangerous yet, Immie?

No, because I doubt those are her beliefs. Maybe those are the words assigned to her by her enemies, but I doubt that is what she promotes.

She's dangerous, but not for that reason.

Values are the province of the parents? Then possibly you think that the schools should not be running their anti-bullying campaigns after all, it is a value that we teach our kids that they should not bully other kids. Perhaps you don't think that the schools should be teaching tolerance of GLBT students? After all, tolerance is a value. I could go on and on with more examples if I needed to. And for the record, I think that schools should be teaching those values.

Immie

I did not mean to be unclear, Immie. Where sexual behavior is concerned, my opinion is values should be taught at home. Not so with the sort of collegiate behavior that every school has to demand just so all students feel safe there...so in my view, bullying and tolerance are somewhat different matters.

 

[blu]

I particularly enjoy seeing Google and Crayola on the list.

GOOG is truly EVUL, but who amongst us suspected the truly diabolical agenda of the seductive Crayola Crayon?

don't you know crayons have mind altering agents that soak into skin?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have to wonder whether or not Mad would consider blackmail and censorship to be the only alternatives to "apathy" if the "evil" one was fighting happened to be abortion, or feminism, or any of a host of leftist causes she supports.

My conduct is "perfectly legal and moral" as well. I have not engaged in any crime, much less blackmail, and I have called for no government action, ergo, there is no risk of censorship. I find Palin to represent virtually all that is wrong with this country and I expect her to be a candidate in my party's presidential primary so I oppose her.

I especially oppose her appearance on a nature show which is a thinly-disguised informercial.

You can keep on whining, Cecilie, or you can do what I did and take some action apart from posting on USMB. I dun care, especially, but I see no value in believing we are impotent to help create the change we want.

She's running as a dem?.......Well **** me!.....Ya' learn somethin' new everyday up here.

What you oppose, Madeline, and it's all too clear, is Palin's right to have a TV show if she so pleases........What you oppose, is TLC'S right to air her program.......What you oppose is a sponsors right to sponsor on TLC.

What you are, is a coward who will do whatever she can to try and squash basic rights.

And we're supposed to believe you're a CONSERVATIVE?

Pffffffffffft!.......Yeah right!

Mad doesn't claim to be a conservative. She claims to be a Republican, as though that matters to anyone except partisan douchebags. After all, how long was Lincoln Chafee a Republican? Or Jim Jeffords? Or Arlen Specter? And as I've pointed out before, Olympia Snowe still is a Republican. So everyone who isn't an ignorant party butt-licker can see just how meaningless claiming a party affiliation is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I support Maddy's right to boycott any company she wishes. It's her right to choose.

I just wish she equally respected the rights of other to continue to do business with companies and to watch programs she doesn't like.

I do, boedicca. Anyone, with any POV, is as free to use the data I have posted as I am. I think activism of almost any type is good for the nation....feel free to agitate as you see fit.

So, tell us Madeline. How is Palin's show negatively affecting YOU?

Didn't you get that from her previous posts? Palin is out there, arrogantly espousing opinions that Mad and other leftists have VERY CLEARLY told her are not acceptable, and PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY HEAR THEM. Worse, she has the nerve to think she has a right to run for President, despite refusing to knuckle under to the beliefs that feminists have decreed are required for anyone bearing a vagina. It's like she has the idea that women are allowed to think for themselves - in public, no less - or something.