themadhatter114

Something is only cliche if it is overused. Cliche = banal and boring. Tropes and archetypes can bring some comfort and familiarity to an otherwise unfamiliar setting, but cliches are inherently overused.

How can you question us about your perception of the game as a whole? Ask yourself why you perceived this as so bland and provide us the answer so we can agree or disagree. I wouldn't call it bland. The pacing is deliberately slow. You have time to get immersed in the world. The problems you deal with are pretty low key except for some incest. But this is a game more about a personal struggle set within a hollowborn epidemic disrupting the local economy and perverting scientific research. You get to find out the true cause of the epidemic, you get to chase the man who inadvertently caused your awakening, and you get to learn some startling revelations about the nature of the gods. These things were all presented in an interesting manner without being melodramatic but without banality. The companions are pretty low key as well. One is spying on you and dealing with his own minor awakening, another just needs to get out of Gilded Vale and wants to know if he fought in the wrong side of the war. The NPCs are generally just traveling companions without their own melodrama. Grieving Mother is drawn to you through her own unconscious recollection of her time as a faux Watcher and she believes you are the one who can help end Waidwen's Legacy. But mostly they just need a friend and ally and they have your back. It's not bland just because it avoids making every issue feel epic. You're not traveling with an heir to the throne and the mother of an Old God. You're not traveling with the warlord of an entire species or the man who crippled their reproductive systems. Dialing back the epic and makes for a well-paced story and makes the extraordinary actually feel extraordinary. Just like with tv, sometimes it's okay for a show where every single event is epic and over the top, and sometimes I want something a little more grounded and deliberately paced.

Was the Hollowborn epidemic going to end regardless of the players actions? Did Thaos have enough souls for he already? Woedica doesn't seem like she was getting shorted when you gave her the available souls and ended the continued gathering of more souls. Was killing Thaos a completely hollow act if you take that ending, or would Woadoca eventually need more souls?

Let me think about this for a moment, NO! Are you insane? I am against gun control, but having every person with a gun, and with there being more than a few trigger happy people out there, That would be an immensely STUPID idea. Frankly that is the stupidest idea I have read so far here. The police is there to keep the peace, to arrest criminals, and to maintain order. If we remove the police and let everyone have a gun and "police" themselves we would have total and complete anarchy. Yeah, towns should probably be able to pass local taxes to support a police force. But everyone should have their own guns and be ready to defend themselves, especially against the police when the time comes. Are you stupid? Do you know how many towns in this country have a volunteer fire department? In my home county there are 3 volunteer fire departments, and they all have fundraisers to buy equipment and for training, and they all do an excellent job. But, yes, in a city, it's important to have full-time fire department paid for by city funds. I don't want the government to have any more interest in legislating my consumption habits than they already do.

My main reasoning for being against government-funded health care is that, once the government has a vested interest in your health, they then assume the power to legislate your health. I'm just so excited to see all the Nazi tactics they use to combat the "obesity epidemic." It will be so awesome if we have socialized medicine and then the Center for Science in the Public Interest gets taken seriously!

After 8 years of Bush and Republican leadership, and seeing where it brought us, why would I even want another 4 years of a Republican White House? Also I don't get why you are so against socialized medicine. It works quite well in Canada and the U.K.. Are you against other socialized emergency services such as police and fire departments? Imagine that you had to "pay" a police officer to investigate a break in to your home or to investigate an an assault charge. Imagine if you had to pay the fire department yourself to put out a fire at your home. Imagine the need to make a payment for a 911 call. Only major credit cards accepted! Or, or, imagine this. Perhaps you could get yourself a gun and protect yourself and tell the police to go to hell since protecting you is NOT their job. As for fire departments, localities could institute a 'fire tax' to maintain a fire department. Or they could have a volunteer fire department, which is what just about every small town has. The same could be done with police, or you could hire a private investigator, or, as I said, you could buy a gun and leave the cops out of the equation.

Amusingly, a New York Times poll found that 49% of Republican delegates at the convention supported either gay marriage or civil unions. But I don't see anywhere that Palin has stated anything about gay marriage. The only reference to it I've seen is in her gubernatorial debate when she made reference to the 1998 Alaskan Constitutional amendment defining marriage. Marriage should not be defined as "two individuals who love and cherish each other to the point they are committed to each other in both a spiritual and physical bond." That's just silly. The church should define marriage however they want, and the government shouldn't define marriage at all. Gay couples should have no more privilege than cohabiting siblings or best friends. Nor should married couples.

The amusing thing about the Republicans trying to separate her from the AIP is that the AIP and the Republicans are pretty friendly in Alaska. The Republican who tried to remove the leader of the Troopergate investigation is the son of the former AIP chairman. Her flirtation with the AIP is a huge plus for me. Has Palin ever made a statement against civil unions? Marriage is defined in Alaska's Constitution as between a man and a woman. Therefore denying spousal benefits to gay couples is not a discrimination issue. Gay couples are no more deserving of spousal benefits than cohabiting siblings. Of course, in my view, they should all be the same. Gay civil unions are the undoing of marriage as a social institution. But if the government would simply stay out of the marriage debate altogether, it would be so much better. But what views on foreign policy, health care, or the economy have Palin even expressed so far? I understand if you're simply saying you're against the McCain ticket, or the Republicans, but stating specifically that you are opposed to Palin's views when she has not expressed those views is a little silly. I don't expect to get to know her actual views, though. Right now she's being given the McCain party line and will have to stick with it. Honestly I think Palin is an isolationist at heart. She preaches energy independence and I'd say that's because she wants to get the hell out of other countries. She was singing Ron Paul's praises during the Republican primaries. Though I wouldn't be surprised if her views will put her in the pro-Israel lobby.

The amusing thing about the Republicans trying to separate her from the AIP is that the AIP and the Republicans are pretty friendly in Alaska. The Republican who tried to remove the leader of the Troopergate investigation is the son of the former AIP chairman. Her flirtation with the AIP is a huge plus for me. Has Palin ever made a statement against civil unions? Marriage is defined in Alaska's Constitution as between a man and a woman. Therefore denying spousal benefits to gay couples is not a discrimination issue. Gay couples are no more deserving of spousal benefits than cohabiting siblings. Of course, in my view, they should all be the same. Gay civil unions are the undoing of marriage as a social institution. But if the government would simply stay out of the marriage debate altogether, it would be so much better. But what views on foreign policy, health care, or the economy have Palin even expressed so far? I understand if you're simply saying you're against the McCain ticket, or the Republicans, but stating specifically that you are opposed to Palin's views when she has not expressed those views is a little silly. I don't expect to get to know her actual views, though. Right now she's being given the McCain party line and will have to stick with it. Honestly I think Palin is an isolationist at heart. She preaches energy independence and I'd say that's because she wants to get the hell out of other countries. She was singing Ron Paul's praises during the Republican primaries. Though I wouldn't be surprised if her views will put her in the pro-Israel lobby.

Even so, it's still essentially the same either way. The study found that students that went through abstinence-only programs didn't seem to have less sex, but they seemed to use contraception just as often.

That is my view of her and I am not going to change it and I will not be voting for her. I don't care whether or not you are voting for her. But yet you still cling to a view of her that is based entirely on lies. There are interviews from February on Youtube where Palin is talking about her focus on helping Alaska become more self sufficient. One way to do this was to try to balance the state budget and cut unnecessary spending. However, yes, she had before shown support for the bridge project. Then despite the stink everyone raised about the Bridge to Nowhere, Congress gave them the money, anyway, though they'd removed the actual earmark. It wasn't enough money, so Palin decided to use the federal money on more fundamental infrastructure issues and has been discussing a more fiscally responsible way to provide access to the island. Not a big deal as far as I'm concerned, but I do honestly wish the McCain campaign would stop hyping it up since the story is different from what they claim, but it's not really a flip-flip, either. At least, what happened wasn't a flip-flop, really, but the way the campaign is presenting it is.

not to nitpick buuut... nearly all of these are news articles, which means little, and the first is a report by a democratic congressman, which hardly constitutes a scientific study. this one, http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publication...tabstinence.pdf, however, is truly a comprehensive study and it found no difference between the control and program groups for just about any category. i.e., your terminology is incorrect, or at least exaggerated, but it would seem (based on the comprehensive mpr study), that abstinence programs don't do much either way, which is not a surprise. i'm quite certain sex education in schools doesn't do much regardless of how it is taught, IMO. taks PS: again, i should add, studies such as these are incapable of assessing cause and effect, only correlation. He's already been called out on this. When asked for statistics that show abstinence-only is worse than other programs, he simply posts a list of studies that show no difference or articles that simply complain about people lying in sex education classes. Unfortunately comprehensive sex ed classes lie, too.

We have done so well in the US with Christian Conservatives in power. OH YES WE HAVE! *takes a good look at Bush* Christian Conservatives are stuck in 19th and 20th century mode of thinking. Sorry, but it is true. This is the 21st century and we need 21st century leadership. We need forward thinking people, progressives, in power, not those who use antiquated beliefs and traditions to influence national and state level policy. I don't mind fiscal conservatism. In fact I am all for it. However social conservatism needs to go the way of Jimmy Hoffa. You are dodging the issue. You want to trash her for being a Christian conservative but you will not take responsibility for being completely dishonest about her views.

Yes, the first link is a blog. That blog happens to link to news stories for verification about how he clarified most of the rumours. In particular, you can find the full text of her prayer, or a video. Which is why I would expect someone who is going to comment on that particular story to actually check up on it. Hell, it's number 23, the quote's directly from the NY Times.

Funny, what she definitely says is that she doesn't consider condoms part of explicit sex education and that children should learn about condoms in other avenues if not at home. So, her statement saying "Explicit sex ed programs will not find my support" is now clear that she is not saying that comprehensive sex education programs will not find her support. So now will you blame comprehensive sex education for failing Bristol Palin? And, as I expected, you didn't even both to read the first link. She did not claim that our troops are on a task from God. She was giving a standard "pray for the troops" plea and hoping that God had some plan. Beyond that, Palin's public commentary about the Iraq War up until her announcement as VP candidate were statements about how we needed an exit plan. It is clear that you and others have no interest in learning who this woman truly is and only wish to trash her for being a Christian and for being a conservative. There are avenues of criticism you could take, but you are clearly disingenuous and your point of view on the matter is apparently unchanged by things like facts.

http://explorations.chasrmartin.com/2008/09/06/palin-rumors/ Of particular note, I would like to point to this article linked on this site, which is an LA Times Article about Palin's views on sex education: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na...0,3119305.story So, I hope there is no more discussion that somehow Sarah Palin's views on sex education are to be blamed for Bristol Palin's pregnancy, unless you want to now suggest that Sarah Palin's liberal view on contraceptives influenced her daughter into taking risks that she otherwise would not have (which is not my view...just turning it around).

Yes, that's generally what the knee-jerk conservatives foresee whenever the Democrats come along to clean up their mess. Meanwhile the rest of the world cheers. interesting that you call them conservatives and democrats instead of either republicans and democrats or conservatives and liberals. hehe... if any politician, republican or democrat, ever were to clean up any mess, i'd cheer. the rest of the world can pound sand as far as i'm concerned because they have proven time and again that their opinions regarding the US are largely worthless. taks Hahahahahahahaha I can't even remember any head of state in any democratic country that ever took responsibility and said: "Boy, did we f*** it up there". As we seen in the US, and in Europe with the EU for that matter(which i hate with a passion, but that's another thread), as time goes by, the politicians mess it all up, leaving the other party to fix it up by mandating more power from the people. Thomas Jefferson was right, to secure that the goverment was by the people for the people, a revolution is needed every now and then. And themadhatter114 is paranoid about Obama. Has the US policy against the U.N. really changed throughout the years, regardless on what rhethoric the current president had? It has been, and it will continue be a playground for the big boys (USA, Russia, China, France, Great Britain) on their game of chess of the world affairs. This is also known as Realpolitik. I don't really get your point about the UN. Yes, obviously we have a permanent seat on the Security Council. But stuff like IANSA and Kyoto are BS that the US needs to take a hard line on. I'd also like to stop giving money to the UN and kick them out of New York. Obama wants to legislate a greater financial commitment to UN projects, on top of all of his other plans to increase spending.

I'm not a democrat or a republican, but I am a student of history, and this statement has no precedent. We've had some absolutely terrible presidents in our history, and nothing really horrible comes of it. That's the joy of the checks and balances system. The president isn't nearly as powerful as people think he is. I believe Obama is going to eviscerate the 2nd amendment. I believe Obama is going to mandate more money for the UN and that he's going to sign onto things like the IANSA treaty and the Kyoto treaty. Obama wants to expand government spending and increase government control of our lives more than ever, further tightening the federal government's grip on our public school system. Our history books will be filled with pro-UN propaganda. How many historians place LBJ on a short list of greatest ever? What did LBJ accomplish besides expanding welfare and expanding the Vietnam War? You do realize that the Democrats control the legislative branch, right? Would you say that Bush was 'ineffective' when he had a Republican legislature, or would you say that the executive and legislative branches seemed to give each other a blank check and horribly expand our debt? I love the 2nd Amendment. I hate the UN. I hate federal intrusion into public education. I do not want to see an Obama presidency with a democratic Congress.

If Obama wins you have no idea how terrible this country will become.

It's actually incorrect to say that she was for it until it was no longer politically expedient. She was for it all along until it became apparent that it would require hundreds of millions of dollars in state money that she wasn't willing to invest. So she took the federal money and applied it to other infrastructure issues. I don't see any evidence that she has pushed any authoritarian issues against the citizens. In her e-mails to Monegan that have been released, she talked a few times in commentary about legislation that state troopers were less accountable with regard to their gun rights and criminally than the average citizens were, and she inserted the name of the man who'd threatened to kill her father, Mike Wooten, as an example. So I'd say that she's actually pretty supportive of citizens rights and doesn't think that police officers are a special class of citizen with more rights. She lobbied for federal money, but when your state's senator is the head of the appropriations committee, then you are likely to get lots of earmarks. And that's pretty much what I expect of every state politician, because they all have to get their piece of the pie. Ron Paul gets earmarks for his district and simply justifies it by making a symbolic vote against the overall spending bill. I've seen a lot of posts about the city budget based on reports from DailyKOS readers and MoveOn.org mailings, but I haven't seen much besides some problems with a lawsuit because of the Sports Complex they were bidding on the land for. As governer, however, she was fiscally responsible with the state's money. It's a little ridiculous to say that she subsidizes the oil trade when the only funding in the article is a gas pipeline agreement. You can't tell me that the state and the citizens, which own the natural gas, even if libertarian, wouldn't give incentives to actually get a pipeline done is ridiculous. If instead of state control, you simply think of her as having power of attorney to negotiate a pipeline deal on behalf of her citizens, I don't see what's so un-Libertarian about a subsidy that will help push the project through. She actually got rid of tax breaks for oil companies that had been obtained by aggressively lobbying Republicans in the legislature. If you check out volokh.com a lot, you'll see that there are lots of totally false stories about Palin being planted in newspapers all across the country or being picked up from blogs (the blogs forced major media to report the pregnancy rumors, newspapers are mischaracterizing a change in the tax structure as a "windfall profits tax," news media was frequently parroting that she was mayor just 2 years ago, the Obama campaign has tried to link Palin to anti-Semitism by deceptively linking her to Pat Buchanan, and reminding people that he's (unfairly, in my opinion) considered an anti-Semite, articles questioning how she can raise her family and run for office at the same time, while Obama himself gets to pretend to be the good guy and let his bloggers and the media that's in his pocket do all that attacking for him). I think she's going to come out of this well, though. Now, as for the GOP and civil liberties, I agree. Bush has been pretty bad on civil liberties and then he pushed a bill that would deny 2nd amendment rights to anyone on a terrorist watch list (just think of the number of people that can't fly on airplanes because of this BS) and it would be at the Attorney General's discretion to ever even give you a chance to know why you're on the list and at his discretion to give you a chance to get off it. Since the NRA and the GOP understand how terrible this is, the Brady Bunch started promoting the bill saying that we have a "terror gap." McCain hasn't demonstrated that he cares about civil liberties any more, but Palin at the very least is a VERY strong pro-gun advocate, and she's not a fan of the War on Drugs, at least she's not a fan of the amount of resources we waste on cracking down on marijuana and would rather that those resources be used to combat meth, instead. I don't think Palin's views on civil liberties are going to be much of an issue while McCain is in office, but if he dies in office or decides to not run for a second term, Palin will get a great chance to put her mark on the presidency. And once she gets out of the extremely socially conservative Alaska, I really think her views will align more with her constituency on things like gay rights (supposedly 50% of Republican delegates were in favor of gay marriage or civil unions, but in Alaska it's a very, very unpopular idea).

The Libertarian Case for Sarah Palin

Uh... That's exactly what a banned book is. I'm not aware of the government ever banning a book from being made or sold, outside of copyright infringements and other such technicalitites. When we talk about "banned books" we generally mean either books that are disallowed from distribution in public libraries, or books that aren't allowed to be disseminated or taught in a classroom setting, usually because they contain godless faggotry or curse words or other such (socialist and unamerican) things that harm our children. This sort of "nannying" is exactly the sort of thing civil libertarians rail against, but it's interesting that when Palin endorses such action it's alright and even commendable. That her constituents want books banned is immaterial. Libertarians are supposed to get their panties all twisted over tyranny of the majority in any case, if a majority really wants books banned. I guess civil libertarians have never heard of a bookstore. A real libertarian would just shut down the public library, sell all the books, cut the librarian's salary from the city budget, sell the building and give the taxpayers back their money. People don't like having their tax dollars support things that they don't support. I don't think I've borrowed a book from a library in years. I've never even been into the public library where I am. Though anyone who has even an internet connection and thinks that banning a book would affect anything is pretty dim. I'm banking on Sarah having simply been politicking for her constituents a little bit. I don't see much reason not to look into the matter if the townspeople want to know if they can vote on it. Regardless, it's not an attack on your civil liberties when you can still acquire the book on your own. If Sarah Palin truly is an anti-rights moral crusader, I don't think she would have had the support of the libertarian groups (endorsed by the Libertarian Party and claimed by the Alaskan Independence Party) in Alaska. I just think she's a pretty savvy politician, and considering that the book thing was like 12 years ago when she first became mayor, I'd say she probably figured out which citizens to give in to and which ones to stand up to.

No books were ever banned. She asked about it because some of her constituents asked about it. And there's a difference between banning a book and not wanting it in a public library. I think she just seems like a really savvy politician. She fired up the religious crowd, but then fired the chief of police because he wanted to force bars to close 3 hours earlier and because he wasn't a pro-gun advocate. Then she gets into the governor's office and pretty much drops the religion issue except to occasionally throw the Republican party a bone, when the Republicans in the legislature actually hate her (some people are raising an issue that Palin laughed nervously as a radio host called a cancer survivor a b**** and a cancer...this same poor fragile cancer survivor, a Republican, is the same woman who started the rumor that Palin faked her latest pregnancy to cover for her daughter). She vetoes a bill aimed at denying benefits for homosexual partners because it's unconstitutional and then panders to the people that they can try to change the State Constitution if they want. Then she started telling all of the oil companies to go to hell and signed a deal with a Canadian oil company instead, even though people thought she'd have a conflict of interest with her husband working for BP. And this whole Troopergate scandal is just making me love her more. She actually sent e-mails to her public safety director and encouraged him to support a bill that would give cops a 99 year mandatory sentence for committing murder, she then goes on to say how much trust people put in the police and that it's a huge betrayal when they betray the public trust, and that too many troopers were betraying the public trust, and then was like "Mike Wooten, for example." Then another bill that would strengthen gun prohibitions for the mentally ill, she says that she supports something like this but you also have to consider applying standards like this to the police officers, and was like "Mike Wooten, who threatened to kill my father, for instance." I absolutely hate police officers' unions when they stonewall and protect a corrupt POS. I don't know if she actually pressured him to fire the guy, but there's no way that that cop should have kept his badge after everything that the investigation confirmed that he did. And now Walter Monegan is showing these non-revealing e-mails as proof that governor Palin is lying. If she did pressure him, I think she would've had every right to do so (actually she had the right to fire him for any reason whatsoever), and I don't think she would've had anything to hide. It's pathetic that cops are exempt from so many of the firearms regulations that so many of the rest of us have to abide by. I could be way off but I really think that Palin is a libertarian in disguise who is just playing the game for the time being. I think she did well last night but they're not going to let her get too far away from the McCain message. I really loved her message to the Alaskan Independence Party's Convention (their Chair actually apologized today and confirmed that Sarah never was a member, but that Todd Palin was a member until 2002).

If you actually read the report it states over and over again that the abstinence-only program is not less effective than other programs. It also states that it has a possible short-term impact but that the numbers even out at the end of 6 years. So that leaves open the possibility that abstinence-only programs could reduce pre high school sex and perhaps thus pre high school pregnancies. They even out by the end of 6 years and equal numbers used protection in both groups, likely because in high school every kid has a separate health class to supplement the abstinence only indoctrination they received earlier. Your attack on abstinence-only programs = epic fail. Also, regardless of Sarah Palin's beliefs, the abstinence-only funding is a federal program, and despite that, you have no clue what they were teaching in her children's school. Also, Bristol's boyfriend's myspace page hadn't been updated in over a year, and I don't know how many high school guys will actually admit to wanting children on those stupid myspace surveys. I doubt he was vocal about not wanting kids; I assume he simply filled out the survey. And oh no he's a self-described redneck! Rednecks are the bane of America! He probably hates all the black people in Alaska! Yes, obviously it was probably an accident. Unless Bristol Palin was very eager to get married and used a pregnancy to force her parents to allow it. And since this sort of things happens in college towns all the time, it's apparent that educated young adults get pregnant on accident, many of them having done so while using contraception. So you don't have substantial proof that they didn't use contraception so it's not relevant to anything. What's the difference between a bad choice and a mistake? A teenage girl got pregnant. She fortunately happens to have a supportive family. When teenage girls become single moms and then the kids become single moms and then their kids become single moms and their sons grow up without male role models and they have no one willing to help them out and they become a drain on the American taxpayers or end up in America's prisons then that's a social problem. When a teenage girls gets pregnant and the families take care of the matter then it's a family problem. There were a lot of teen pregnancies in my rural town back when I was in high school, and we had sex ed in health class in junior high and again our freshman year of high school. A lot of teenage girls, with the help of their families, raised their children and stayed in school and it wasn't a big deal to anybody. And many other girls had abortions that no one knew about, one girl claiming to have had about 20 by the time she was 18. Of course you also think that the marriage is some idea of the parents rather than the children, and that that's "in true conservative fashion." Getting married before you turn 20 is just so unhip! Though I thought it was last year when Sarah Palin kept her daughter out of school and faked her own pregnancy and lied to everyone that that was in true conservative fashion. Get over it; it's a non-issue and the uncertainties and logical fallacies make it impossible to use in an argument. So trying to use it as an argument or speculating that they'll get divorced is simply being an ass. As much evidence as people supposedly have that Sarah Palin is a social conservative, I'd like to see some evidence that she actually governed like one. Dude, just calm down. You need to smoke a joint or have sex or something. I already had sex while watching the Republican Convention. I was disappointed that they didn't count all the votes.

If you actually read the report it states over and over again that the abstinence-only program is not less effective than other programs. It also states that it has a possible short-term impact but that the numbers even out at the end of 6 years. So that leaves open the possibility that abstinence-only programs could reduce pre high school sex and perhaps thus pre high school pregnancies. They even out by the end of 6 years and equal numbers used protection in both groups, likely because in high school every kid has a separate health class to supplement the abstinence only indoctrination they received earlier. Your attack on abstinence-only programs = epic fail. Also, regardless of Sarah Palin's beliefs, the abstinence-only funding is a federal program, and despite that, you have no clue what they were teaching in her children's school. Also, Bristol's boyfriend's myspace page hadn't been updated in over a year, and I don't know how many high school guys will actually admit to wanting children on those stupid myspace surveys. I doubt he was vocal about not wanting kids; I assume he simply filled out the survey. And oh no he's a self-described redneck! Rednecks are the bane of America! He probably hates all the black people in Alaska! Yes, obviously it was probably an accident. Unless Bristol Palin was very eager to get married and used a pregnancy to force her parents to allow it. And since this sort of things happens in college towns all the time, it's apparent that educated young adults get pregnant on accident, many of them having done so while using contraception. So you don't have substantial proof that they didn't use contraception so it's not relevant to anything. What's the difference between a bad choice and a mistake? A teenage girl got pregnant. She fortunately happens to have a supportive family. When teenage girls become single moms and then the kids become single moms and then their kids become single moms and their sons grow up without male role models and they have no one willing to help them out and they become a drain on the American taxpayers or end up in America's prisons then that's a social problem. When a teenage girls gets pregnant and the families take care of the matter then it's a family problem. There were a lot of teen pregnancies in my rural town back when I was in high school, and we had sex ed in health class in junior high and again our freshman year of high school. A lot of teenage girls, with the help of their families, raised their children and stayed in school and it wasn't a big deal to anybody. And many other girls had abortions that no one knew about, one girl claiming to have had about 20 by the time she was 18. Of course you also think that the marriage is some idea of the parents rather than the children, and that that's "in true conservative fashion." Getting married before you turn 20 is just so unhip! Though I thought it was last year when Sarah Palin kept her daughter out of school and faked her own pregnancy and lied to everyone that that was in true conservative fashion. Get over it; it's a non-issue and the uncertainties and logical fallacies make it impossible to use in an argument. So trying to use it as an argument or speculating that they'll get divorced is simply being an ass. As much evidence as people supposedly have that Sarah Palin is a social conservative, I'd like to see some evidence that she actually governed like one.