Your strange, stream of consciousness post reveals more about you than it does about Bristol, Sarah, Levi, or conservatism. And it's not flattering.
Let's see, you've been a member of FR for less than one year (as opposed to me being a member for almost 11 years), and yet you read one post of mine and consider that I am not a conservative because I praised Bristol for being able to make money on her own? Perhaps that sounds like 'grrrl power' (whatever that means) to wimps and pencil necked metrosexuals, but my point was very clear that it's good for a young woman to be able to make it on her own in a lawful, positive way rather than be a parasite like Levi by making money in an effort to damage the Palins by selling BS to a gossip rag like the National Inquirer.
Your misplaced indictment of 'grrrrl power' has no place in this discussion, so I don't know why you are compelled to make that point. Levi is infamous for getting his girlfriend pregnant, badmouthing her, and deliberately making her and her mother look bad repeatedly. That's not being notable (famous for doing something positive), but rather infamous (fame for doing something negative).
Bristol became a public figure for being the daughter of a vice presidential candidate that became pregnant while single and in her teens. She made the decision to raise her baby, and people have opinions about whether that was wise or not, both in her case and as an example for other young girls her age. This may or may not be wise, and finding herself in that predicament is certainly a mistake, but it doesn't rise to negative, antisocial, or infamous behavior. She had the love and support of her family, and her conduct didn't harm anyone else. Levi, on the other hand, used his status as a sperm donor to try to harm the Palins (including the mother of his child) in order to turn a profit.
Bristol's conduct isn't hurting or embarrassing anyone. Levi's conduct was hurtful and embarrassing to the Palins. That you can't distinguish between the two is a startling indictment of you, your world view, and your judgment.
Bristol and Levi don't have an unlimited license to do anything in order to do well economically to help their baby. They certainly shouldn't do anything antisocial, harmful, or criminal. Indeed, Levi's antics are a poor example of parenthood - hurting people close to him in order to turn a buck isn't conduct becoming of a responsible father. So you're wrong to suggest that Levi using any avenue to do well economically is a good thing.
Nowhere did I even suggest that Bristol wasn't a participant in her pregnancy. You're connecting dots that simply aren't there.
Further, you assert that "conservatism is against child support especially when the mother is wealthy and can take care of the child on her own." That's patently wrong. That's not a tenet or a facet of conservatism at all. Some conservatives think that alimony in divorce cases should be minimized or eliminated when the woman has strong earnings, true. But you specifically wrote about child support. The fact that a mother does well financially doesn't absolve the father of supporting his child. Two different things: child support and alimony. You confused the two.
If you have credible, mainstream sources to support your assertion that "conservatism is against child support especially when the mother is wealthy," please provide it. Otherwise your assertion is just shallow bluster, used to help prop up your tenuous argument.
If you intention is to defend Levi, your posts would be better suited at DU or any other liberal hellhole where they can be cheered on and supported. But we at FR are more sensible, wise, and fair.
As for your charge of misandry, that's baseless and out of place. If you somehow think that the reason people support Sarah is due to their hatred of men (like Levi), come up with some compelling evidence, and not baseless conclusions. The only time Levi's name comes up is when his antics make the news and are part of the discourse, otherwise I never think about him, nor ruminate on any animus towards him or other males.
If you have compelling evidence that Palin's support is rooted in the hatred of men, please provide it. I'm sure people would like to hear it. But most women like men – real men – that is. Not only do women like them, but they love real men and feel good around them. I know I do, and that has nothing at all to do with supporting or not supporting Sarah Palin politically.
If you're hearing crickets when you make your points, it's probably because they are poorly formed opinions based on dubious assertions and faulty conclusions. Most FR women (and men for that matter) probably see no reason to respond to such poorly constructed thoughts.
Honestly, I don't blame them for ignoring you, I was tempted to do the same, but on the other hand, sometimes a little sense can shake imaginary crickets into reality... or maybe not.
BRAVO!!!