O'Donnell enthusiastically vowing to keep America from having sex. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/24/christine-odonnell-will-s_n_738276.html Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Distort the truth much? The discussion was about KIDS having sex. Nor was she allowed to ever finish what she was saying so you are just taking a blurb out of context. She was trying to say there was an alternative to just promoting "safe sex" for teenagers. Arthur
Her real meaning is deluded enough. The alternative is to ask them not to have sex, which is far more difficult for most adolescents than it appears to be for her.
anyone against the pleasures of masturbation should be in a mental institution not running for office.
yes there is an alternative that doesn't mean the alternative is wise, smart, effective, and/or rational which it isn't. teens were fucking 2000 years ago and they will be fucking 2000 years from now and nothing anyone says or does will change that.
Each one of us has the right to have their opinion about anything. If others agree with her and vote for her then she has a following that think the same and should be allowed to become elected if she can win her candidacy. It seems that many people forget that there are many people who are just like her, fortunatly I do not believe the majority, that should have the right to be heard.
I have no idea what her idea is, one couldn't tell it from the video because everybody was talking over everybody else. The best I could tell was that she was saying there was an alternative to JUST promoting "safe sex" for teenagers. That JUST part is critical. You leave that out, you distort the entire discussion. Buy my point was not about the issue, it was that the OP was not honest. She wasn't enthusiastically vowing to keep America from having sex. I find when one has to lie to make one's point, then you probably should reconsider the point you are trying to make. Arthur
She must be your kind of leader that does not have a clue on jobs, economy or civil society. Good for you.
I don't know a thing about her. I watched the video in the link and that's the only exposure I've ever had to her. But it was enough to show that the OP was not true. Good on you. Arthur
Then watch some more... like Bill Maher last week and perhaps this week.... The OP was a link, nothing but the link...
It's NOT about her. It's about you not being honest in the OP. That subject is not likely to come up on the Bill Maher. Arthur
Ah, that big bold part in RED O'Donnell enthusiastically vowing to keep America from having sex. Was not a link Arthur
How so? Please explain Did you go to the link? The link says... Sweet sassy molassey! People are still finding clips of GOP Delaware Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell saying strange things on the teevee? Apparently, Christine O'Donnell was, all this time, one of the most televised figures in politics. Additionally, her desire to stop the unmarried masses from making sweet, sweet love to one another was astoundingly ambitious. From Greg Sargent, here's a clip of O'Donnell enthusiastically vowing to keep America from having sex.
Because the discussion on the video was about what to do about young people having sex. Not quite what your "headline" implies now is it? Oh, and repeating a lie made by someone else doesn't make it any less of a lie. Arthur
I've read the link, I've watched the video and it's quite clear she is not vowing to keep America from having sex. Arthur
According to the Washington Post Transcript: NIES: I tell them to be careful. You have to wear a condom. You have to protect yourself when you're going to have sex, because they're having it anyway. NIES: There's nothing that you or me can do about it. O'DONNELL: The sad reality is -- yes, there is something you can do about it. And the sad reality, to tell them slap on a condom is not -- NIES: You're going to stop the whole country from having sex? O'DONNELL: Yeah. Yeah! NIES: You're living on a prayer if you think that's going to happen. O'DONNELL: That's not true. I'm a young woman in my thirties and I remain chaste. Link: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/video_of_christine_odonnell_im.html
She didn't get a chance to explain what she was discussing, but it doesn't matter, even when they asked about the whole country it was in the CONTEXT of the discussion which was about KIDS having sex. That's who Nies means when he says "I tell THEM to be careful". Them = KIDS Which is the KEY word left out of your headline. You KNOW she was talking about KIDS. You KNOW you are wrong. Show you are an adult and admit it. If not, that's fine, but then you are just exposing your real character. Arthur
Actually no. O'Donnell is very anti-sex outside of wedlock, anti-masturbation, anti-abortion (even in instances of rape or incest) and has also said that she thinks it is sinful to admire one's naked self in the mirror. The comment was quite clear: Take special note of the last sentence. Unless you think that people in their thirties are kids, she was not talking just about "kids". As for homosexuals: My personal favourite, however, is what she thinks of science and the belief she seems to hold about what scientists in the US are doing at the moment in regards to cloning: I chuckle to myself each time I read that. Now, you can try and claim she was talking about children, but she actually was not. Up to when the ultra-right religious tea-party endorsed her, she was seen as somewhat of a hack by the GOP. But how much things can change when the Tea Party came to town.
A view from over here I think it's a matter of perspective. Christine O'Donnell is a scatterbrained prude. To the one, she answered affirmatively whether or not she was going to stop all America from having sex. Taken literally, the topic post is accurate. But irresponsible speech is a nearly universal malady in the United States, and probably around the world. So, sure, we can cut her some slack and suggest she would stop all unmarried teenagers in America from having sex. Or we might chuckle and take her colloquially. For instance, there is an old joke: Q: How do you stop a nymphomaniac from having sex? A: Marry her. In that particular context, as an opponent of sex outside marriage, Ms. O'Donnell can still be construed as seeking to stop Americans from having sex. I think it's more accurate, however, to look at her crusade from a psychological standpoint. She claimed to be in her thirties, and remain chaste. Yet for how many years did she crusade among teenagers, talking about sex? There comes a point at which this sort of behavior becomes one's sex life. And within that sort of neurosis, we find all sorts of complicated standards. There are women in America who feel guilty every day for being a slut ... because they survived a rape. I've witnessed this phenomenon in a close friend. How does this come about? Well, part of it is that sex is so important to people; young people are taught to judge one another morally according to sexual conduct. Indeed, a person's value as a human being is, for many, determined in part by their sexual behavior. It is people like Ms. O'Donnell who make sex so complicated in this way. Sexual contact is powerfully intimate; it occurs at a nearly unparalleled valence of trust. Adding to that the superficial burdens of strange standards (promiscuous man is admirable, promiscuous woman is reprehensible) in order to satisfy other people's neuroses is an absurd proposition our society has too long entertained. And we see in many of these professional moralists the toll of their repression. Ted Haggard, Sen. David Vitter, Gov. Mark Sanford, countless youth pastors across the country, Catholic priests; these exhibit what Freud calls the "slow return of the repressed", in which the repressed behavior still finds a way to the surface. In Ms. O'Donnell's case, it is in her years-long crusade to involve herself in the sex lives of teenagers. And the conflicts continue to mount; she is an extroverted coward wrapped up in political rhetoric. Everything we've seen of her so far that seems so strange roots in her internal conflicts. One of her most ridiculous arguments is about masturbation: if he (e.g., a husband) is finding self-gratification, what is she (e.g., a wife) there for? Well, look at how prominent sex is in the marital association for her. Really? Sex is that important? What else is she there for? I don't know, maybe in her mind partnership is only about sexual relations. For many other people, though, there is a lot more to it. What ever happened, for instance, to that myth that your spouse is supposed to be your best friend? I mean, what else goes on in marriage? Is it just a reservation for sexual gratification? I would hope it's more, but apparently Ms. O'Donnell doesn't see much else to it. Like, say, what is the difference between a spouse who enjoys the trip to Ireland with you, and one who nags about your drinking as you tour the Guinness Storehouse? Apparently nothing; or, at least, according to Ms. O'Donnell. Because marriage is about sex. Frankly, if I ever get married, I'll apparently be doing it wrong. Just like a friend of mine does. He found a woman who likes to drink beer and smoke pot with him, and they sit around playing World of Warcraft together. I mean, holy shit! I'm not a WoW fan, but if I ever found a partner I could smoke pot, drink beer, catch a concert, watch football, enjoy cooking, talk deeply about art, literature, and philosophy, and travel around in search of strange reverence with, yes, I would consider marriage. Sure, I probably wouldn't marry a "cold fish", but I certainly wouldn't be offended if my spouse gets off by hand from time to time. Hell, I'd probably call it a plus. And, hey, I have a kid already; doesn't she count for something? Not according to Ms. O'Donnell. None of it counts, according to Ms. O'Donnell, except the primary reservation of sexual gratification by the will and permission of the spouse. She makes sex more important, and more complicated than it should be. Indeed, if one arrives at such a neurotic state about sex, celibacy is something they should seriously consider. It's a long route, but it all adds up to the same thing if people aren't having sex because it's not worth the headache. Like I said, it's a matter of perspective.
