Overall, this underscores the need for conservatives to fully assess candidates before nomination not simply mindlessly support them because they spout populist rhetoric.
As an aside, I wonder how many of the Tea Party backed female GOP candidates would answer a question regarding affirmative action or no-fault divorce.
You’re saying you actually believe negative implications about Ms. O’Donnell? The one now... running for Senate?
Why in the world would you?
I think you’ve shown me that feminism can be outdone by masculinism.
What’s provocative about O’ Donnell. Without porn it’s not all so much of an enticement to masturbate.
Personally, even I think there’s a problem with those who do porn and masturbate, but don’t get a REAL LIFE.
>>Despite the humorous title, the article is a serious examination of Christine O’Donnell’s more provocative positions. <<
They weren’t provocative, they were candid. And they were said off the cuff (and rather principled) when she was media-mugged.
>>Overall, this underscores the need for conservatives to fully assess candidates before nomination not simply mindlessly support them because they spout populist rhetoric. <<
Overall, this underscores the need for Conservatives to look at the candidate in toto and not simply mindlessly deride him or her based on MSM talking points.
Your derision is misplaced and your analysis inaccurate. You should reexamine your Conservative credentials and look her her accordingly.
” sued a former employer for “gender discrimination” claiming that she suffered “mental anguish”. “
That is much more disturbing to me than the stuff about masturbation or witchcraft.
Regarding the masturbation issue, I think it’s important to consider the context of her views at the time (I’m not certain if she still holds them). She was a young Christian woman, and she was advocating a moral position on a topic that is well aligned with traditional Christian values. To call her an “anti-masturbation crusader” without noting the reason she held those views and thought it important to try and spread them, is unnecessarily antagonistic.
Also, the assertion that she only focused on male masturbation is tenuous. It looks to me like that conclusion was drawn from a few seconds of an edited video clip. Do we know the context of the conversation? Was she asked a question by one of the women in the group specifically about male masturbation? Did she focus inordinately on male masturbation in her public campaign? The video doesn’t give us that information, and I can only assume the author of this piece doesn’t have that information either, and if so, they’re being presumptious.
Btw, is this your site or are you just reposting the article?
Christine’s trying to save you from going blind, and all you can do is hate her. Whatever.
By the way, how do you manage to type so well one-handed? Impressive!
When masturbation becomes as big a threat as $12 TRILLION in debt, I’ll worry about what she thinks on the subject.
No doubt I'm always looking for the perfect conservative candidate. But voters can only choose between the people who run. If there's only one conservative in the race what is one to do?
And as for masturbation, I do appreciate that Dems have decided to run on the Pro-Masturbation platform. It shows they've finally moved on from their 2008 platform: The Circle Jerk.
.... whorled peas...
and they can take them themselves in hand and pull themselves together.
I masturbate and I contributed to O’Donnell.
If she wins, I’ll stop masturbating in her honor — for one day.
Anyone remember the uproar following Jocelyn Elders comments on the topic of masturbation??????????
I honestly could not care less about her views on masturbation. Why do they have any relevance? What is she going to do, introduce a bill to ban it?
She is a vote against the Omaba agenda. Coons is a vote for it. That is all that matters.
Men who masturbate, especially to pornography, don’t have as much sexual energy to direct at their wives. It’s a huge problem. God doesn’t want to take away; he wants to give a bigger blessing. No one really wants to address this, but it’s important. Not for legislation but for Christ discipleship. Kudos to her for addressing this.
Christine is articulate, young enough to have many years of public service ahead of her, suitably disrespectful of convention and authority, and right on the issues. Given that, why would anyone be distracted by any of the things the MSM reflexively throws in her path?
The most important goal now is to catch, draw and quarter the democrat donkey that has been trashing our political landscape.
The best revenge Christine can have is to raise so much money that she can assist other candidates. RNC gave her $40K and calls it assistance? It’s a sick joke. You, Christian Cage, please send her $100 in support.
You remind me of something Prof. Harvey Mansfield said when interviewed on Uncommon Knowledge which went something like this:
The people who put toleration first are intolerant of those who don’t put toleration first. If you have any kind of principle, or try to live by any kind of principle, toleration is NOT the most important thing in your life.
—my emphasis—and by the way—we live in a free country. What you do in your bedroom is your business and she knows that.....and does not want bedroom police. It is the masturbaters and homosexuals that want the cameras in the bedroom and force young children to learn and approve of those actions. I think I just saw a video of some man in Walmart making all the toys sticky.
I am glad there are laws against masturbation in public....there was this transient who was making a mess in my husband’s waiting room—extremely sick. It can, and often is, a very demeaning, nihilistic action, that diminishes and devalues the human being. It is also very antisocial. :(
Is there even the slightest indication that she intends to put her views on masturbation into public policy? I haven’t heard anything to make me think so so I don’t give a fig what her personal feelings about it are.
Get a grip.
You got a problem with that?
What she actually believes is quite compelling and will win a lot of votes. I think the analysis is wrong. it might be true for some, but i don’t think for Christine. Let’s look deeper, or more broadly. Masturbation is just one of a wide variety of things that she’s discussed and you get a clear, and good, picture of her.
http://thinkprogress.org/christine-odonnell-record/
That’s whole bunch of “crazy” things that the American people will love.
Here’s a few.
“Not only is she [Britney Spears] sending a dangerous message about sexuality to girls, but I think she’s setting the feminist movement back a bit, too, because she’s saying that sexuality is the core of our identity.”
gonna fight that?
They think it’s controversial, because Christine is saying britney spears is dangerous. Bring it on. We win feminists with that! Only a certain type of elite mentality disagrees with her.
“I think that this show is very dangerous, especially to the women’s movement. It’s no wonder people call it ‘Sluts in the City’ because it teaches young women to be whores, basically, to be used by men, to bed hop. And it ignores the fact that you know when you are treating sex like this that there’s shame, there’s loneliness that follows. And I think that the characters on this show are very revealing in that they long for a true relationship. They long for something meaningful in their lives.”
Christine is anti loneliness. The media is pro loneliness.
Christine is pro meaningful. The media is anti meaningful.
Bring it on. Bring it on.