OMG – Someone please control Christine O’donnell

[Coronita]

delete

[Coronita]

The followup story…

http://gawker.com/5676725/why-we-published-the-christine-odonnell-story?skyline=true&s=i

Yesterday, we published the anonymous account of a young man from Philadelphia who had a naked sleepover with Delaware GOP senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell three years ago. Some people did not like that! Here’s why we’d do it again.

The reaction to the O’Donnell story was fairly unanimous: The New York Times’ David Carr called it “skeevy” and “scuzzy”; TBD’s Amanda Hess called it “degrading” and “misogynist”; and the National Organization for Women accused us of “public sexual harassment.” Andrew Sullivan found it to be a “cowardly, brutal and misogynist invasion of privacy,” while O’Donnell’s campaign called it “slander” and labeled us “classless Coons goons,” falsely claiming that we were doing the bidding of her Democratic opponent, Chris Coons. (O’Donnell did not dispute any of the story’s particulars.) The Coons campaign, meanwhile, called it “despicable.”

Three general lines of argument have emerged attacking the post: 1) Politicians’ intimate sexual encounters—or at least this intimate sexual encounter—ought to be off-limits; 2) O’Donnell is a woman, and publishing accounts of her sexual behavior amounts to sexist “slut-shaming”; and 3) Nothing in the account we published directly contradicts O’Donnell’s public stances.

What’s missing from most of the criticism is this essential bit of context: Christine O’Donnell is seeking federal office based in part on her self-generated, and carefully tended, image as a sexually chaste woman. She lies about who she is; she tells that lie in service of an attempt to impose her private sexual values on her fellow citizens; and she’s running for Senate. We thought information documenting that lie—that O’Donnell does not live a chaste life as she defines the word, and in fact hops into bed, naked and drunk, with men that she’s just met—was of interest to our readers.

Much of the criticism leveled against us is based on the premise that we think hopping into bed, naked and drunk, with men or women whenever one wants is “slutty,” and that therefore our publication of Anonymous’ story was intended to diminish O’Donnell on those terms. Any reader of this site ought to rather quickly gather that we are in fact avid supporters of hopping into bed, naked and drunk, with men or women that one has just met.
Our problem with O’Donnell—and the reason that the information we published about her is relevant—is that she has repeatedly described herself and her beliefs in terms that suggest that there is something wrong with hopping into bed, naked and drunk, with a man or woman whom one has just met. So that fact that she behaves that way, while publicly condemning similar behavior, in the context of an attempt to win a seat in the United States Senate, is a story we thought people might like to know about. We also thought it would get us lots of clicks and money and attention. But we thought it would get us clicks and money and attention because it was exposing her lies.

…..

Well, here’s what Christine O’Donnell thinks about abstinence and virginity, per a 1998 essay in a right-wing journal:

As Christians, virginity is not even our goal. Purity and holiness are our calling in Christ. In Philippians 3:14 when the apostle Paul urges us to “press toward the goal” he is not calling us to push the limits as long as we don’t cross the line. He continues to assure us that it is a prize, a great reward, to live as Christ calls us to live.

[snip]

I know many physical virgins who are not sexually pure. I know many virgins who are into pornography or who are “doing everything but” with their boyfriends. On the flip side, I know many non-virgins who live beautiful, holy, pure lives through the power of Christ’s blood.

Well, we certainly know one virgin—or revirginated virgin—who is not “pure.” Or maybe she is. Maybe in light of the above, Christine O’Donnell’s definition of purity, of chastity, of living “through the power of Christ’s blood” comports, in her mind, with her behavior on Halloween three years ago, when she got drunk, sought after the affections of a man she barely knew, asked him to take her home, took off all her clothes, and got into bed with him. If so, it’s a strange (and kind of interesting!) definition of chastity, one that is directly at odds with O’Donnell’s carefully crafted public image, and one that we thought people ought to know about. (Also: The irony of the “she didn’t do it” argument is the implication that if she had done it, then that would be a story. But also you’re not supposed to talk about ladies having sex and it’s all very private and you monsters!)

“Slut-shaming” is telling women that if they indulge their sexual desires they are impure. It’s telling them that if they view pornography, there is something wrong with them. Christine O’Donnell seeks to “shame” “sluts” on an hourly basis. Worse, she believes people who hop into bed with people they barely know who happen to be of the same sex suffer from an “identity disorder” and are “deviants.” She has repeatedly chosen, of her own volition, to make it her business to condemn the private sexual behaviors of millions of men and women who believe, or behave, differently than she does. She’s of course free to do so. But when it turns out that her own private sexual behavior doesn’t measure up to her public rhetoric—that she “push[es] the limits” without crossing the line as opposed to “living through the power of Christ’s blood”—it deserves to be noted. And the argument that someone’s private life shouldn’t be the object of public attention isn’t really available to someone who has manufactured a political and pseudo-celebrity career out of publicly casting judgment on the private behavior of others.

[Coronita]

The followup story…

http://gawker.com/5676725/why-we-published-the-christine-odonnell-story?skyline=true&s=i

Yesterday, we published the anonymous account of a young man from Philadelphia who had a naked sleepover with Delaware GOP senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell three years ago. Some people did not like that! Here’s why we’d do it again.

The reaction to the O’Donnell story was fairly unanimous: The New York Times’ David Carr called it “skeevy” and “scuzzy”; TBD’s Amanda Hess called it “degrading” and “misogynist”; and the National Organization for Women accused us of “public sexual harassment.” Andrew Sullivan found it to be a “cowardly, brutal and misogynist invasion of privacy,” while O’Donnell’s campaign called it “slander” and labeled us “classless Coons goons,” falsely claiming that we were doing the bidding of her Democratic opponent, Chris Coons. (O’Donnell did not dispute any of the story’s particulars.) The Coons campaign, meanwhile, called it “despicable.”

Three general lines of argument have emerged attacking the post: 1) Politicians’ intimate sexual encounters—or at least this intimate sexual encounter—ought to be off-limits; 2) O’Donnell is a woman, and publishing accounts of her sexual behavior amounts to sexist “slut-shaming”; and 3) Nothing in the account we published directly contradicts O’Donnell’s public stances.

What’s missing from most of the criticism is this essential bit of context: Christine O’Donnell is seeking federal office based in part on her self-generated, and carefully tended, image as a sexually chaste woman. She lies about who she is; she tells that lie in service of an attempt to impose her private sexual values on her fellow citizens; and she’s running for Senate. We thought information documenting that lie—that O’Donnell does not live a chaste life as she defines the word, and in fact hops into bed, naked and drunk, with men that she’s just met—was of interest to our readers.

Much of the criticism leveled against us is based on the premise that we think hopping into bed, naked and drunk, with men or women whenever one wants is “slutty,” and that therefore our publication of Anonymous’ story was intended to diminish O’Donnell on those terms. Any reader of this site ought to rather quickly gather that we are in fact avid supporters of hopping into bed, naked and drunk, with men or women that one has just met.
Our problem with O’Donnell—and the reason that the information we published about her is relevant—is that she has repeatedly described herself and her beliefs in terms that suggest that there is something wrong with hopping into bed, naked and drunk, with a man or woman whom one has just met. So that fact that she behaves that way, while publicly condemning similar behavior, in the context of an attempt to win a seat in the United States Senate, is a story we thought people might like to know about. We also thought it would get us lots of clicks and money and attention. But we thought it would get us clicks and money and attention because it was exposing her lies.

…..

Well, here’s what Christine O’Donnell thinks about abstinence and virginity, per a 1998 essay in a right-wing journal:

As Christians, virginity is not even our goal. Purity and holiness are our calling in Christ. In Philippians 3:14 when the apostle Paul urges us to “press toward the goal” he is not calling us to push the limits as long as we don’t cross the line. He continues to assure us that it is a prize, a great reward, to live as Christ calls us to live.

[snip]

I know many physical virgins who are not sexually pure. I know many virgins who are into pornography or who are “doing everything but” with their boyfriends. On the flip side, I know many non-virgins who live beautiful, holy, pure lives through the power of Christ’s blood.

Well, we certainly know one virgin—or revirginated virgin—who is not “pure.” Or maybe she is. Maybe in light of the above, Christine O’Donnell’s definition of purity, of chastity, of living “through the power of Christ’s blood” comports, in her mind, with her behavior on Halloween three years ago, when she got drunk, sought after the affections of a man she barely knew, asked him to take her home, took off all her clothes, and got into bed with him. If so, it’s a strange (and kind of interesting!) definition of chastity, one that is directly at odds with O’Donnell’s carefully crafted public image, and one that we thought people ought to know about. (Also: The irony of the “she didn’t do it” argument is the implication that if she had done it, then that would be a story. But also you’re not supposed to talk about ladies having sex and it’s all very private and you monsters!)

“Slut-shaming” is telling women that if they indulge their sexual desires they are impure. It’s telling them that if they view pornography, there is something wrong with them. Christine O’Donnell seeks to “shame” “sluts” on an hourly basis. Worse, she believes people who hop into bed with people they barely know who happen to be of the same sex suffer from an “identity disorder” and are “deviants.” She has repeatedly chosen, of her own volition, to make it her business to condemn the private sexual behaviors of millions of men and women who believe, or behave, differently than she does. She’s of course free to do so. But when it turns out that her own private sexual behavior doesn’t measure up to her public rhetoric—that she “push[es] the limits” without crossing the line as opposed to “living through the power of Christ’s blood”—it deserves to be noted. And the argument that someone’s private life shouldn’t be the object of public attention isn’t really available to someone who has manufactured a political and pseudo-celebrity career out of publicly casting judgment on the private behavior of others.

[Coronita]

The followup story…

http://gawker.com/5676725/why-we-published-the-christine-odonnell-story?skyline=true&s=i

Yesterday, we published the anonymous account of a young man from Philadelphia who had a naked sleepover with Delaware GOP senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell three years ago. Some people did not like that! Here’s why we’d do it again.

The reaction to the O’Donnell story was fairly unanimous: The New York Times’ David Carr called it “skeevy” and “scuzzy”; TBD’s Amanda Hess called it “degrading” and “misogynist”; and the National Organization for Women accused us of “public sexual harassment.” Andrew Sullivan found it to be a “cowardly, brutal and misogynist invasion of privacy,” while O’Donnell’s campaign called it “slander” and labeled us “classless Coons goons,” falsely claiming that we were doing the bidding of her Democratic opponent, Chris Coons. (O’Donnell did not dispute any of the story’s particulars.) The Coons campaign, meanwhile, called it “despicable.”

Three general lines of argument have emerged attacking the post: 1) Politicians’ intimate sexual encounters—or at least this intimate sexual encounter—ought to be off-limits; 2) O’Donnell is a woman, and publishing accounts of her sexual behavior amounts to sexist “slut-shaming”; and 3) Nothing in the account we published directly contradicts O’Donnell’s public stances.

What’s missing from most of the criticism is this essential bit of context: Christine O’Donnell is seeking federal office based in part on her self-generated, and carefully tended, image as a sexually chaste woman. She lies about who she is; she tells that lie in service of an attempt to impose her private sexual values on her fellow citizens; and she’s running for Senate. We thought information documenting that lie—that O’Donnell does not live a chaste life as she defines the word, and in fact hops into bed, naked and drunk, with men that she’s just met—was of interest to our readers.

Much of the criticism leveled against us is based on the premise that we think hopping into bed, naked and drunk, with men or women whenever one wants is “slutty,” and that therefore our publication of Anonymous’ story was intended to diminish O’Donnell on those terms. Any reader of this site ought to rather quickly gather that we are in fact avid supporters of hopping into bed, naked and drunk, with men or women that one has just met.
Our problem with O’Donnell—and the reason that the information we published about her is relevant—is that she has repeatedly described herself and her beliefs in terms that suggest that there is something wrong with hopping into bed, naked and drunk, with a man or woman whom one has just met. So that fact that she behaves that way, while publicly condemning similar behavior, in the context of an attempt to win a seat in the United States Senate, is a story we thought people might like to know about. We also thought it would get us lots of clicks and money and attention. But we thought it would get us clicks and money and attention because it was exposing her lies.

…..

Well, here’s what Christine O’Donnell thinks about abstinence and virginity, per a 1998 essay in a right-wing journal:

As Christians, virginity is not even our goal. Purity and holiness are our calling in Christ. In Philippians 3:14 when the apostle Paul urges us to “press toward the goal” he is not calling us to push the limits as long as we don’t cross the line. He continues to assure us that it is a prize, a great reward, to live as Christ calls us to live.

[snip]

I know many physical virgins who are not sexually pure. I know many virgins who are into pornography or who are “doing everything but” with their boyfriends. On the flip side, I know many non-virgins who live beautiful, holy, pure lives through the power of Christ’s blood.

Well, we certainly know one virgin—or revirginated virgin—who is not “pure.” Or maybe she is. Maybe in light of the above, Christine O’Donnell’s definition of purity, of chastity, of living “through the power of Christ’s blood” comports, in her mind, with her behavior on Halloween three years ago, when she got drunk, sought after the affections of a man she barely knew, asked him to take her home, took off all her clothes, and got into bed with him. If so, it’s a strange (and kind of interesting!) definition of chastity, one that is directly at odds with O’Donnell’s carefully crafted public image, and one that we thought people ought to know about. (Also: The irony of the “she didn’t do it” argument is the implication that if she had done it, then that would be a story. But also you’re not supposed to talk about ladies having sex and it’s all very private and you monsters!)

“Slut-shaming” is telling women that if they indulge their sexual desires they are impure. It’s telling them that if they view pornography, there is something wrong with them. Christine O’Donnell seeks to “shame” “sluts” on an hourly basis. Worse, she believes people who hop into bed with people they barely know who happen to be of the same sex suffer from an “identity disorder” and are “deviants.” She has repeatedly chosen, of her own volition, to make it her business to condemn the private sexual behaviors of millions of men and women who believe, or behave, differently than she does. She’s of course free to do so. But when it turns out that her own private sexual behavior doesn’t measure up to her public rhetoric—that she “push[es] the limits” without crossing the line as opposed to “living through the power of Christ’s blood”—it deserves to be noted. And the argument that someone’s private life shouldn’t be the object of public attention isn’t really available to someone who has manufactured a political and pseudo-celebrity career out of publicly casting judgment on the private behavior of others.

[Coronita]

The followup story…

http://gawker.com/5676725/why-we-published-the-christine-odonnell-story?skyline=true&s=i

Yesterday, we published the anonymous account of a young man from Philadelphia who had a naked sleepover with Delaware GOP senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell three years ago. Some people did not like that! Here’s why we’d do it again.

The reaction to the O’Donnell story was fairly unanimous: The New York Times’ David Carr called it “skeevy” and “scuzzy”; TBD’s Amanda Hess called it “degrading” and “misogynist”; and the National Organization for Women accused us of “public sexual harassment.” Andrew Sullivan found it to be a “cowardly, brutal and misogynist invasion of privacy,” while O’Donnell’s campaign called it “slander” and labeled us “classless Coons goons,” falsely claiming that we were doing the bidding of her Democratic opponent, Chris Coons. (O’Donnell did not dispute any of the story’s particulars.) The Coons campaign, meanwhile, called it “despicable.”

Three general lines of argument have emerged attacking the post: 1) Politicians’ intimate sexual encounters—or at least this intimate sexual encounter—ought to be off-limits; 2) O’Donnell is a woman, and publishing accounts of her sexual behavior amounts to sexist “slut-shaming”; and 3) Nothing in the account we published directly contradicts O’Donnell’s public stances.

What’s missing from most of the criticism is this essential bit of context: Christine O’Donnell is seeking federal office based in part on her self-generated, and carefully tended, image as a sexually chaste woman. She lies about who she is; she tells that lie in service of an attempt to impose her private sexual values on her fellow citizens; and she’s running for Senate. We thought information documenting that lie—that O’Donnell does not live a chaste life as she defines the word, and in fact hops into bed, naked and drunk, with men that she’s just met—was of interest to our readers.

Much of the criticism leveled against us is based on the premise that we think hopping into bed, naked and drunk, with men or women whenever one wants is “slutty,” and that therefore our publication of Anonymous’ story was intended to diminish O’Donnell on those terms. Any reader of this site ought to rather quickly gather that we are in fact avid supporters of hopping into bed, naked and drunk, with men or women that one has just met.
Our problem with O’Donnell—and the reason that the information we published about her is relevant—is that she has repeatedly described herself and her beliefs in terms that suggest that there is something wrong with hopping into bed, naked and drunk, with a man or woman whom one has just met. So that fact that she behaves that way, while publicly condemning similar behavior, in the context of an attempt to win a seat in the United States Senate, is a story we thought people might like to know about. We also thought it would get us lots of clicks and money and attention. But we thought it would get us clicks and money and attention because it was exposing her lies.

…..

Well, here’s what Christine O’Donnell thinks about abstinence and virginity, per a 1998 essay in a right-wing journal:

As Christians, virginity is not even our goal. Purity and holiness are our calling in Christ. In Philippians 3:14 when the apostle Paul urges us to “press toward the goal” he is not calling us to push the limits as long as we don’t cross the line. He continues to assure us that it is a prize, a great reward, to live as Christ calls us to live.

[snip]

I know many physical virgins who are not sexually pure. I know many virgins who are into pornography or who are “doing everything but” with their boyfriends. On the flip side, I know many non-virgins who live beautiful, holy, pure lives through the power of Christ’s blood.

Well, we certainly know one virgin—or revirginated virgin—who is not “pure.” Or maybe she is. Maybe in light of the above, Christine O’Donnell’s definition of purity, of chastity, of living “through the power of Christ’s blood” comports, in her mind, with her behavior on Halloween three years ago, when she got drunk, sought after the affections of a man she barely knew, asked him to take her home, took off all her clothes, and got into bed with him. If so, it’s a strange (and kind of interesting!) definition of chastity, one that is directly at odds with O’Donnell’s carefully crafted public image, and one that we thought people ought to know about. (Also: The irony of the “she didn’t do it” argument is the implication that if she had done it, then that would be a story. But also you’re not supposed to talk about ladies having sex and it’s all very private and you monsters!)

“Slut-shaming” is telling women that if they indulge their sexual desires they are impure. It’s telling them that if they view pornography, there is something wrong with them. Christine O’Donnell seeks to “shame” “sluts” on an hourly basis. Worse, she believes people who hop into bed with people they barely know who happen to be of the same sex suffer from an “identity disorder” and are “deviants.” She has repeatedly chosen, of her own volition, to make it her business to condemn the private sexual behaviors of millions of men and women who believe, or behave, differently than she does. She’s of course free to do so. But when it turns out that her own private sexual behavior doesn’t measure up to her public rhetoric—that she “push[es] the limits” without crossing the line as opposed to “living through the power of Christ’s blood”—it deserves to be noted. And the argument that someone’s private life shouldn’t be the object of public attention isn’t really available to someone who has manufactured a political and pseudo-celebrity career out of publicly casting judgment on the private behavior of others.

[Coronita]

The followup story…

http://gawker.com/5676725/why-we-published-the-christine-odonnell-story?skyline=true&s=i

Yesterday, we published the anonymous account of a young man from Philadelphia who had a naked sleepover with Delaware GOP senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell three years ago. Some people did not like that! Here’s why we’d do it again.

The reaction to the O’Donnell story was fairly unanimous: The New York Times’ David Carr called it “skeevy” and “scuzzy”; TBD’s Amanda Hess called it “degrading” and “misogynist”; and the National Organization for Women accused us of “public sexual harassment.” Andrew Sullivan found it to be a “cowardly, brutal and misogynist invasion of privacy,” while O’Donnell’s campaign called it “slander” and labeled us “classless Coons goons,” falsely claiming that we were doing the bidding of her Democratic opponent, Chris Coons. (O’Donnell did not dispute any of the story’s particulars.) The Coons campaign, meanwhile, called it “despicable.”

Three general lines of argument have emerged attacking the post: 1) Politicians’ intimate sexual encounters—or at least this intimate sexual encounter—ought to be off-limits; 2) O’Donnell is a woman, and publishing accounts of her sexual behavior amounts to sexist “slut-shaming”; and 3) Nothing in the account we published directly contradicts O’Donnell’s public stances.

What’s missing from most of the criticism is this essential bit of context: Christine O’Donnell is seeking federal office based in part on her self-generated, and carefully tended, image as a sexually chaste woman. She lies about who she is; she tells that lie in service of an attempt to impose her private sexual values on her fellow citizens; and she’s running for Senate. We thought information documenting that lie—that O’Donnell does not live a chaste life as she defines the word, and in fact hops into bed, naked and drunk, with men that she’s just met—was of interest to our readers.

Much of the criticism leveled against us is based on the premise that we think hopping into bed, naked and drunk, with men or women whenever one wants is “slutty,” and that therefore our publication of Anonymous’ story was intended to diminish O’Donnell on those terms. Any reader of this site ought to rather quickly gather that we are in fact avid supporters of hopping into bed, naked and drunk, with men or women that one has just met.
Our problem with O’Donnell—and the reason that the information we published about her is relevant—is that she has repeatedly described herself and her beliefs in terms that suggest that there is something wrong with hopping into bed, naked and drunk, with a man or woman whom one has just met. So that fact that she behaves that way, while publicly condemning similar behavior, in the context of an attempt to win a seat in the United States Senate, is a story we thought people might like to know about. We also thought it would get us lots of clicks and money and attention. But we thought it would get us clicks and money and attention because it was exposing her lies.

…..

Well, here’s what Christine O’Donnell thinks about abstinence and virginity, per a 1998 essay in a right-wing journal:

As Christians, virginity is not even our goal. Purity and holiness are our calling in Christ. In Philippians 3:14 when the apostle Paul urges us to “press toward the goal” he is not calling us to push the limits as long as we don’t cross the line. He continues to assure us that it is a prize, a great reward, to live as Christ calls us to live.

[snip]

I know many physical virgins who are not sexually pure. I know many virgins who are into pornography or who are “doing everything but” with their boyfriends. On the flip side, I know many non-virgins who live beautiful, holy, pure lives through the power of Christ’s blood.

Well, we certainly know one virgin—or revirginated virgin—who is not “pure.” Or maybe she is. Maybe in light of the above, Christine O’Donnell’s definition of purity, of chastity, of living “through the power of Christ’s blood” comports, in her mind, with her behavior on Halloween three years ago, when she got drunk, sought after the affections of a man she barely knew, asked him to take her home, took off all her clothes, and got into bed with him. If so, it’s a strange (and kind of interesting!) definition of chastity, one that is directly at odds with O’Donnell’s carefully crafted public image, and one that we thought people ought to know about. (Also: The irony of the “she didn’t do it” argument is the implication that if she had done it, then that would be a story. But also you’re not supposed to talk about ladies having sex and it’s all very private and you monsters!)

“Slut-shaming” is telling women that if they indulge their sexual desires they are impure. It’s telling them that if they view pornography, there is something wrong with them. Christine O’Donnell seeks to “shame” “sluts” on an hourly basis. Worse, she believes people who hop into bed with people they barely know who happen to be of the same sex suffer from an “identity disorder” and are “deviants.” She has repeatedly chosen, of her own volition, to make it her business to condemn the private sexual behaviors of millions of men and women who believe, or behave, differently than she does. She’s of course free to do so. But when it turns out that her own private sexual behavior doesn’t measure up to her public rhetoric—that she “push[es] the limits” without crossing the line as opposed to “living through the power of Christ’s blood”—it deserves to be noted. And the argument that someone’s private life shouldn’t be the object of public attention isn’t really available to someone who has manufactured a political and pseudo-celebrity career out of publicly casting judgment on the private behavior of others.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu]Come on folks. Back on topic, please…Let’s talk about Christine O’donnell and any dirt you can find…

This one definitely has an interesting spin to it

http://gawker.com/5674353/i-had-a-one+night-stand-with-christine-odonnell?skyline=true&s=i

“I had a one night stand with Christine Odonnell…(photos included)…”

Three years ago this week, an intoxicated Christine O’Donnell showed up at the apartment of a 25-year-old Philadelphian and ended up spending the night in his bed. Here’s his story—and photos—of his escapade with the would-be Delaware senator.

Family values, anyone?

[/quote]

Does it make any difference, flu? Look at what’s come out about this candidate in the last two weeks alone, some of it out of her own mouth. Her poll standings? According to two back-to-back Monmouth University polls, the race has gone from Coons 57% and O’Donnell 36% two weeks ago to Coons 51% and O’Donnell 41% this past week. It must have been her impressive debate with Chris Coons at Widener Law School where she so ably demonstrated her interpretation and knowledge of constitutional amendments that swayed some of the previously unbelieving.

I don’t recall, in my lifetime, a candidate that is less qualified to hold any public office, much less that of a United States Senator. She is not only intellectually bankrupt, but she has no idea of just how clueless she is, and she shows absolutely no concern about making improvements in this area (after all, God is apparently her copilot). She has no documented business experience, yet there exists a wealth of evidence that shows her to be, at the least, financially incompetent, and, at worst, engaging in criminal behavior by diverting campaign funds for her personal expenses. On top of that, there exists hours of footage of Christine making outlandish statements that she states are backed up by “proof”, but, in reality, are culled from a never-ending stream exiting out her ass. I’m fairly sure that, if I flipped through the pages of the DSM-IV, Christine’s face would be smiling up at me from quite of few of the pages that detail symptomatology of some fairly serious psychiatric disorders.

I’m not blaming Christine. After all, from the beginnings of time there have been people with crippling delusions concerning their talents and potential. No, I blame the 50% of the voting populace of the state of Delaware who will, in all likelihood, vote for her on Tuesday, caring so little for this country and what it stands for that they will waste their vote – a privilege that has been paid for by the blood of others – on this individual who not only is completely ill-equipped to handle the job, but who also has the potential to do serious damage to a nation that is already at the breaking point. But I primarily blame the media – not Fox News, but the mainstream “liberal-minded” (yeah, right!) media – who continue to treat people like Christine O’Donnell as though they were serious-minded qualified candidates that were on equal footing with all of the other candidates, conferring upon them an imprimatur of legitimacy. My question is not “Why are able-bodied, reasonably-educated citizens voting for Christine O’Donnell?” but “When are the media going to get out there and do their job?” which is to expose these candidates for what they really are.

But as for coming up with more dirt on Christine O’Donnell, count me out. I don’t need to be any more depressed than I already am.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu]Come on folks. Back on topic, please…Let’s talk about Christine O’donnell and any dirt you can find…

This one definitely has an interesting spin to it

http://gawker.com/5674353/i-had-a-one+night-stand-with-christine-odonnell?skyline=true&s=i

“I had a one night stand with Christine Odonnell…(photos included)…”

Three years ago this week, an intoxicated Christine O’Donnell showed up at the apartment of a 25-year-old Philadelphian and ended up spending the night in his bed. Here’s his story—and photos—of his escapade with the would-be Delaware senator.

Family values, anyone?

[/quote]

Does it make any difference, flu? Look at what’s come out about this candidate in the last two weeks alone, some of it out of her own mouth. Her poll standings? According to two back-to-back Monmouth University polls, the race has gone from Coons 57% and O’Donnell 36% two weeks ago to Coons 51% and O’Donnell 41% this past week. It must have been her impressive debate with Chris Coons at Widener Law School where she so ably demonstrated her interpretation and knowledge of constitutional amendments that swayed some of the previously unbelieving.

I don’t recall, in my lifetime, a candidate that is less qualified to hold any public office, much less that of a United States Senator. She is not only intellectually bankrupt, but she has no idea of just how clueless she is, and she shows absolutely no concern about making improvements in this area (after all, God is apparently her copilot). She has no documented business experience, yet there exists a wealth of evidence that shows her to be, at the least, financially incompetent, and, at worst, engaging in criminal behavior by diverting campaign funds for her personal expenses. On top of that, there exists hours of footage of Christine making outlandish statements that she states are backed up by “proof”, but, in reality, are culled from a never-ending stream exiting out her ass. I’m fairly sure that, if I flipped through the pages of the DSM-IV, Christine’s face would be smiling up at me from quite of few of the pages that detail symptomatology of some fairly serious psychiatric disorders.

I’m not blaming Christine. After all, from the beginnings of time there have been people with crippling delusions concerning their talents and potential. No, I blame the 50% of the voting populace of the state of Delaware who will, in all likelihood, vote for her on Tuesday, caring so little for this country and what it stands for that they will waste their vote – a privilege that has been paid for by the blood of others – on this individual who not only is completely ill-equipped to handle the job, but who also has the potential to do serious damage to a nation that is already at the breaking point. But I primarily blame the media – not Fox News, but the mainstream “liberal-minded” (yeah, right!) media – who continue to treat people like Christine O’Donnell as though they were serious-minded qualified candidates that were on equal footing with all of the other candidates, conferring upon them an imprimatur of legitimacy. My question is not “Why are able-bodied, reasonably-educated citizens voting for Christine O’Donnell?” but “When are the media going to get out there and do their job?” which is to expose these candidates for what they really are.

But as for coming up with more dirt on Christine O’Donnell, count me out. I don’t need to be any more depressed than I already am.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu]Come on folks. Back on topic, please…Let’s talk about Christine O’donnell and any dirt you can find…

This one definitely has an interesting spin to it

http://gawker.com/5674353/i-had-a-one+night-stand-with-christine-odonnell?skyline=true&s=i

“I had a one night stand with Christine Odonnell…(photos included)…”

Three years ago this week, an intoxicated Christine O’Donnell showed up at the apartment of a 25-year-old Philadelphian and ended up spending the night in his bed. Here’s his story—and photos—of his escapade with the would-be Delaware senator.

Family values, anyone?

[/quote]

Does it make any difference, flu? Look at what’s come out about this candidate in the last two weeks alone, some of it out of her own mouth. Her poll standings? According to two back-to-back Monmouth University polls, the race has gone from Coons 57% and O’Donnell 36% two weeks ago to Coons 51% and O’Donnell 41% this past week. It must have been her impressive debate with Chris Coons at Widener Law School where she so ably demonstrated her interpretation and knowledge of constitutional amendments that swayed some of the previously unbelieving.

I don’t recall, in my lifetime, a candidate that is less qualified to hold any public office, much less that of a United States Senator. She is not only intellectually bankrupt, but she has no idea of just how clueless she is, and she shows absolutely no concern about making improvements in this area (after all, God is apparently her copilot). She has no documented business experience, yet there exists a wealth of evidence that shows her to be, at the least, financially incompetent, and, at worst, engaging in criminal behavior by diverting campaign funds for her personal expenses. On top of that, there exists hours of footage of Christine making outlandish statements that she states are backed up by “proof”, but, in reality, are culled from a never-ending stream exiting out her ass. I’m fairly sure that, if I flipped through the pages of the DSM-IV, Christine’s face would be smiling up at me from quite of few of the pages that detail symptomatology of some fairly serious psychiatric disorders.

I’m not blaming Christine. After all, from the beginnings of time there have been people with crippling delusions concerning their talents and potential. No, I blame the 50% of the voting populace of the state of Delaware who will, in all likelihood, vote for her on Tuesday, caring so little for this country and what it stands for that they will waste their vote – a privilege that has been paid for by the blood of others – on this individual who not only is completely ill-equipped to handle the job, but who also has the potential to do serious damage to a nation that is already at the breaking point. But I primarily blame the media – not Fox News, but the mainstream “liberal-minded” (yeah, right!) media – who continue to treat people like Christine O’Donnell as though they were serious-minded qualified candidates that were on equal footing with all of the other candidates, conferring upon them an imprimatur of legitimacy. My question is not “Why are able-bodied, reasonably-educated citizens voting for Christine O’Donnell?” but “When are the media going to get out there and do their job?” which is to expose these candidates for what they really are.

But as for coming up with more dirt on Christine O’Donnell, count me out. I don’t need to be any more depressed than I already am.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu]Come on folks. Back on topic, please…Let’s talk about Christine O’donnell and any dirt you can find…

This one definitely has an interesting spin to it

http://gawker.com/5674353/i-had-a-one+night-stand-with-christine-odonnell?skyline=true&s=i

“I had a one night stand with Christine Odonnell…(photos included)…”

Three years ago this week, an intoxicated Christine O’Donnell showed up at the apartment of a 25-year-old Philadelphian and ended up spending the night in his bed. Here’s his story—and photos—of his escapade with the would-be Delaware senator.

Family values, anyone?

[/quote]

Does it make any difference, flu? Look at what’s come out about this candidate in the last two weeks alone, some of it out of her own mouth. Her poll standings? According to two back-to-back Monmouth University polls, the race has gone from Coons 57% and O’Donnell 36% two weeks ago to Coons 51% and O’Donnell 41% this past week. It must have been her impressive debate with Chris Coons at Widener Law School where she so ably demonstrated her interpretation and knowledge of constitutional amendments that swayed some of the previously unbelieving.

I don’t recall, in my lifetime, a candidate that is less qualified to hold any public office, much less that of a United States Senator. She is not only intellectually bankrupt, but she has no idea of just how clueless she is, and she shows absolutely no concern about making improvements in this area (after all, God is apparently her copilot). She has no documented business experience, yet there exists a wealth of evidence that shows her to be, at the least, financially incompetent, and, at worst, engaging in criminal behavior by diverting campaign funds for her personal expenses. On top of that, there exists hours of footage of Christine making outlandish statements that she states are backed up by “proof”, but, in reality, are culled from a never-ending stream exiting out her ass. I’m fairly sure that, if I flipped through the pages of the DSM-IV, Christine’s face would be smiling up at me from quite of few of the pages that detail symptomatology of some fairly serious psychiatric disorders.

I’m not blaming Christine. After all, from the beginnings of time there have been people with crippling delusions concerning their talents and potential. No, I blame the 50% of the voting populace of the state of Delaware who will, in all likelihood, vote for her on Tuesday, caring so little for this country and what it stands for that they will waste their vote – a privilege that has been paid for by the blood of others – on this individual who not only is completely ill-equipped to handle the job, but who also has the potential to do serious damage to a nation that is already at the breaking point. But I primarily blame the media – not Fox News, but the mainstream “liberal-minded” (yeah, right!) media – who continue to treat people like Christine O’Donnell as though they were serious-minded qualified candidates that were on equal footing with all of the other candidates, conferring upon them an imprimatur of legitimacy. My question is not “Why are able-bodied, reasonably-educated citizens voting for Christine O’Donnell?” but “When are the media going to get out there and do their job?” which is to expose these candidates for what they really are.

But as for coming up with more dirt on Christine O’Donnell, count me out. I don’t need to be any more depressed than I already am.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu]Come on folks. Back on topic, please…Let’s talk about Christine O’donnell and any dirt you can find…

This one definitely has an interesting spin to it

http://gawker.com/5674353/i-had-a-one+night-stand-with-christine-odonnell?skyline=true&s=i

“I had a one night stand with Christine Odonnell…(photos included)…”

Three years ago this week, an intoxicated Christine O’Donnell showed up at the apartment of a 25-year-old Philadelphian and ended up spending the night in his bed. Here’s his story—and photos—of his escapade with the would-be Delaware senator.

Family values, anyone?

[/quote]

Does it make any difference, flu? Look at what’s come out about this candidate in the last two weeks alone, some of it out of her own mouth. Her poll standings? According to two back-to-back Monmouth University polls, the race has gone from Coons 57% and O’Donnell 36% two weeks ago to Coons 51% and O’Donnell 41% this past week. It must have been her impressive debate with Chris Coons at Widener Law School where she so ably demonstrated her interpretation and knowledge of constitutional amendments that swayed some of the previously unbelieving.

I don’t recall, in my lifetime, a candidate that is less qualified to hold any public office, much less that of a United States Senator. She is not only intellectually bankrupt, but she has no idea of just how clueless she is, and she shows absolutely no concern about making improvements in this area (after all, God is apparently her copilot). She has no documented business experience, yet there exists a wealth of evidence that shows her to be, at the least, financially incompetent, and, at worst, engaging in criminal behavior by diverting campaign funds for her personal expenses. On top of that, there exists hours of footage of Christine making outlandish statements that she states are backed up by “proof”, but, in reality, are culled from a never-ending stream exiting out her ass. I’m fairly sure that, if I flipped through the pages of the DSM-IV, Christine’s face would be smiling up at me from quite of few of the pages that detail symptomatology of some fairly serious psychiatric disorders.

I’m not blaming Christine. After all, from the beginnings of time there have been people with crippling delusions concerning their talents and potential. No, I blame the 50% of the voting populace of the state of Delaware who will, in all likelihood, vote for her on Tuesday, caring so little for this country and what it stands for that they will waste their vote – a privilege that has been paid for by the blood of others – on this individual who not only is completely ill-equipped to handle the job, but who also has the potential to do serious damage to a nation that is already at the breaking point. But I primarily blame the media – not Fox News, but the mainstream “liberal-minded” (yeah, right!) media – who continue to treat people like Christine O’Donnell as though they were serious-minded qualified candidates that were on equal footing with all of the other candidates, conferring upon them an imprimatur of legitimacy. My question is not “Why are able-bodied, reasonably-educated citizens voting for Christine O’Donnell?” but “When are the media going to get out there and do their job?” which is to expose these candidates for what they really are.

But as for coming up with more dirt on Christine O’Donnell, count me out. I don’t need to be any more depressed than I already am.

[patb]

[quote=ocrenter]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

sounds like separation of church and state is pretty clear cut here.[/quote]

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

that to me is the test of separation of chaurcha nd state

[patb]

[quote=ocrenter]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

sounds like separation of church and state is pretty clear cut here.[/quote]

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

that to me is the test of separation of chaurcha nd state

[patb]

[quote=ocrenter]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

sounds like separation of church and state is pretty clear cut here.[/quote]

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

that to me is the test of separation of chaurcha nd state

[patb]

[quote=ocrenter]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

sounds like separation of church and state is pretty clear cut here.[/quote]

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

that to me is the test of separation of chaurcha nd state

[Author]

Posts