Christine O'Donnell DELIVERS.

[Doktor Howl]

what's the story with her wanting to regulate sex up to and including masturbation? I have read that she was in a wiccan anti-masturbation coven in the 90s, I haven't read that she's pushing legislation based on it.

How could she?  She hasn't been elected yet.

Incidentally,

In early September a political consulting firm hired by O'Donnell released a Web video insinuating that Castle was having a homosexual affair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Odonnell

And

She then appeared on Mark Levin's radio show, accusing Castle of engaging in "unmanly tactics" during the campaign and saying, "this is not a bake-off, put your man-pants on."

But you were asking about stuff like this:

During a debate between O'Donnell and her opponent Chris Coons on October 13, 2010 at the University of Delaware, O'Donnell brought up her opposition to activist judges and stated her objection to a recent court decision to ban the military from discharging homosexual service members who reveal their sexual orientation.

and this is good, though unrelated:

She opposes abortion, including in cases of rape and incest,[27] but if the woman was otherwise going to die, she would allow family members to decide which life to save

FAMILY MEMBERS.    The woman would get NO SAY.

She claims to have repudiated her anti-masturbation stance, excusing it as "being very passionate in her beliefs".

[Doktor Howl]

If I may step in and try to clarify, I think the point (ITT) is not to attack her by pointing out / calling her a "slut", but rather to attack her by pointing out the hypocrisy coming from the discrepancy between the things she preaches and her actions.

I've clarified that twice.  Nobody paid any attention.

[Cramulus]

Don't get me wrong - I understand why people are making a big deal out of this.  I just don't feel like it's actually a big enough deal to merit public slut-shaming.  :shrug:

[Doktor Howl]

Don't get me wrong - I understand why people are making a big deal out of this.  I just don't feel like it's actually a big enough deal to merit public slut-shaming.  :shrug:

Well, since you insist on putting words in my mouth, you can debate yourself.  Good day.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I would rather have my tongue nailed to the Washington Monument than cash in my ethics so I could roll in the mud with the stupidest 10% of the country.

How nice for you.

I have children who have to grow up in this country, so you'll excuse me if I find your egotistical martyrdom to be an unacceptable alternative for myself.

If this is the only thing that keeps her from becoming a senator, then your kids future is already fucked.

[Cramulus]

Don't get me wrong - I understand why people are making a big deal out of this.  I just don't feel like it's actually a big enough deal to merit public slut-shaming.  :shrug:

Well, since you insist on putting words in my mouth, you can debate yourself.  Good day.

uhhh I was talking about the article


*sigh*

[Doktor Howl]

I would rather have my tongue nailed to the Washington Monument than cash in my ethics so I could roll in the mud with the stupidest 10% of the country.

How nice for you.

I have children who have to grow up in this country, so you'll excuse me if I find your egotistical martyrdom to be an unacceptable alternative for myself.

If this is the only thing that keeps her from becoming a senator, then your kids future is already fucked.

Well, it worked for her, right?  When she smeared Castle?  She fucking won, and what she said didn't even have the virtue of being true.

But don't let me get in the way of your self-righteous bullshit.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Don't get me wrong - I understand why people are making a big deal out of this.  I just don't feel like it's actually a big enough deal to merit public slut-shaming.  :shrug:

I'm not slut-shaming and I don't think Dok is either.

Gawker addressed this, also:

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.

...

"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.

http://gawker.com/5676725/why-we-published-the-christine-odonnell-story

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Now who's putting words in someone elses mouth?

[Doktor Howl]

Now who's putting words in someone elses mouth?

wut

[Doktor Howl]

You know what?  Fuck this.  Rat accomplished what he set out to do, which was piss someone off.

You win, Rat.  I hope your hero does, too.  America deserves her.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Yep, I exist only to piss people off... 

[Doktor Howl]

Don't get me wrong - I understand why people are making a big deal out of this.  I just don't feel like it's actually a big enough deal to merit public slut-shaming.  :shrug:

I'm not slut-shaming and I don't think Dok is either.

Gawker addressed this, also:

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.

...

"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.

http://gawker.com/5676725/why-we-published-the-christine-odonnell-story

They won't listen, Net.

[Doktor Howl]

Yep, I exist only to piss people off... 

Yeah, your motives were clear.  While laughing at a response to a poorly-worded post, you meant only to spread some love.

[Doktor Howl]

Okay, I admit it, I was wrong.

Pointing out hypocrisy = "slut-shaming".

It's okay for O'Donnell to win the primary by lying about her primary candidate's sexual orientation, but not okay to tell the truth about her hypocrisy.

Pointing out hypocrisy is a shameful act, which lowers the person doing it to the level of curb-stompers and squads of teabagger voter intimidation squads.

It is better to be batshit politically correct, even if it means brownshirts get a free ride.

Did I get everything, Rat?

ETA:  Refuting the claims of a hypocrite is wrong, because it makes other women afraid to run for office.  Which is why Gabrielle Giffords dropped out of the race when this story broke.  Wait.  She didn't?  How can this be?