(09-16-2010 11:08 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-16-2010 10:47 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  because frankly some of the kinkiest people I know vote republican.

How does BHR KNOW they are "kinky". That's the $10,000 question.

(09-16-2010 12:14 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(09-16-2010 11:28 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  You said is that her platform is 'anti-masturbation' Either you were sadly misinformed or being deliberately misleading.

Her belief that masturbation is not emotionally or spiritually healthy is nowhere to be found on her platform and is a deeply held religious belief.

Now you're free to disagree with that as 'kooky' but not to use her 'kooky' personal belief to label her as being extreme.

Actually, I said her platform was anti pornography and anti pre-maritial sex.

I then, in a seperate distinct sentance and paragraph, mentioned that she is anti-whacking. I didn't put anti-masturbation in the policy statement.

Seems like you had a reading problem.

it's not like she's going to put through a law to outlaw those things, so what's the difference. All the people will scoff, but i'd say there are a lot of people who probably should've waited till marriage.

(09-16-2010 12:31 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(09-16-2010 11:08 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-16-2010 10:47 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  because frankly some of the kinkiest people I know vote republican.

How does BHR KNOW they are "kinky". That's the $10,000 question.

(09-16-2010 12:33 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(09-16-2010 12:14 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(09-16-2010 11:28 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  You said is that her platform is 'anti-masturbation' Either you were sadly misinformed or being deliberately misleading.

Her belief that masturbation is not emotionally or spiritually healthy is nowhere to be found on her platform and is a deeply held religious belief.

Now you're free to disagree with that as 'kooky' but not to use her 'kooky' personal belief to label her as being extreme.

Actually, I said her platform was anti pornography and anti pre-maritial sex.

I then, in a seperate distinct sentance and paragraph, mentioned that she is anti-whacking. I didn't put anti-masturbation in the policy statement.

Seems like you had a reading problem.

it's not like she's going to put through a law to outlaw those things, so what's the difference. All the people will scoff, but i'd say there are a lot of people who probably should've waited till marriage.

Exactly! There are so many people who think anything goes in the bedroom, its its wrong to judge but the minute an older unmarried woman suggest she is a virgin they freak out..

http://teamchristine2010.com/

Her website is amusing. I can't find any information on her positions, every other link tries to get me to sign up & donate, but the forum is outstanding. Topics include Craiglist Adult Section to Move Here, Crying and Youthful Indescretions With Christine, and I Masterbated Yesterday and felt So Guilty I Wept. Not exactly what I was expecting.

*** It looks like there might be another website which is down during a server transfer. Right now the campaign webiste link just takes you to a donation page.

(09-16-2010 12:48 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(09-16-2010 12:31 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(09-16-2010 11:08 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-16-2010 10:47 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  because frankly some of the kinkiest people I know vote republican.

How does BHR KNOW they are "kinky". That's the $10,000 question.

You know with that mouth, you have to admit that she has "potential'..

(09-16-2010 01:56 PM)jh Wrote:  http://teamchristine2010.com/

Her website is amusing. I can't find any information on her positions, every other link tries to get me to sign up & donate, but the forum is outstanding. Topics include Craiglist Adult Section to Move Here, Crying and Youthful Indescretions With Christine, and I Masterbated Yesterday and felt So Guilty I Wept. Not exactly what I was expecting.

*** It looks like there might be another website which is down during a server transfer. Right now the campaign webiste link just takes you to a donation page.

Crying and Youthful Indiscretions with Christine.Posted by Kelly on September 16, 2010 at 2:24pm

View Discussions

I am one of those males with whom Christine admitted being "somewhat sexually promiscuous with" in college, which she later admitted regretting.

I felt similar emotions.

While Christine and I were making love on her dorm bed, I started to cry.

Christrine asked softly "why are you crying? Are you afraid you will hate yourself in the morning?"

And I looked down at naked and drunk Christine, and answered "I'm crying because I hate myself now".
Tags:


► Replies to This Discussion
Permalink Reply by G. Opherit 8 minutes ago
LIES! Christine wouldn't say anything during an act of sodomy. Maybe some gentle humming, but no words.

http://teamchristine2010.com/forum/topic...d-youthful

(09-16-2010 01:56 PM)jh Wrote:  http://teamchristine2010.com/

Her website is amusing. I can't find any information on her positions, every other link tries to get me to sign up & donate, but the forum is outstanding. Topics include Craiglist Adult Section to Move Here, Crying and Youthful Indescretions With Christine, and I Masterbated Yesterday and felt So Guilty I Wept. Not exactly what I was expecting.

*** It looks like there might be another website which is down during a server transfer. Right now the campaign webiste link just takes you to a donation page.

She was on OReilly a while back.

Is Cloning Monkeys Morally Wrong?
Friday, November 16, 2007


This is a rush transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," November 15, 2007. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: "Culture War" segment tonight, some monkey business in the state of Oregon, and we mean that literally. Scientists there say they have successfully cloned the world's first monkey embryos, deriving stem cells for medical research but potentially paving the way for the cloning of human embryos, as well. The question: is cloning monkeys morally wrong?

Joining us now from Philadelphia, Christine O'Donnell, a Republican strategist. And from Madison Heights, Michigan, Dr. William Morrone, a family physician and researcher who's been following the controversy.

Doctor, I understand that you have done some research, medical research. And you favor this kind of a situation, cloning the monkey embryos. Tell us why.

WILLIAM MORRONE, PHYSICIAN AND MEDICAL RESEARCHER: More so now than ever before. I spent 12 years in the pharmaceutical industry. I have some patents. And now that I'm a physician and I see the pathology and I see the pain, I want as many tools as possible to treat and comfort. And I — it's just that simple.

O'REILLY: OK, but I don't understand what this whole deal is, because there is no cure for Parkinson's, for M.S., for Alzheimer's. And why would anybody be optimistic that cloning monkey embryos would lead to a cure? I mean, why? Why would you be optimistic that would ever happen?

MORRONE: It's this simple. All we have now, according to the technology of the past, is drugs, and the technology of the future of possible cell replacement is what we're talking about. Cell replacement versus drugs.

And for Parkinson's, for multiple sclerosis, for spinal cord injury, that's what we need. We need healthy cells to regrow things that either by trauma or natural disease...

O'REILLY: OK, that's the theory. That's the theory. And that's the big debate about, you know, taking embryos and harvesting them and getting — and then it's the adult stem cell line.

But for those of us who aren't in the medical field, doctor, it is terribly confusing, and there's no evidence that shows this will ever happen.

MORRONE: It doesn't seem to be, according to the technology that we've had to this point, possible, but without taking it forward and looking at can we get stem cells without destroying embryos? Can we work with blastocysts, which is a funny name for, you know, something that is growing a little bag of cells, and try to do it the right way with the government as partners and industry.

O'REILLY: So it's purely speculative. But you feel it's worthy because it is a line that, that in theory, might work some day.

How do you see it, Christine?

MORRONE: OK.

CHRISTINE O'DONNELL, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I see this as — by their own admission, the group that clones the monkey, they proudly stated that this is what's going to lead them to human cloning.

And if we don't dismiss it at the real point of that. I mean, we can't dismiss it. The real point of all of this research is to lead to human cloning. So at the very core of the debate about human cloning is dignity versus commodity.

O'REILLY: Yes, but you're going the slippery slope now. You know, the slippery slope. I know, I know, look. They can clone humans now if they wanted to.

O'DONNELL: It's by their own admission. It's by their own admission that they're...

O'REILLY: Everybody knows that scientists have enough knowledge to clone a human being if they wanted to.

O'DONNELL: Right.

O'REILLY: But they're not, at least not that we know of. And now they're in the monkey realm. And I don't understand, if that's the possibility that people might be cured, why the objection.

Because I never buy the slippery slope.

O'DONNELL: OK.

O'REILLY: I never buy that in a free society because there are — there are checks and balances here.

MORRONE: There are.

O'DONNELL: Bill, if we — if we approach this complicated bioethic issue with our heads in the sand, the other end is in the air.

O'REILLY: My head isn't the sand, Christine. I have the biggest head in the world. There isn't enough sand on the beach in Hawaii for my head to be in there.

O'DONNELL: My point is, we're approaching this issue with the other end in the air.

O'REILLY: No, no, no. Hold it.

O'DONNELL: By their own admission...

O'REILLY: No.

O'DONNELL: ... these groups admitted that the report that said, "Hey, yay, we cloned a monkey. Now we're using this to start cloning humans." We have to keep...

O'REILLY: Let them admit anything they want. But they won't do that here in the United States unless all craziness is going on.

O'DONNELL: They are — they are doing that here in the United States. American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains. So they're already into this experiment.

O'REILLY: Alright. Doctor...

MORRONE: That's an exaggeration.

O'REILLY: ...do you understand — do you understand her concern that there are people who are unethical who will do this kind of stuff for whatever reason? Do you understand her concern?

MORRONE: I understand her concern, but to me, the position of head in the sand is saying, "Don't do it; don't get involved; and don't set up guidelines." I'm saying this is the time to talk about it and this is the time to take it into alot of consideration.

O'REILLY: I think it has to be very closely regulating.

One more Christine. I got to end it. Real quick, now. If you oppose, and you do, stem cells from embryos from babies harvesting, then the animal option is a way for scientists to try to get something going without dealing with the human component.

O'DONNELL: Again, it is inevitable. This really is about human cloning, about dignity versus commodity. And we already answered that question.

O'REILLY: All right. OK. Interesting debate. Doctor, Christine, thank you very much.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311946,00.html

(09-15-2010 08:03 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(09-15-2010 07:04 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I was really surprised by Rove's remarks regarding O'Donnel. My question. Would you rather lose the seat in the general and stand on principles or win the seat and compromise on platform? Very interesting dynamic happening on the right.

I help raise money for the Tea Party. And its easy, in fact, REALLY easy when a Republican "establishment" Party Leader like that dimwit Michael Steele or any elected Political Official says or does anything in the way of "compromise" or "concessions" to Pelosi, Reid, or the Socialists presently in the White House.

Any Republican voting for any Bailout, Health Care Reform, Regulatory "Reform" or any expansion of the Federal Government into the private sector is TOAST.

In other words, the RINO is now an Endangered Species.

The fate of Mike Castle is a lesson to be learned. You act like a Democrat- Go join the Democrats.

When Castle said last week that he wouldn't vote to repeal Health Care, that was the opening that O'Donnell needed.

Its obvious you don't understand the Tea Party Movement. Its not a "Social Right-Wing" movement. Its more a Libertarian Movement.

Oh please. It's not even Libertarian lite. It's complete bull **** is what it is.

(09-15-2010 10:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would support a fiscal conservative, preferably liberal to moderate socially, but I'm willing to support a social conservative in order to get a fiscal conservative. What I am not willing to do is to support a social conservative who turns out not to be fiscally conservative--like Shrub

fair enough. but there remain 2 specific facts that will not go away. ONE-- at level of president elections, this is a 2-party country. if the republican doesn't win, the democrat will. and if the democrat doesn't win the republican will. TWO-- no matter how fiscally liberal republicans like shrub are -- and god knows he is very much liberal when it comes to spending money -- he is a miserly scrooge compared to gore and john kerry and barack obama. if the anti-abortion people and the super-religious types give you the creeps that bad, be my guest and vote for the democrat. but make no mistake you are voting for the party that is more socially liberal and is more fiscally liberal.

Quote:The USA majority is fiscally conservative and socially moderate. Poll after poll shows that.

problem with that -- words like 'moderate' and 'conservative' don't define themselves. they are given meaning by each individual person who answers those polls. and each individual meaning is usually different. plus the survey-questions themselves are frequently shaded to get the answer that the poll-taker wants. i mean, 'fiscal conservative and social moderate' -- sh*t just about everyone between al sharpton and ron paul at least claims that mantle. it just doesn't mean very much.

Quote:So why are we forced to choose between fiscally liberal democrats (who may be all over the map socially) and socially conservative republicans (who may be all over the map fiscally)? As nearly as I can tell, it is becuase the kooks on those extremes are the ones who can raise money

well, maybe. but i would argue that people join political parties based on what is most important to them. social conservatives who have gravitated to the republican party since the 70s vote republican because it has reacted to 'their' issues. they may be fiscal conservative or fiscal liberal or fiscal don't-give-a-damn, but they vote on the social issues. urban-secular types, homos, and graduate students have made the reverse journey-- now overwhelmingly democrat.

(09-16-2010 10:43 PM)Cardiff Wrote:  i mean, 'fiscal conservative and social moderate' -- sh*t just about everyone between al sharpton and ron paul at least claims that mantle. it just doesn't mean very much.

Ron is actually a friend, and we share a mutual friend in Jim Rogers, whom some of you on here like to follow. Some of the Pauls are long-time clients. I had dinner (chicken and rice casserole) at Rand and Kelley's before going over to the victory party on the night of the Kentucky primary, and was sitting next to Rand when he took the concession call (via his campaign manager because Rand had his cell on vibrate and Grayson finally gave up trying to reach him and called the campaign manager).

Ron is more conservative socially than me, primarily on abortion (so many of the Pauls are doctors, and they're all pretty conservative on abortion). I'm fine with that as long as he stays fiscally conservative. Ron and Rand are actually much closer to what I want to see than most anyone else out there. Gary Johnson is the other one who comes close. My biggest complaint with Rand is that he really ought to comb his hair. It looks worse up close than on TV.

Pretty much agree with all your comments regarding dems. Republicans are the lesser evil, just sometimes not lesser enough.