Get Yer New Christine O’Donnell Videos Here
Christine O’Donnell has made her living by being the cute fundie on television. So there’s many years of lunacy to look through. Bill Maher’s latest Christine O’Donnell clip has the renown scientific mind of O’Donnell discussing evolution.
“Evolution is a myth,” O’Donnell said as the others piped up incredulously. She repeated herself, then added:
Well then why aren’t monkeys still evolving into humans?
At the time, O’Donnell was with the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, a conservative group she later sued for gender discrimination. The exchange, on Scarborough Country on November 13, 2003, is an argument between O’Donnell and Eric Nies, then with the Moment of Hope foundation, about whether to counsel kids to have safe sex:
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.
Yeah, every time a new video is released I can see why Mike Castle might want another shot at defeating her. It must rankle to have lost to this clown.
Tags: Christine O'Donnell, DE-Sen
In the 2003 clip it’s interesting she said, “I’m a young woman in my thirties and I remain chaste.” That contradicts her other claims at various times to have been a wild girl in college until her redemption by a pro-life friend shocking her into Republican Jesus’s arms with abortion pictures.
Republicans are evolving into infected humps of meat right before our eyes. Is that proof?
Didn’t she say her faith had evolved since her 20s? Here she is in her 30s saying the same ol’ crazy stuff.
That guy’s face was priceless when she said yeah. He was like “WTF?”
*sigh* Bill Maher promoting Bill Maher. Tipping the Rube Goldberg machine that modern media has become.
I would love to See Christine O’Donnell animated on Family Guy. If Fox will let you.
The most maddening thing about Christine is that these clips will only help her. It’ll be the ‘evil, liberal’ elite media out to get the ‘conscious conservative.’ (By the way, I do acknowledge there is a liberal bias in some stations, as well as a conservative bias in other stations.)
Christine’s game plan is similar to a person making stupid mistake, so somebody else can point out a mistake was made. Then the person can yell, “that is a smear. you are going personal. How dare you attack a young woman/man. It was in the past!” Then, the bystander feels bad for the person who made the stupid mistake and trust him/her.
That’s right—and this site helps her.
Showing these videos does not help her. It only helps her with the people who are pre-disposed to feel sorry for her. These videos make her a laughing stock. If you don’t think making a candidate into a joke hurts them just look at Sue Lowden and chickens for check-ups.
I’m sorry, we can’t stop the national media from laughing at her. They’ve just discovered her while she’s been Delaware’s joke for a while.
I think comments like this make it impossible for some percentage of Castle Republicans to support her. Although having said that Charlie Copeland loves her and sucked up to her like mad on WDEL, so maybe they can block it out.
Republicans usually find some excuse to get in line. No, these videos really hurt her and Maher releasing 1 per week is not only genius PR but it’s just the steady drip, drip, drip of lunacy. Once you think, oh she handled that witchcraft thing o.k. here comes some other kooky thing she said.
Anyone tempted to feel sorry for her should remember the multiple times she was able to say “Mike Castle is gay” while denying she said it.
I’m sorry, we can’t stop the national media from laughing at her. They’ve just discovered her while she’s been Delaware’s joke for a while.
This is a very good point, and central to what I find so painful about this. I was astounded that she got so many votes until I read a profile of a typical Delaware Tea Party voter — 49 years old and never voted before, watches Fox, and networks on-line with like-minded adherents.
It would not surprise me at all to learn that many of her primary voters knew little about O’Donnell in the last two elections and voted for her as the Tea Party alternative. And now that she’s hiding from all non-Fox media and sticking to vanilla talking points, they won’t hear her actual craziness.
They’ll only know that she’s the good conservative beset by the liberal media.
Yet, we can’t not try to point out who she really is…
She is really beginning to compete w/ Lindsay Lohan for soundbyte time.
Actually, New York Magazine already covered her Creationism, but seeing the stupidty she uses to defend her already stupid position should be a powerful reminder of what you have elected.
And just a reminder that I keep on needing to point out:
the seats we lose in 2010 we won’t get back in 2012, when only 10 Republican seats are up, and most of them in unwinnable states. Even in 2014 there are only 13 chances to win back seats, and again, most of them are unwinnable.
O’Donnell on avoiding the media
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzUC4e-AHNU
So she’s comparing herself to the President? Is she that much of an ego-maniac (rhetorical question)?
Boxwood, that clip is great! Somebody should ask her about that ;-}.
If you think that condoms reliably prevent the spread of AIDS or other STD’s, you need to go to the CDC website and literature.
You may be more ignorant than Christine, b ut anyoen who is informed knows that condoms have a significant failure rate… and the AIDS virus is SMALLER than the pores in the walls of a condom.
You might not know that, but educated people knew that 20 years ago.
Christine is correct.
The myth of evolution suggests that over a period of several million years up to 50,000 years ago, monkeys evolved into humans.
Then why is it that those same monkeys have not changed in several million years?
If monkeys evolved into humans, those same monkeys would not still be the same today as they were several million years ago.
Yes, we all know there may be branches of the tree.
But the non-human monkey branch would not still be monkeys several million years later, if evolution were true. They might have evolved separately as different branches, but they would not still be monkeys.
Evolution is not only a myth… it is impossible.
What the under-educated fail to understand is what evolution actually posits:
TINY — I repeat TINY — mutations or genetic drift add up over an emormous period of time to change one species into another.
But the problem is that we are super-imposing HINDSIGHT onto this idea.
We look back and see that the end result is “better” than the previous version.
PROBLEM: THE MUTATIONS DON’T “KNOW” THAT.
The mutations have no idea where they are “going” or heading.
The mutations have no understanding that proceeding down a particular line of change will eventually result in a superior outcome.
The mutations KNOW NOTHING.
They are simply random variations.
1) Each mutation or genetic varation will be pointed in a RANDOM direction.
So an animal may mutate in a direction that would eventually lead over a long period of time toward a new, “better” animal.
Then at the NEXT step, the animal evolves in a DIFFERENT RANDOM DIRECTION.
There is no inertia or heading. Each mutation is RANDOM. So a change in a particular direction may be followed by another change headed in a DIFFERENT direction.
At each stage, the evolution does not “KNOW” where it is going. It does not “know” if it is heading in the “right” direction or the “wrong” direction.
It is posited that the new (eventual) form is more survivable and more adaptable.
But the mutations do not occur that way. They occur in VERY SMALL changes.
Each next step is NOT more survivable than the last.
To use a crude example, to be brief, a bird that has (a) LOST the use of its front legs but (b) has NOT YET developed fligth is WORSE OFF than the previous creature.