Okay, the Tea Party candidate for Senate, Christine O'Donnell, came out against masturbation several years ago. This seems to me to be a King Canute comment; you know, the guy who tried to hold back the sea? Anyway, politicians in setting programs should stick to attainable goals, not insurmountable ones. Offhand, attempting to make people stop masturbating seems to me to be a non-starter.
But this also raises the "Does She or Doesn't She" issue; and not with Clairol in mind! Seriously, does the electorate wish to be forced to speculate on a politician's relationship with Mr. Vibrator?
Also, does not this have the effect of dividing us as a Nation further? We have enough divisions: pro/anti abortion, Repulbican/Democrat, red state/blue state, religious differences, and so on. Do we want to have more cleavage in our nation in the form of masturbators/non-masturbators (or is it those who admit to masturbating/those who deny doing it)?
Actually, I think the good lady simply got over her excessive piety, and took a more moderate view. And maybe we should not be too quick as a society to rummage for dumb things that people have said or done in the past. Look: we have a potential time bomb here. Doesn't some of the stuff appearing on Facebook also have potential for blowing up in peoples' faces?
6333 - Saturday jokes
19 minutes ago
8 comments:
Of course, we all have our own opinion about "does she or ........."
I am hopeful, for her sake.
It did contribute a little comic relief to this year's politics, which otherwise is pretty nasty.
Poor woman obviously overlooks the calming effect of it.
Maybe that's why she looks so sour!
That probably explains it. Thanks for the thought.
Friends with minor benefits would be disappointed.
I hope, for her sake, that she discovered the joys of it all.
Or at least chocolate.
Post a Comment