Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The good thing is this nut is just a sacrificial lamb running in a heavily Democratic district and doesn't have a chance in hell of getting elected. The district covers the entire city of Minneapolis (which accounts for about 2/3 of the district) and some of its liberal inner suburbs. Obama won the district 74-24.
So not likely that they'll demand she step down from the candidacy?
What a shame. I can well imagine that American politics would do very well without her. Of course it's not looking like she'll get much of the vote so I guess there's that to be content with. People won't vote for her, right?
As Smash255 said, there's no chance in hell that she'll win that district. I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimbochick
I certainly hope not.
Well that's good to know.
Although I gotta admit I see some of these people pop up and am utterly mystified when they get elected.
I can only then refer back to the voting statistics for the US.
Then again we've had some UTTER fools get elected in here.....
I wonder why it's ok for the Republicans to continue to endorse her candidacy? I would have thought with comments like those they'd be falling over themselves to distance themselves from her.
Although I gotta admit I see some of these people pop up and am utterly mystified when they get elected.
I can only then refer back to the voting statistics for the US.
Then again we've had some UTTER fools get elected in here.....
I wonder why it's ok for the Republicans to continue to endorse her candidacy? I would have thought with comments like those they'd be falling over themselves to distance themselves from her.
Probably because they really don't care, they know they have no chance in hell at an Obama +50 district.
Just did a little more research she ran in 2008, she lost 71-22, a 3rd party candidate got 7% of the vote.
The problem with the ex-gay movement is there is no way to verify success or failure. Sadly so many who seek to "change" their orientation do so due to pressure from family and church, and are going to feel conflicted regardless of the outcome. The ex-gay movement in my opinion promises to do something that the majority of mental health professionals believe is just not possible. There is no win/lose here as people being out and open in these types of environments are more than likely not going to be accepted by their family or church either. There are many people who say if they had the choice they would not be gay due to the bigotry they face from society and often from their families.
Reparative therapy, "praying away the gay" etc mostly started with Joseph Nicolosi and NARTH.
NARTH are an anti-homosexual fringe group of conservative religiously-biased psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists and lay people who "claim" to be secular. Yet Joseph Nicolosi one of the founders and presidents of NARTH, is a conservative Catholic who makes statements like: “We, as citizens, need to articulate God’s intent for human sexuality” “When we live our God-given integrity and our human dignity, there is no space for sex with a guy.” Nicolosi also served as spokesman for the far right Christian organisation Focus on the Family.
They are always whining on about the APA (both of them)- mostly because both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association (as well as many other professional peak bodies) reject their practices as unethical, non scientific, ineffective and harmful.
Many of NARTH's members call themselves "ex-gays" and many have degrees in divinity or theology. You don't even have to have any professional mental health qualifications to be a member of NARTH, just as long as you agree with the ideas of it's leaders and pay your membership fees - Unlike professional mainstream organisations like the APA with over 150,000 fully qualified professional psychologists who must adhere to ethical guidelines and codes of practice.
NARTH believe that homosexual men are homosexual because they had a distant cold unloving father and an overprotective or domineering mother. This "opinion" is about 100 years out of date. There is zero empirical support for that claim anywhere in the published peer-reviewed literature.
So to "cure" homosexuals, male "therapists" hug the clients (in a non-sexual way of course ) using "touch therapy" - the client sits in the therapist's lap being held and caressed. All those "ex-gay" male therapists hugging and caressing their male clients? Sounds a bit hincky to me.
(Christopher Austin who taught seminars for NARTH, was convicted for sexually assaulting his clients and got a ten year prison sentence. )
NARTH has zero credibility with any of the mainstream professional medical health organisations. Plus, if you really research any of the articles published by NARTH it's so very obvious they are so full of misrepresentation, religious prejudice, outright lies and holes you could drive a truck though.
Last edited by Ceist; 03-04-2010 at 05:00 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
