Presidential aspirant Jon Huntsman tells Piers Morgan that he can think of no “issue more important” than the debt ceiling; “that is about as fundamental as it gets.” (More fundamental than not beating, maiming, and killing quite so many people, apparently.)
Christine O’Donnell tells Piers Morgan (shortly before bizarrely storming off his show in mid-interview) that her views on sex are not relevant to her status as a national politician “because there aren’t laws outlawing sex; and if there are, they should be on the local level.”
Speaking of O’Donnell, there ought to be something called Wiccan, Blynken and Nod. According to Google there isn’t yet, and that’s just wrong.
Do you want federal laws against sex for money? Against sex with minors?
“Do you want federal laws against sex for money?”
You really don’t know the answer to this question?
Which is the same as that of O’Donnell. Yet somehow it is a reason to mock her?
“Yet somehow it is a reason to mock her?”
No, the fact that O’Donnell is against federal anti-prostitution laws is not a reason to mock her.
Scineram — I’m lost. What are you talking about?
A minor is just someone under an arbitrary age line drawn by some bureaucrats. A minor could be age 15, 18, 40, 70. There’s no real justification for setting a law at any age. Parents can deal with their kids. If a 14-year-old wants to have sex with a 19-year-old or a 49-year-old, let the parents decide to punish the kid. The kid can then leave home or obey the rules of the parents.
It’s really absurd that people think, “Hmm. There’s a big age difference in that sexual relationship. Therefore, the State.”
Well, sometimes the parent is the one having sex with the kid, so leaving it to the parent may not always work out.
Some suggestions on how to deal with this issue: here, here, here, and here.
The kindest interpretation I’ve heard for O’Donnell’s behavior is that her staff had agreed with Piers Morgan beforehand that they would only be discussing topics X,Y,Z from the book, and Morgan decided to ignore that. Does anybody who actually read her book know if gay marriage is discussed in it?
It seems to me that the beating, maiming and killing are less likely to affect the debt ceiling than contrariwise, so yeah.