Skip to comments.Ted Strickland "PRESENT" and Morally Absent
Posted on 10/26/2006 11:33:11 AM PDT by RileyD, nwJ
Strickland, as a US Congressman, was provided an opportunity in 1999 to vote for a resolution condemning a study suggesting sex between adults and minors could be a positive experience for the children.
Strickland chose not to support the resolution condemning the study. He was one of 13 congressmen who voted Present.
(Excerpt) Read more at RileyDriver5x5.com ...
Strickland has never condemned the study. In fact he has attacked those who did condemn the study. Something is wrong with a man who cannot condemn such a thing - very wrong.
Can the mods add "Ted" to the title, so people will know that this is TED Strickland, DemocRAT Ohio gubernatorial candidate and not TONY Strickland in California?
A glance at the keywords or topics would have revealed the word "Ohio".
Clarification serves the interests of newbies and lurkers. It also eliminates the need for people from California to check out an article in which they have no interest. It's quite common here to append an article with a state designation, such as (OH), so that one can see the distinction on the sidebar.
I knew that the poster probably had no idea about a downstate race in California and made a polite request as a courtesy. Got a problem with that?
Ohio, beware. Do not vote for this man!
Being in Columbus, OH and facing the possibility of him as governor makes me as sick as has Taft. Ken Blackwell is the only thinking mans answer.
OMG!! WHO would vote against that??? I thought he was a pastor.
Yeah, he pastors the Church Of the Apostates!
geesh....what kind of man is he??
Guess I should have put the /sarcasm! tag after my statement.
But yeah, what kind of person doesn't even have the decency to vote to condemn pedophilia? And, if the polls are to be believed, this "soft-on-child-predators" candidate may be our next governor! If my children get married and have children, we're getting out of Ohio. This place will definitely become a safe haven for these perverts. After all, Mr. Strickland doesn't even believe we should condemn these filthy monsters!
Don't know how to effect the desired change either.
It is amazing Ted Strickland has never spoken out against this "scientific study" (so-called) somewhat in favor of child-adult sex.
It is amazing the media lets him get away with it to this day.
Again - sorry about the mixup with the CA Strickland.
It's okay. That's why I asked the Admin Mod to add "Ted" to the title to not confuse folks.
I'm in Ohio, where this disgusting excuse for a politician is running and it makes me sick that this "soft-on-pedophilia" moonbat may be the next Governor of Ohio.
Yup...but a Rat one.
'Strickland said he agreed with much of the resolution, except for a passage that suggested the U.S. Supreme Court had recognized that "sexually exploited children are unable to develop healthy affectionate relationships in later life." '
Strickland is a psychologist and disagreed with the wording of the resolution. He didn't feel it was right to vote for a resolution that stated abused children are unable to develop healthy relationships as adults.
And if he really was a NAMBLA supporter, don't you think he would have hidden it a bit better?
I don't usually jump to the defense of a Democrat, but the hysteria about this non-vote is ridiculous. There are plenty of other valid reasons why he should not be governor, but this is a non-issue, and there is great risk in overplaying it, as the latest polls seem to be indicating.
Do you have a link for this?
OK - read the rest of the post, no need to reply. Reads to me that Strickland was condemning his collegues for voting for the resolution without having read the article in question in the first place, which is almost certainly true. (Do congressman read anything they vote on beforehand these days?)
Mr. Strickland only ASSUMES that his colleagues didn't read that report. He is only a psychologist, NOT a mind reader.
For anyone wanting a comprehensive reporting on this, go to BizzyBlog at this link:
"Church of the Apostates" - well noted, indeed.
I have not seen over the years - decades - any indication that Strickland is carrying out ministerial duties or functions, particularly of the United Methodist Church, in any shape or form.
Seems like someone might ask him what church he regularly attends - or does he attend any?
His public bio shows no ministerial functions or aspects after he returned to school to get an advanced degree in psychology.
I have seen no outward expression of his religious beliefs, whatever these may be. He is pleasant enough in person. But he is assuredly a politician and a liberal, and of course takes delight in announcing any programs that his office can claim he had a hand in - he doesn't really seemed to have generated many.
He has strong allegiance to the Party and to organized labor. He will be an absolutely strong proponent of the OEA - the (very) powerful teachers' union - and almost assuredly anti - charter and anti - home schooling; but will go at the latter two indirectly.
He has visited an Unitarian church in s. e. Ohio on occasion, apparently to be a guest lay speaker. Maybe he has gone to other churches - I never heard about it.
Thanks. Had lost the link to the study.
I do not believe this man deserves your defense. He never spoke out against the conclusions of this studay. Never. Instead he chose to speak out against those who did speak out against the study.
As an analyst I am always interested in the details - the actual data. But at the same time I am very aware how data can all to often be sorted/sifted/adjusted to fit a desired conclusion.
There is a link elsewhere in the postings to this study. Read it. It is not a study. It is a self serving attempt to normalize adult-child sex. Nothing more. Nothing less.
It is not even a study. It is a discussion among those willing to discuss the possibility of adult-child sex being a positive experience. Consider who would participate in such a discussion.
This discussion was/is morally repugnant. Only someone without a moral foundation would find this to be anything close to a 'scientific study'.
Granted, most of those of voted for the resolution probably had not read the so-called scientific study. However, it is most likely someone on their staff had read it and could without question recommend supporting the resolution condemning the study.
This could have been regulated to the dusty bins of what often pretends to be science in psychology. Examples? Alien abduction therapy. Past life therapy. Recovered memory therapy. These represent only 3 of the over 400 various psychotherapies on the market today. On the market. To understand the market mentality of psychotherapy see the book "MANUFACTURING VICTIMS: What the Psychology Industry is Doing to People" by Dr. Tana Dineen.
Bottom line: Something is missing from Ted Strickland. That something appears to be a moral compass.