Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

1999: Christine O’Donnell *CONDEMNED* Witchcraft on Bill Maher Program
Bill Maher / Delaware News Center ^ | October 29, 199 | Christine O'Donnell on Bill Maher

Posted on 03/21/2011 11:06:32 AM PDT by Moseley

All of the news clips dishonestly edits this Bill Maher program from October 29, 1999, to misrepresent what Christine O’Donnell actually said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZlbZl7vbLE&feature=player_embedded

Christine O’Donnell was simultaneously:

o REJECTING influences like witchcraft and Satanic influences in Halloween but

o Reponding to criticisms that she was speaking from a lack of knowledge, criticism that she was exaggerating.

Christine mentioned the dabbling issue to argue that she had KNOWLEDGE that withcraft and satanic influences are bad, and should not be celebrated.

She was explaining that it was *BAD* — and that she knew it was bad from personal experience.

When challenged on whether she knew what she was talking about, she then responded that she had made the mistake of dabbling in witchcraft in high school, and now knew that it was a bad thing. She later became a Christian and for the last 19 years has been an outspoken and passionate advocate for Jesus Christ.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Delaware
KEYWORDS: billmaher; christineodonnell; halloween; witchcraft

1 posted on 03/21/2011 11:06:37 AM PDT by Moseley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Moseley

I still think she’s a cute lady bug.


2 posted on 03/21/2011 11:10:31 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Sulzberger Family Motto: Trois generations d'imbeciles, assez)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

3 posted on 03/21/2011 11:14:25 AM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

I’m kinda over the witchcraft thing but will always come for Christine pics ;-)


4 posted on 03/21/2011 11:16:43 AM PDT by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Correct me if I’m wrong but it is my contention that any “religion” that worships the devil(One of which would be witchcraft)is indeed bad.


5 posted on 03/21/2011 11:24:55 AM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

“I am Not a Witch, but I play one on Bill Maher’s Program”

Seriously, didn’t her campaign prove that nobody benefits when her witchcract is brought up, no matter how much people think it is helping?

The whistle cannot be unblown.


6 posted on 03/21/2011 11:44:43 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

The whole thing is hilarious, because atheists and leftists don’t grasp the Evangelical paradigm at all.

One of Evangelicals biggest beliefs is that those who have sinned can be born again into their faith. But the atheists and leftists assume that Christians will scorn her forever because she admitted to once making a mistake, and so harp on that.

And atheists and leftists are perplexed because Christians appreciate her even more for having come around. It’s the whole “forgiveness” thing. It makes no sense to them.

Atheists and leftists are known for not being forgiving, especially if one of their number strays from doctrine. They will curse at them forever, or at best ignore them. People like David Horowitz they hate beyond hate, and they will do everything in their power to destroy him.

And they assume that Evangelical Christians are the same.


7 posted on 03/21/2011 11:45:00 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calex59

I think I have to correct you, but I don’t know what you said.

19 years ago, Christine O’Donnell found Jesus Christ and became a Christian.

BEFORE THAT she was searching and tried different religions.

She then REJECTED the previous religions she had tried and has been a passionate and committed Christian for the last 19 years.

Does that clear that up, Calex? I don’t understand what your point was.


8 posted on 03/21/2011 11:58:08 AM PDT by Moseley (http://www.SupportChristine.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

I agree with you completely. Christians immediately understand the “BEFORE” and “AFTER” paradigm of our lives — how I once was lost, but now am found.

And the Left keeps trying to sow division among Christians and can’t understand why their efforts never work.


9 posted on 03/21/2011 12:00:37 PM PDT by Moseley (http://www.SupportChristine.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Isn’t it a little too late to be debating and discussing her comments on a stupid TV show? The election was over 5 months ago and she lost. Does it matter now?


10 posted on 03/21/2011 12:10:52 PM PDT by lmr (God punishes Conservatives by making them argue with fools.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
19 years ago, Christine O’Donnell found Jesus Christ and became a Christian. BEFORE THAT she was searching and tried different religions. She then REJECTED the previous religions she had tried and has been a passionate and committed Christian for the last 19 years.

This has nothing to do with Jesus Christ or "trying out different religions". The problem is not that she tried out Catholicism, Unitarianism, Judaism and the Mormons before becoming a Southern Baptist or a Lutheran.

The problem is that the vast majority of voters do not consider witchcraft to be in the same ballpark as a legitimate "religion".

The problem is that the vast majority of voters believe that anybody that even goes there, for whatever reason, for however short a period of time has a major screw loose.


11 posted on 03/21/2011 12:19:57 PM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: lmr
Isn’t it a little too late to be debating and discussing her comments on a stupid TV show? The election was over 5 months ago and she lost. Does it matter now?

Well, actually, yes, it does matter.

In the military, such discussions are called "After Action Reviews". In medicine, they are called "Morbidity and Mortality Conferences".

The purpose of such discussions is to determine, "For the future, this works well, this was unfortunate and that was just plain stupid."

In Christine O’Donnell's case: "For the future, being taken seriously works well, having a tape admitting youthful idiocy was unfortunate and keeping the issue alive by putting it into your own paid commercial was just plain stupid."

Another lesson is that appearing on "stupid TV shows" will not serve you well if you expect voters to take you seriously in the future.

Sarah Palin And Kate Gosselin Join Forces In Alaska In What Might Be The Strangest Episode Of Reality TV Ever

12 posted on 03/21/2011 12:43:13 PM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
In the military, such discussions are called "After Action Reviews"

I don't see how this relates to the military at all.

Another lesson is that appearing on "stupid TV shows" will not serve you well if you expect voters to take you seriously in the future.

I agree with this! All I was saying was that I'm sure Christine O'Donnell realizes now that it was stupid, but that's not going to change the fact that she lost. It's old news. She's ancient history. That's what I'm saying.
13 posted on 03/21/2011 12:56:41 PM PDT by lmr (God punishes Conservatives by making them argue with fools.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
Another lesson is that appearing on "stupid TV shows" will not serve you well if you expect voters to take you seriously in the future. Sarah Palin And Kate Gosselin Join Forces In Alaska In What Might Be The Strangest Episode Of Reality TV Ever

Still pushing that old "Reality Show Ruined Palin" meme, eh Polybius? Or should I say, PDSbius?

14 posted on 03/21/2011 1:23:30 PM PDT by backwoods-engineer (Any politician who holds that the state accords rights is an oathbreaker and an "enemy... domestic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: lmr
In the military, such discussions are called "After Action Reviews"

I don't see how this relates to the military at all.

I thought it was self explanatory but let me rephrase it.

In the military and in medicine (you know, where people actually care about learning from their past mistakes), they don't just say, "That happened 5 months ago and we had a bad outcome. Let's just ignore what happened and not talk about it."

They study past mistakes in order to learn from them and not repeat that type of mistake in the future.

... that's not going to change the fact that she lost. It's old news. She's ancient history. That's what I'm saying.

Ancient history can be very informative. As my namesake wrote at the beginning of his Universal History:

"I have recorded these events in the hope that the reader may profit from them, for there are two ways by which all men may reform themselves, either by learning from their own errors or from those of others; the former makes a more striking demonstration, the latter a less painful one." ...... Polybius (200-118 B.C.), Universal History, Book I, Chapter 35

As I pointed out, even after the 2008 Christine O’Donnell disaster, Sarah Palin has not yet learned the lesson about how "stupid TV shows" and "being taken seriously" are not a compatible mix.

Sarah Palin And Kate Gosselin Join Forces In Alaska In What Might Be The Strangest Episode Of Reality TV Ever

15 posted on 03/21/2011 1:26:26 PM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
Another lesson is that appearing on "stupid TV shows" will not serve you well if you expect voters to take you seriously in the future.

Sarah Palin And Kate Gosselin Join Forces In Alaska In What Might Be The Strangest Episode Of Reality TV Ever

Gee, I'll bet you just about wet yourself when you found this perfect opportunity to post that non-sense.
16 posted on 03/21/2011 1:36:59 PM PDT by lewislynn ( What does the global warming movement and the Fairtax movement have in commom? Misinformation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
In the military and in medicine (you know, where people actually care about learning from their past mistakes), they don't just say, "That happened 5 months ago and we had a bad outcome. Let's just ignore what happened and not talk about it."

Oh, you were making some kind of convoluted irrelevant analogy. I get it.

Sarah Palin has not yet learned the lesson about how "stupid TV shows" and "being taken seriously" are not a compatible mix.

This analogy makes more sense here, but I doubt Sarah was taking any clues from Christine O'Donnell. You see, Sarah is just doing this attention-whoring for money. She has no ambitions to run for president, because even a fool could see reality TV isn't very presidential or statesman-like. With that, I agree. I don't think Sarah needs to 'learn a lesson.' She knows what she's doing. She's milking this cow for all that it's worth.

All of that aside, Christine O'Donnell was trying to win in a Blue State and any 'dabbling in witchcraft' would be ultimately irrelevant in the end, because there is no way she could win, anyway.
17 posted on 03/21/2011 1:38:32 PM PDT by lmr (God punishes Conservatives by making them argue with fools.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer
Still pushing that old "Reality Show Ruined Palin" meme, eh Polybius? Or should I say, PDSbius?

The Ad Hominem Fallacy: "A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate."

Just call the other guy a "Fascist" (if you are a liberal who does not have a compelling argument to make) or accuse the other guy of having "P.S.D." (if you are a supporter of a candidate whose name starts with the letter P who does not have a compelling argument to make).

I guess I could also wallow in the Ad Hominem Fallacy and simply post things like, "Oh, yeah! Well, you are a P.O.W. (Palin Obsessive Worshipper)."

But, such a mindless interchange does not really help much in preparing for the Real World of general elections, does it?

The reasons that 72% of ALL voters believe that Sarah Palin would not be a good President are multi-factorial and not being seen as somebody that can be taken seriously is one of those factors.

If you think that appearing in reality TV show stunts with tabloid queen Kate Gosslin helps or hurts or makes no difference, then explain your reasoning. "You have P.S.D." and "You are are Fascist" is nothing but mindless dribble.

Here is the February Fox News Poll. Explain it any way you please.

FOX News Poll (February 7-9, 2011)

Question 3: I am going to read you a list of names. Tell me if you think that person would make a good President or not.

Sarah Palin:

.................YES.........NO.......DK.....Never heard of

ALL...........23%.......72%.........4%.......1%

Dem ...........7%........87%........5%.......1%

Rep ...........40%.......56%.......3%.......1%

Ind ...........25%........69%.......3%.......1%

18 posted on 03/21/2011 1:54:57 PM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

The point was, clueless, that the article was saying Christine was being bad mouthed for calling Witchcraft, among other things, bad and I agreed with her. Next time read the article and try to comprehend the comments others make. You might save yourself embarrassment by NOT making snide and stupid comments to other FReepers.


19 posted on 03/21/2011 2:46:07 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Polybius

No, I am sorry, but you are confused. The vast majority of voters have been exposed to Christianity, in which the very core of it is that people turn away from their sins.

Christians, including Christian leaders, are former drug addicts, drug dealers, booze hounds, you name it.

The problem is that you are ignorant. The core of Christianity is that

1 Timothy 1:15
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.

Most voters are not as ignorant as you are.


20 posted on 03/21/2011 3:10:40 PM PDT by Moseley (http://www.SupportChristine.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
Polybius, I think you are the one looking more foolish with every post:

In Christine O’Donnell's case: "For the future, being taken seriously works well, having a tape admitting youthful idiocy was unfortunate and keeping the issue alive by putting it into your own paid commercial was just plain stupid."

Christine O'Donnell appeared on Bill Maher's show from around 1996 through 1999.

She first decided to run for office in 2006, which was only a trial run for exposure.

Furthermore the tape was never aired, and no one knew it existed. It was locked away in "out takes" from Bill Maher's show that had never been used on the air.

You are trying to equate that with a candidate knowingly going on a reality TV show while being a candidate. Your argument sounds rather silly.

Furthermore, Sarah Palin's "reality show" is NOT a reality show at all... it is a travel documentary (no matter what they call it) promoting her native Alaska. It is like a giant commercial advertising and promoting her State.

Do you remember those ads when the Governor of Michigan was promoting Michigan, or Arnold Schwarzenegger was promoting California?

Sarah Palin's Alaska is nothing but a 30 minute commercial promoting and advertising her State and introducing Alaska to the Lower 48, encouraging tourism and commerce with Alaska.

What about that would be un-Presidential I can't see.
21 posted on 03/21/2011 3:16:28 PM PDT by Moseley (http://www.SupportChristine.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
Now, you've lost your mind:

As I pointed out, even after the 2008 Christine O’Donnell disaster,

DISASTER? WHAT DISASTER?

The 2006 GOP nominee for US Senate won only 29% of the vote -- Jan Ting.

Christine O'Donnell increased that in 2008 to 36% -- about the same as veteran RINO John McCain got in Delaware for President.

In 2010, Christine O'Donnell increased that to 40%.

So the RINO candidate Jan Ting got 29%. O'Donnell has improved the GOP's results for US Senate to 40%.

In 2008, the RINO candidate for Governor Judge Bill Lee got only 32% compared with Christine O'Donnell's 36%.

Disaster? The RINO candidate for Governor got 32% compared with O'Donnell's 36%.

O'Donnell spent only about $100,000 compared to Joe Biden's $4 million for US Senate, plus Joe Biden was also the candidate for Vice President benefiting from a 3/4's of a BILLION DOLLAR Presidential campaign with Barack Obama.

And yet John McCain did no better in Delaware for President than O'Donnell did for U.S. Senate in Delaware in the same year.

It sounds like you are the disaster Polybius. Especially when you argue for carefully reviewing past results to LEARN from them for the future. You've learned nothing but left-wing propaganda.
22 posted on 03/21/2011 3:22:13 PM PDT by Moseley (http://www.SupportChristine.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson