Respect and submission, are they the same?

And yet, Bachmann has repeatedly stated that wive's must submit to their husbands.

Shit dude.........they've got a wife carry, I wonder if this is the next extreme sport? Think that if Bachmann is elected, she's gonna take a carriage ride as well?

I grew up in a traditional Oneness Pentecostal home. If you know anything about Pentecostals the women are taught to be very submissive to their husbands. My father was not a big influence on my life. My step father was, growing up. I grew up with a mother who believed in submission to her husband. She didn't argue with him much and while they both were very involved in the decision making in the home, if there was a disagreement it was usually my step father that made the final decision on what to do regarding any situation. My grandmother was also Pentecostal (we're from a family of a four generation family of southern Pentecostal and Methodist Holiness preachers and clergy). She taught her daughters to be "obedient" to their husbands. It's an old fashioned way of thinking, but some people still have it.

I feel sorry for Michele Bachmann in this instance that's she's be questioned on this at all. She believes in being submissive to her husband at home, not at work. My mother and my stepfather both worked. My mother didn't call her husband and ask what she should do at the office. Neither will Bachmann. It's simply an attack on people that have traditionalist and fundamentalist faiths. Her choice is to follow her understanding of the scriptures in her home, and quite frankly that's her business.

Bachmann had the opportunity to make the distinction between submission in family matters vs. submission to her husband in her role as president. She did not.

The only logical conclusion is that she believes that her religious obligation to submit to her husband does extend to her role as President.

I think that we need to see Mr. Bachmann at the next debates!
 
Screw that crap, Bachmann DOESN'T NEED TO ANSWER that Question AT ALL. And I find it disgusting that they would even ask that question of a woman running for President. Just think if they had asked Hillary that question. you people are stupid.
 
And yet, Bachmann has repeatedly stated that wive's must submit to their husbands.

Shit dude.........they've got a wife carry, I wonder if this is the next extreme sport? Think that if Bachmann is elected, she's gonna take a carriage ride as well?

I grew up in a traditional Oneness Pentecostal home. If you know anything about Pentecostals the women are taught to be very submissive to their husbands. My father was not a big influence on my life. My step father was, growing up. I grew up with a mother who believed in submission to her husband. She didn't argue with him much and while they both were very involved in the decision making in the home, if there was a disagreement it was usually my step father that made the final decision on what to do regarding any situation. My grandmother was also Pentecostal (we're from a family of a four generation family of southern Pentecostal and Methodist Holiness preachers and clergy). She taught her daughters to be "obedient" to their husbands. It's an old fashioned way of thinking, but some people still have it.

I feel sorry for Michele Bachmann in this instance that's she's be questioned on this at all. She believes in being submissive to her husband at home, not at work. My mother and my stepfather both worked. My mother didn't call her husband and ask what she should do at the office. Neither will Bachmann. It's simply an attack on people that have traditionalist and fundamentalist faiths. Her choice is to follow her understanding of the scriptures in her home, and quite frankly that's her business.

Bachmann had the opportunity to make the distinction between submission in family matters vs. submission to her husband in her role as president. She did not.

The only logical conclusion is that she believes that her religious obligation to submit to her husband does extend to her role as President.

I think that we need to see Mr. Bachmann at the next debates!

The question should not have been asked in the first place.

It was out of line.
 
Screw that crap, Bachmann DOESN'T NEED TO ANSWER that Question AT ALL. And I find it disgusting that they would even ask that question of a woman running for President. Just think if they had asked Hillary that question. you people are stupid.

They wouldn't. This is about Bachmann's faith and her faith alone.
 
And yet, Bachmann has repeatedly stated that wive's must submit to their husbands.

Shit dude.........they've got a wife carry, I wonder if this is the next extreme sport? Think that if Bachmann is elected, she's gonna take a carriage ride as well?

I grew up in a traditional Oneness Pentecostal home. If you know anything about Pentecostals the women are taught to be very submissive to their husbands. My father was not a big influence on my life. My step father was, growing up. I grew up with a mother who believed in submission to her husband. She didn't argue with him much and while they both were very involved in the decision making in the home, if there was a disagreement it was usually my step father that made the final decision on what to do regarding any situation. My grandmother was also Pentecostal (we're from a family of a four generation family of southern Pentecostal and Methodist Holiness preachers and clergy). She taught her daughters to be "obedient" to their husbands. It's an old fashioned way of thinking, but some people still have it.

I feel sorry for Michele Bachmann in this instance that's she's be questioned on this at all. She believes in being submissive to her husband at home, not at work. My mother and my stepfather both worked. My mother didn't call her husband and ask what she should do at the office. Neither will Bachmann. It's simply an attack on people that have traditionalist and fundamentalist faiths. Her choice is to follow her understanding of the scriptures in her home, and quite frankly that's her business.

Bachmann had the opportunity to make the distinction between submission in family matters vs. submission to her husband in her role as president. She did not.

The only logical conclusion is that she believes that her religious obligation to submit to her husband does extend to her role as President.

I think that we need to see Mr. Bachmann at the next debates!

She SHOULD have made the distinction between valid, meaningful questions and crass, bullshit diversionary attacks, since it's obvious you dipshits are incapable of making that distinction on your own.

I think that we need to see some real voters with real intelligence at the next debates, since we're obviously sadly lacking in that department right now.
 
What did they ever ask Barry during debates? How many states there are? He would have flunked that one. You can bet your ass-ets that republican candidates will see convoluted questions and trick questions unrelated to the job designed to get a juicy sound bite. That's just the way the system works.
 
Screw that crap, Bachmann DOESN'T NEED TO ANSWER that Question AT ALL. And I find it disgusting that they would even ask that question of a woman running for President. Just think if they had asked Hillary that question. you people are stupid.

Agreed she doesn't have to answer it, disagreed that it is an inappropriate question. IIRC, Hillary was asked questions about the influence of Bill on her Presidency. Additionally, Bill himself was asked questions about his rumored affairs and his style of underwear.

Candidates shouldn't be treated differently just because of their race or gender, but if they make statements they should be held accountable for those statements.

BTW, name-calling on a forum reminds me of a western where the bad guy has run out of bullets but keeps clicking on an empty chamber anyway....probably because he's too incompetent to stop, duck and reload.
 
Bachmann won't scare me until she's elected.

Until then? She's just a goofy bitch on the television screen.

Like Hillary Clinton, she's too controversial to be elected.....but she is fun to watch.

corndog1384x288.jpg

The fact that she's straining to get her mouth around that doesn't reflect well on Marcus.:lol:
 
Screw that crap, Bachmann DOESN'T NEED TO ANSWER that Question AT ALL. And I find it disgusting that they would even ask that question of a woman running for President. Just think if they had asked Hillary that question. you people are stupid.

Hillary never stated that a wife must submit to her husband dipshit.

Bachmann did.
 
Bachmann won't scare me until she's elected.

Until then? She's just a goofy bitch on the television screen.

Like Hillary Clinton, she's too controversial to be elected.....but she is fun to watch.

corndog1384x288.jpg

The fact that she's straining to get her mouth around that doesn't reflect well on Marcus.:lol:

Are you kidding? He taught her everything he knows. She's past halfway. She's lost her gag reflex.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Screw that crap, Bachmann DOESN'T NEED TO ANSWER that Question AT ALL. And I find it disgusting that they would even ask that question of a woman running for President. Just think if they had asked Hillary that question. you people are stupid.

Hillary never stated that a wife must submit to her husband dipshit.

Bachmann did.

really, so you don't look at Hillary standing by and taking back her hound dog adulterer husband... as a sign of SUBMISSION?

believe me, a LOT OF PEOPLE DO.
 
really, so you don't look at Hillary standing by and taking back her hound dog adulterer husband... as a sign of SUBMISSION?

believe me, a LOT OF PEOPLE DO.

If it was a submission, then it would be to God and her marriage vows, not Uncle Bill. However, call me a cynic, but I think she did it for political expediency. It wouldn't surprise me if they divorced once she retired as Secretary of State.
 

Forum List

Back
Top