Bachmann signs The Family Lead pledge

[Modbert]

From Politico:

Michele Bachmann first to sign Bob Vander Plaats' Family Leader gay marriage pledge - William Petroski - Des Moines Register - POLITICO.com

Presidential candidates who sign the pledge must agree to personal fidelity to his or her spouse, the appointment of “faithful constitutionalists” as judges, opposition to any redefinition of marriage, and prompt reform of uneconomic and anti-marriage aspects of welfare policy, tax policy and divorce law.

Sounds like a 'personal' pledge to me.

 

[manifold]

Let's get something straight:

The candidate pledge is not a personal pledge. It explicitly states above:

"Therefore, in any elected or appointed capacity by which I may have the honor of serving our fellow citizens in these United States, I the undersigned do hereby solemnly vow* to honor and to cherish, to defend and to uphold, the Institution of Marriage as only between one man and one woman. I vow* to do so through my:

How is a elected official going to protect "women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy" from abortion? I don't think it's going to be through a strongly worded letter.

Of course it's not. This whole thread serves to expose rightwing partisan dipshits.

It's beyond ignorant to insist that the obvious point of this pledge is indeed NOTto PLEDGE support for a legislative agenda aimed at restricting and/or banning the itemized examples of alleged immorality.

I love threads like this. We recently had one that exposed leftwing partisan dipshits in the exact same way. It's nice to know whose opinions cannot be relied upon for objectivity.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let's get something straight:

The candidate pledge is not a personal pledge. It explicitly states above:

"Therefore, in any elected or appointed capacity by which I may have the honor of serving our fellow citizens in these United States, I the undersigned do hereby solemnly vow* to honor and to cherish, to defend and to uphold, the Institution of Marriage as only between one man and one woman. I vow* to do so through my:

How is a elected official going to protect "women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy" from abortion? I don't think it's going to be through a strongly worded letter.

You are entirely correct. I am still waiting for you to answer the first question I asked in this thread though, what do you have against protecting children from all forms of pornography? Because that is what the pledge calls for, not banning anything. It clearly leaves it open for men to have all the pornography they want by not including them in the protection from it.

If you started this thread about the inherent hypocrisy of the promise, or even the fact that it was completely idiotic, you would have a point. Instead, you claimed it was about banning pornography, even though you did not read the actual pledge in the first place. Even after you did, you still insist it is about banning it, when it clearly is about something else.

 

[Stephanie]

I swear. Politico has become worse than the National Enquire. but totally EXPECTED they would pick this up. Gotta take the heat of the Obama and the Democrats FAILURES, the jump in Unemployment, etc etc.

 

[Si modo]

How do you protect them from Porn? Either you ban it or you brainwash them to think like you do.

Pssst your being mighty subjective in how you view it because you so happen to agree with the pledge and need to defend it like the partisan you are.

Actually, you have no idea what I believe about the pledge.

I do like accuracy, though. I'm a big fan of it. With accuracy I can make rational decisions. So, there was no mention of banning anything in the pledge.

great the actual word was never said. Again how to you protect women from all forms of porn?
Ban? Brainwash them into thinking its evil?
Why cant you just let people choose? Why so anti-freedom?

Oh i am sure you agree with all of the pledge. You seem like the type.


( wait for the lie)

Unless you think I am Michelle Bachman, why do you care what I think about porn?

So, as you're feeling a little intellectually weak right now, let me give you a hand in pummeling that strawman of yours to death:

I have nothing against normal porn. I have nothing against those who enjoy it from time to time.

This may come as a big shock to you because you are so very lame in making accusations about me in a thread that is not about me, but I am not against same-sex marriage, either.

I don't even have anything against 'evil', but that may be because I don't believe it exists, so it would be a bit difficult for me to be an advocate for something being evil.

Contrary to the progressives, I am a big believer in personal choices as long as my rights to the same are not infringed. I am also a big believer in being accountable for those choices.

So, don't you look like an asswipe now?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not.

Wrong.

Obscenity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fail

If you said Obsenity was already illegal I would have agreed.

That is how they make pornography illegal, they define it as obscene by community standards, then go and find a bunch of Amish that think wearing a bathing suit is obscene.

The First Amendment and Obscenity and Public Nudity

Do a little research.

 

[Newby]

are you having a bad morning, Si?

i have no problem reading. but you're being a bit disingenuous saying it's a "personal" pledge. it's a" personal" pledge to violate the court's decisions on the 1st amendment and to infringe on people's equal protection under the law.
as far as her comments on homosexuality being "choice", she has the right to be as stupid as she wishes.

now, would you be as understanding if the "personal" pledge were to ban guns in this country? or would you say she wanted to violate your constitutional rights, was trying to take away our guns "like they did in nazi germany" and point out the decision in the heller case?

i'm thinking you'd have done the latter.

as for seawytch, i'm afraid that whether someone is a lesbian or not really isn't much concern to me. and if you want to talk about "angry", i'd look more at steffie's lunatic posts. but there ya go.

got to run for a bit... will look back later.

The whole damn op is disingenuous since that's not what the pledge said at all to begin with. Go read the damn thing. Sheesh.

Raises hand. I read it. How to ban All forms of porno? See words mean things and ALL means every single snippet of it.

Keep making a fool of yourself, I'm thoroughly enjoying it. I may even pos rep you next time for the laughs.

 

[elvis]

Wrong.

Obscenity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fail

If you said Obsenity was already illegal I would have agreed.

That is how they make pornography illegal, they define it as obscene by community standards, then go and find a bunch of Amish that think wearing a bathing suit is obscene.

The First Amendment and Obscenity and Public Nudity

Do a little research.

He doesn't know how to do that. he just runs around calling people partisan dipshits when he gets his ass handed to him.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From Politico:

Michele Bachmann first to sign Bob Vander Plaats' Family Leader gay marriage pledge - William Petroski - Des Moines Register - POLITICO.com

Presidential candidates who sign the pledge must agree to personal fidelity to his or her spouse, the appointment of “faithful constitutionalists” as judges, opposition to any redefinition of marriage, and prompt reform of uneconomic and anti-marriage aspects of welfare policy, tax policy and divorce law.

Sounds like a 'personal' pledge to me.

Funny how it does not mention banning anything at all. Do you see the difference between a legitimate news story and demagoguery now?

 

[Nosmo King]

Why do Conservatives pursue wedge issues with such gusto? If there's a chance to restrict personal behavior, personal rights or the sexual behavior of consenting adults, Social Conservatives inevitably polish up their self-made halos and gallop across the countryside shootin' guns and ringin' bells the way Sarah Palin thinks Paul Revere did.

Bedroom issues, Family values, wedge issues are not good electoral policy. It only goes to figure that someone with the towering intellect of Michelle Bachmann would be the one and only Republican candidate to get tangled up in such dreck. I thought Little Ricky Santorum might fall for it, but I guess he has a smart enough campaign staff to keep him out of it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Don't listen to these partisan fuckwits. You didn't interpret anything incorrectly. Child porn is already illegal and no politicians anywhere are advocating for legalization. There'd be no need for any pledge about that whatsoever. That part of the pledge is definitely about supporting legislation that greatly restricts, if not outright bans "all forms of pornography" which as elvis pointed out, they didn't bother to define.

Believe it or not, pornography is already illegal in every state, and is also illegal under federal law. Since the pledge doesn't actually call for a ban on anything, it calls for protecting women and children, but not men, from it. I think that, if they really wanted to be honest, they should protect men from it also.

Then again, I really don't see why anyone needs to protect people from pornography in the first place, but that is me.

why do you lie? Porn is not illegal. Its protected free speech you dipshit.
You can go to a store and buy it if you so choose.

Seeing how you got this simple thing wrong, guess we have to question everything else you seem to think you know about.

No, you just think it is.

Tell me something, if pornography is protected speech why does the United States Department of Justice have an entire unit devote to prosecuting it?

Porn prosecution fuels debate - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

 

[elvis]

From Politico:

Michele Bachmann first to sign Bob Vander Plaats' Family Leader gay marriage pledge - William Petroski - Des Moines Register - POLITICO.com

Presidential candidates who sign the pledge must agree to personal fidelity to his or her spouse, the appointment of “faithful constitutionalists” as judges, opposition to any redefinition of marriage, and prompt reform of uneconomic and anti-marriage aspects of welfare policy, tax policy and divorce law.

Sounds like a 'personal' pledge to me.

Funny how it does not mention banning anything at all. Do you see the difference between a legitimate news story and demagoguery now?

hopefully he'll realize thinkprogress is not a legitimate news source.

 

[Si modo]

Why do Conservatives pursue wedge issues with such gusto?
....

Because they get votes from those who do not fully understand how the Constitution really protects most of us.

I'm not being glib, but it is just that simple.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why do Conservatives pursue wedge issues with such gusto? If there's a chance to restrict personal behavior, personal rights or the sexual behavior of consenting adults, Social Conservatives inevitably polish up their self-made halos and gallop across the countryside shootin' guns and ringin' bells the way Sarah Palin thinks Paul Revere did.

Bedroom issues, Family values, wedge issues are not good electoral policy. It only goes to figure that someone with the towering intellect of Michelle Bachmann would be the one and only Republican candidate to get tangled up in such dreck. I thought Little Ricky Santorum might fall for it, but I guess he has a smart enough campaign staff to keep him out of it.

Why do liberals and progressives?

Because it gets them votes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why do Conservatives pursue wedge issues with such gusto?
....

Because they get votes from those who do not fully understand how the Constitution really protects most of us.

I'm not being glib, but it is just that simple.

You beat me to it, but it is still true.

 

[Stephanie]

Why do Conservatives pursue wedge issues with such gusto? If there's a chance to restrict personal behavior, personal rights or the sexual behavior of consenting adults, Social Conservatives inevitably polish up their self-made halos and gallop across the countryside shootin' guns and ringin' bells the way Sarah Palin thinks Paul Revere did.

Bedroom issues, Family values, wedge issues are not good electoral policy. It only goes to figure that someone with the towering intellect of Michelle Bachmann would be the one and only Republican candidate to get tangled up in such dreck. I thought Little Ricky Santorum might fall for it, but I guess he has a smart enough campaign staff to keep him out of it.

Mighty BROAD brush you paint with. so now the pledge is dreck? by who's standards? yours?

 

[Nosmo King]

Why do Conservatives pursue wedge issues with such gusto? If there's a chance to restrict personal behavior, personal rights or the sexual behavior of consenting adults, Social Conservatives inevitably polish up their self-made halos and gallop across the countryside shootin' guns and ringin' bells the way Sarah Palin thinks Paul Revere did.

Bedroom issues, Family values, wedge issues are not good electoral policy. It only goes to figure that someone with the towering intellect of Michelle Bachmann would be the one and only Republican candidate to get tangled up in such dreck. I thought Little Ricky Santorum might fall for it, but I guess he has a smart enough campaign staff to keep him out of it.

Why do liberals and progressives?

Because it gets them votes.

For every vote (endorsement from the electorate) a candidate wins, there are surely votes lost. That's why they're called "wedge" issues. Issues like these do not provide any unity among the electorate. Not like running on a jobs platform or tax reform.

When was the last time you saw a Liberal running on a Gay Rights platform? But Conservatives like to run on anti-Civil Rights all the time.

 

[Modbert]

You are entirely correct. I am still waiting for you to answer the first question I asked in this thread though, what do you have against protecting children from all forms of pornography? Because that is what the pledge calls for, not banning anything. It clearly leaves it open for men to have all the pornography they want by not including them in the protection from it.

If you started this thread about the inherent hypocrisy of the promise, or even the fact that it was completely idiotic, you would have a point. Instead, you claimed it was about banning pornography, even though you did not read the actual pledge in the first place. Even after you did, you still insist it is about banning it, when it clearly is about something else.

You know as well as I do that I have nothing against protecting children from pornography. Insisting anything beside that is nothing but blatant dishonesty and partisan hackery.

 

[Stephanie]

Why do Conservatives pursue wedge issues with such gusto? If there's a chance to restrict personal behavior, personal rights or the sexual behavior of consenting adults, Social Conservatives inevitably polish up their self-made halos and gallop across the countryside shootin' guns and ringin' bells the way Sarah Palin thinks Paul Revere did.

Bedroom issues, Family values, wedge issues are not good electoral policy. It only goes to figure that someone with the towering intellect of Michelle Bachmann would be the one and only Republican candidate to get tangled up in such dreck. I thought Little Ricky Santorum might fall for it, but I guess he has a smart enough campaign staff to keep him out of it.

Why do liberals and progressives?

Because it gets them votes.

For every vote (endorsement from the electorate) a candidate wins, there are surely votes lost. That's why they're called "wedge" issues. Issues like these do not provide any unity among the electorate. Not like running on a jobs platform or tax reform.

When was the last time you saw a Liberal running on a Gay Rights platform? But Conservatives like to run on anti-Civil Rights all the time.

There's that BROAD BUSH again..good grief.

 

[xsited1]

Bachmann signs The Family Lead pledge
BREAKING: Bachmann pledges to ban pornography | ThinkProgress
...

Another, "Hello, I'm Modbert and I'm an Idiot" thread. Carry on.