Bachmann signs The Family Lead pledge

[elvis]

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.

and that's what the pledge is saying....
protecting children from pornography. but you and manifold say that magically means banning it.

 

[Modbert]

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.

Except Politico is not politically bias for Democrats or Obama.

 

[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.

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

No. Anyone who would like to restrict rights, divide neighbors over something that patently isn't any of their business is a candidate that does not deserve the consideration of the American electorate. Any American who has a moral fiber in their body would find a pledge that diminishes the status of an American citizen based on his sexual orientation dreck.

 

[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.

Except Politico is not politically bias for Democrats or Obama.

yeah sure and Pmsnbc isn't either.
why would Politico bother picking up something as petty as this? no agenda there.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

Isn't a pledge that says Americans can be divided between the hetero and homosexual orientations and therefore discriminated against not merely divisive but anti-Civil Rights?

 

[Trajan]

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.

hello- DOMA and DADT and The Dream act......are wedge social issues too, why it is ok to call for a truce on social issues yet the dems. get to play their games?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Take a look:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/The-Family-Leader-Presidential-Pledge.pdf

#9 under the "Candidate vow". Pretty clear it says all forms of pornography.

The SCOTUS says teh pron is protected - you're not going to lose your jerkoff movies - you can relax. The horror of not being able to see some dude stick his wang in a barely legal couter is not going to come about...

 

[Trajan]

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.

Except Politico is not politically bias for Democrats or Obama.

 

[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.

hello- DOMA and DADT and The Dream act......are wedge social issues too, why it is ok to call for a truce on social issues yet the dems. get to play their games?

now now, that be different, don't ya know

 

[Si modo]

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.

Yup.

 

[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.

hello- DOMA and DADT and The Dream act......are wedge social issues too, why it is ok to call for a truce on social issues yet the dems. get to play their games?

Because freedom and liberty need constant shepherding through those who desire to eliminate them.

If Conservatives REALLY were advocates of freedom, they would lead in the struggle for Gay and Lesbian rights. Rather, we find Social Conservatives buttressing the fight against freedom.

 

[Trajan]

Pssst. Ummmm, there was no mention of banning anything in the subject pledge.

You are correct.

Deducing that restrictions are the obvious inference requires one to have at least passed the third grade.

Really?
Driving has restrictions when it comes to children. Alcohol has restrictions when it comes to children. Tobacco has restrictions when it comes to children. Are you worried about those being banned?

bang.this should be the end of story. But alas....

example; its like the fed bashing states whom don't use 55 as their speed limit, the people who think they are 'protecting' citizens from driving faster than 55 are doing a good thing, legal drinking ages changes in states...soooooo, no one has ever called for a ban on those but I bet you can find candidates etc. speaking to these and alike issues, like oh here, to pander.



protection does not equal banning, absent the word or declaration of such. the rest is just mitigating a poorly sourced OP.


my god take a break people....

 

[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.

hello- DOMA and DADT and The Dream act......are wedge social issues too, why it is ok to call for a truce on social issues yet the dems. get to play their games?

Because freedom and liberty need constant shepherding through those who desire to eliminate them.

If Conservatives REALLY were advocates of freedom, they would lead in the struggle for Gay and Lesbian rights. Rather, we find Social Conservatives buttressing the fight against freedom.

wtf. homosexuals have ALL the same rights that the rest of us have.

 

[Trajan]

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.

hello- DOMA and DADT and The Dream act......are wedge social issues too, why it is ok to call for a truce on social issues yet the dems. get to play their games?

Because freedom and liberty need constant shepherding through those who desire to eliminate them.

If Conservatives REALLY were advocates of freedom, they would lead in the struggle for Gay and Lesbian rights. Rather, we find Social Conservatives buttressing the fight against freedom.

thats not what I asked and remarked upon based on the quote I answered NK..... The what means little in the remark I made- its the why, why democratic social issue pursuance is ok, but the reps get beat up for doing same?

 

[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.

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.

When was the last time I saw a liberal run on a gay rights platform? For which election? If we are talking Congress it was 2010. If you are talking President it was 2008. Where were you either of those two years?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Yet your OP was a simple mistake.

 

[Nosmo King]

hello- DOMA and DADT and The Dream act......are wedge social issues too, why it is ok to call for a truce on social issues yet the dems. get to play their games?

Because freedom and liberty need constant shepherding through those who desire to eliminate them.

If Conservatives REALLY were advocates of freedom, they would lead in the struggle for Gay and Lesbian rights. Rather, we find Social Conservatives buttressing the fight against freedom.

thats not what I asked and remarked upon based on the quote I answered NK..... The what means little in the remark I made- its the why, why democratic social issue pursuance is ok, but the reps get beat up for doing same?

DADT was a compromise. The Social Conservatives would not stand for President Clinton relieving the military of bigotry all at once. The Dream Act would have permitted immigrant children (brought here by their parents and grew up essentially as Americans) to pursue a college degree and apply for citizenship. But, the Social Conservatives would rather squander the resource of educated Americans if only to bolster their own bigotry and xenophobia. DOMA was not a Liberal initiative was it?

So, we see Conservatives blocking civil rights, social advancement and the concept of e pluribis unum at every turn.

 

[Si modo]

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?

and there is the lie from the gay hater...

Since you seem to believe that you know my views better than I, do enlighten us all.

Why would I lie about my views? God, that is some serious paranoia from you, asswipe.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

When was the last time I saw a liberal run on a gay rights platform? For which election? If we are talking Congress it was 2010. If you are talking President it was 2008. Where were you either of those two years?

I am talking Presidential electiions. And where's Obama on Gay Marriage? Where was he in 2008? I don't know and I supported him then.

 

[elvis]

Because freedom and liberty need constant shepherding through those who desire to eliminate them.

If Conservatives REALLY were advocates of freedom, they would lead in the struggle for Gay and Lesbian rights. Rather, we find Social Conservatives buttressing the fight against freedom.

thats not what I asked and remarked upon based on the quote I answered NK..... The what means little in the remark I made- its the why, why democratic social issue pursuance is ok, but the reps get beat up for doing same?

DADT was a compromise. The Social Conservatives would not stand for President Clinton relieving the military of bigotry all at once. The Dream Act would have permitted immigrant children (brought here by their parents and grew up essentially as Americans) to pursue a college degree and apply for citizenship. But, the Social Conservatives would rather squander the resource of educated Americans if only to bolster their own bigotry and xenophobia. DOMA was not a Liberal initiative was it?

So, we see Conservatives blocking civil rights, social advancement and the concept of e pluribis unum at every turn.

clinton could have given the executive order, as obama did, to allow all gays in the military, without DADT. but he didn't. why? he didn't need permission from Congress.