Bachmann signs The Family Lead pledge

[bodecea]

Liberals say they are FOR homosexuals, but then they turn around and USE THEM as a weapon AGAINST PEOPLE.

Now you can understand why a LOT of people feel the way they do.

Right. My brother was gay and the implication that being gay is bad really pisses me off. And, it comes from a dyke. The irony.

Gay is not bad...and we appreciate your derogatory term for lesbians. It makes this so much more ironic...and that's funny.

 

[elvis]

The Supreme Court has declared that marriage is a fundamental right... But you knew that already...

Gays could not, until very recently, serve without fear of discharge if their sexual orientation was disclosed or discovered.

If it's a right, why do you need a license?

Registered so those rights and privileges are filed for legal purposed....documentation documentation documentation.

then it shouldn't be called a license.

 

[Si modo]

The problem that I have is that when you use such standards for "hypocrisy", EVERYONE becomes a hypocrite, to some extent or another.

and there is 'degree' in everything. this is pretty small potatoes.

dadt passed in nov. , obama has instructed the DOJ NOT to defend doma......he has also instructed the immigration bureau to (not in all) but many, allow what is a defacto dream act.

bachmann signs a vow to throw the usual red meat to a base constituency ( they ALLL do it) and she is 15 months out from the election, 6 from the first primary, to do well nothing because she has absolutely no power to do anything and the odds are HUGE that she never will and, the right is full of fire breathing religious wingnuts and to top it off mis-characterizes the supposed smoking gun.

and oh all that garbage in the sheeple media ( who never seems to get around btw, to questions why obama with NO primary opponent needs to start his re-election camp. in April and during an economic meltdown) ala "where are the gop contenders ..where are the gop candidates etc.

This is EXACTLY why they want them in....to savage them, so as to sell news and get ahead of the game minimalising them.

I agree with most of what you've said here.

But my point is more along the lines of this: Do you think the fact that it's not surprising in the least that Bachmann signed the pledge (if I were her *shudder*, I would have signed it too - that's what her base wants) means that people who vehemently disagree with that pledge shouldn't be upset about it?

No one is surprised that Michelle Bachmann signed this pledge. No one should be surprised that it would upset people as well.

I don't think that is what he is saying, but I will let him speak for himself.

I am not objecting to folks not liking her views. I do object to the inaccurate and dishonest representation of those views. And, I don't even agree with most of them.

 

[bodecea]

Oh? And just what IS the intent of "the Pledge" in your estimation?

I see a lot of homophobia in it...not surprising that Bachmman, whose husband is gay as a three dollar bill, would sign it. Michelle Bachmman must live in constant fear of that phone call...


"ma'am, we've arrested your husband in a public restroom"

What is your problem? Really, what is the source of your absolute bitterness?

To what part of my post would you ascribe "bitterness" to? The truth is "bitter"?

I cannot help but notice in the last few days a GREAT DEAL of anger and shrillness in a certain political leaning class of posters. I think they are very frustrated and see the writing on the wall....My opinion, of course.

 

[Stephanie]

Really? Why can't they get married or join the service then?

where does it state MARRIAGE IS A RIGHT? and are you now going to say they AREN'T IN THE MILITARY? really?
talk about WEDGE ISSUES, you Liberals are famous for using them.

The Supreme Court has declared that marriage is a fundamental right... But you knew that already...

Gays could not, until very recently, serve without fear of discharge if their sexual orientation was disclosed or discovered.

fundamental right.
As I said, homosexuals HAVE all the same rights we have already. but you all can argue till your blue in the face.
And I also said I don't care one way or the other if they want to get married and go after each other in divorce court. let them live in misery with the other 50% of divorces.

 

[Seawytch]

I don't care one way or the other..if homosexuals want to be miserable in marriage like the other 50% of the population, let them..

but MARRIAGE still isn't a RIGHT. but then it involve getting the Guberment involved, yet they then tell us to stay out of their bedrooms and uterus...

can't have it both ways

It's true it's not a right. otherwise, you wouldn't need a license. but why does the government discriminate?

You need a license to own a gun in most places too...are you contending that gun ownership isn't a fundamental right?

 

[bodecea]

If it's a right, why do you need a license?

Registered so those rights and privileges are filed for legal purposed....documentation documentation documentation.

then it shouldn't be called a license.

Why not?

 

[bodecea]

I don't care one way or the other..if homosexuals want to be miserable in marriage like the other 50% of the population, let them..

but MARRIAGE still isn't a RIGHT. but then it involve getting the Guberment involved, yet they then tell us to stay out of their bedrooms and uterus...

can't have it both ways

It's true it's not a right. otherwise, you wouldn't need a license. but why does the government discriminate?

You need a license to own a gun in most places too...are you contending that gun ownership isn't a fundamental right?

Awwwwwkward!

 

[elvis]

I don't care one way or the other..if homosexuals want to be miserable in marriage like the other 50% of the population, let them..

but MARRIAGE still isn't a RIGHT. but then it involve getting the Guberment involved, yet they then tell us to stay out of their bedrooms and uterus...

can't have it both ways

It's true it's not a right. otherwise, you wouldn't need a license. but why does the government discriminate?

You need a license to own a gun in most places too...are you contending that gun ownership isn't a fundamental right?

No. I am on your side, I think. The word "license" implies you need permission from the government.

 

[elvis]

It's true it's not a right. otherwise, you wouldn't need a license. but why does the government discriminate?

You need a license to own a gun in most places too...are you contending that gun ownership isn't a fundamental right?

Awwwwwkward!

not really. I didn't know they considered those licenses.

 

[Modbert]

not really. I didn't know they considered those licenses.

They do.

Firearms licence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[elvis]

not really. I didn't know they considered those licenses.

They do.

Firearms licence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

well that really flies in the face of the second amendment, now doesn't it?

 

[L.K.Eder]

The same way any candidate accomplishes half the promises they make.
Didnt Obama promise to close GITMO?

Promsising or swearing to do all they can does not mean they will accomplish it.

that is not even an attempt.

of course they will have to go the legislative route.

unless you think the candidates will act as bodyguards who personally protect the vulnerable women and children.

where in does the vow say she will ban it and the example fits every situation- legislation, she cannot do sqaut on her own. who can?

if I thought that I would have said that, but since it makes no sense, I didn't.....

i was not talking to you, but to jarhead.
i also did not mention banning anything.
you can continue pissing in the wind, caesar.

 

[Modbert]

Edited the OP to include the following update:

OPINION: Relax. Bachmann Didn't Pledge To Ban Pornography* - News - Talk Radio News Service: News, Politics, Media

When reached for comment, Bob Vander Plaats, the organization’s president, appeared surprised that the language has been interpreted as a call to outlaw adult entertainment.

“We are not calling for a nationwide band on pornography,” Vander Plaats said during a phone interview. “The bullet point doesn’t even come close to calling for that.”

Vander Plaats explained that the language was meant to imply opposition to women being forced into pornography or prostitution, a far cry from the Think Progress headline: BREAKING: Bachmann pledges to ban pornography

 

[elvis]

that is not even an attempt.

of course they will have to go the legislative route.

unless you think the candidates will act as bodyguards who personally protect the vulnerable women and children.

where in does the vow say she will ban it and the example fits every situation- legislation, she cannot do sqaut on her own. who can?

if I thought that I would have said that, but since it makes no sense, I didn't.....

i was not talking to you, but to jarhead.
i also did not mention banning anything.
you can continue pissing in the wind, caesar.

do you mean Kaiser?

 

[L.K.Eder]

where in does the vow say she will ban it and the example fits every situation- legislation, she cannot do sqaut on her own. who can?

if I thought that I would have said that, but since it makes no sense, I didn't.....

i was not talking to you, but to jarhead.
i also did not mention banning anything.
you can continue pissing in the wind, caesar.

do you mean Kaiser?

no, but kaiser is derived from caesar as is czar.

trajan was a caesar.

the poster who poses as trajan via handle and avatar, however, is just a blimp.

 

[elvis]

i was not talking to you, but to jarhead.
i also did not mention banning anything.
you can continue pissing in the wind, caesar.

do you mean Kaiser?

no, but kaiser is derived from caesar as is czar.

trajan was a caesar.

the poster who poses as trajan via handle and avatar, however, is just a blimp.

ok. i get the reference now.

 

[Salt Jones]

This is my favorite part of the pledge:

"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an AfricanAmerican baby born after the election of the USA‟s first African-American President."

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM187_marriage.html

 

[Trajan]

The problem that I have is that when you use such standards for "hypocrisy", EVERYONE becomes a hypocrite, to some extent or another.

and there is 'degree' in everything. this is pretty small potatoes.

dadt passed in nov. , obama has instructed the DOJ NOT to defend doma......he has also instructed the immigration bureau to (not in all) but many, allow what is a defacto dream act.

bachmann signs a vow to throw the usual red meat to a base constituency ( they ALLL do it) and she is 15 months out from the election, 6 from the first primary, to do well nothing because she has absolutely no power to do anything and the odds are HUGE that she never will and, the right is full of fire breathing religious wingnuts and to top it off mis-characterizes the supposed smoking gun.

and oh all that garbage in the sheeple media ( who never seems to get around btw, to questions why obama with NO primary opponent needs to start his re-election camp. in April and during an economic meltdown) ala "where are the gop contenders ..where are the gop candidates etc.

This is EXACTLY why they want them in....to savage them, so as to sell news and get ahead of the game minimalising them.

I agree with most of what you've said here.

But my point is more along the lines of this: Do you think the fact that it's not surprising in the least that Bachmann signed the pledge (if I were her *shudder*, I would have signed it too - that's what her base wants) means that people who vehemently disagree with that pledge shouldn't be upset about it?

No one is surprised that Michelle Bachmann signed this pledge. No one should be surprised that it would upset people as well.

no,not all, they can have their say, and I have no qualms with the 'upset' per se' only thats its so subjective and, in that a) in the end, its a mischaracterization b) a mirage c) the huge larger issues that don't get near as much attention or get people as worked up.......they, the media can do more than one thing at a time.

as far as her signing it, hey its surprises me not at all, like it did not surprise me obama would tell what he thought a closed audience that 'people' cling to yada yada......I mean no one thinks he really feels this way so, when it occurred I laughed......

 

[Trajan]

and there is 'degree' in everything. this is pretty small potatoes.

dadt passed in nov. , obama has instructed the DOJ NOT to defend doma......he has also instructed the immigration bureau to (not in all) but many, allow what is a defacto dream act.

bachmann signs a vow to throw the usual red meat to a base constituency ( they ALLL do it) and she is 15 months out from the election, 6 from the first primary, to do well nothing because she has absolutely no power to do anything and the odds are HUGE that she never will and, the right is full of fire breathing religious wingnuts and to top it off mis-characterizes the supposed smoking gun.

and oh all that garbage in the sheeple media ( who never seems to get around btw, to questions why obama with NO primary opponent needs to start his re-election camp. in April and during an economic meltdown) ala "where are the gop contenders ..where are the gop candidates etc.

This is EXACTLY why they want them in....to savage them, so as to sell news and get ahead of the game minimalising them.

I agree with most of what you've said here.

But my point is more along the lines of this: Do you think the fact that it's not surprising in the least that Bachmann signed the pledge (if I were her *shudder*, I would have signed it too - that's what her base wants) means that people who vehemently disagree with that pledge shouldn't be upset about it?

No one is surprised that Michelle Bachmann signed this pledge. No one should be surprised that it would upset people as well.

I don't think that is what he is saying, but I will let him speak for himself.

I am not objecting to folks not liking her views. I do object to the inaccurate and dishonest representation of those views. And, I don't even agree with most of them.

exactly....