Bachmann signs The Family Lead pledge

[Susan45]

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

This is just mind boggling and has swept through the black blogs. Here is one response, part of which I found hilarious.

To the extent that the black family was even allowed to exist, it was under constant attack by state-supported and sanctioned terrorism. "A child born into slavery was more likely to be raised by his mother and father..." Really? A child born into slavery was the property of its master. The operative word was slavery. Period. Any relationship to its biological parents was far less respected than its commercial relationship to the American economy.

Why stop at two-parent households? Let's celebrate the free housing, healthcare and meal plan offered to every black slave! You know what else slavery did for black people? Exercise! Oh it was just great! We even got to work outside. Speaking of work, today, African-American unemployment is over 16 percent. In Milwauke, Wisc., over one-third of black men are unemployed. But during slavery times, every black man had a job! See? Things were better in the past, and now things are bad. Ah, the good old days...

Michelle Bachmann is running for president on a pro-slavery, anti-porn*platform? - Blog - baratunde.com

read this analysis:

Michele Bachmann | Marriage Vow | Slavery | Mediaite

To be fair, The Marriage Vow doesn’t appear to be arguing that slavery was good (hey, they said it was “disastrous”), but rather, that Barack Obama is worse than slavery. That’s a key difference that needs to be highlighted. Besides, they used a footnote to a study by black scholars, so shouldn’t Jill just relax a little?

For my money, this is where the story gets really disgusting. The study that they cite was published in 2005, which means that any comparison to slavery must be made, not with our first black president, but with our 43rd white one. Furthermore, the data in the study only dates back to 1880, which means they not only had to stretch their pretzel to include Barack Obama, but also to conflate the data with slavery. They appear to be basing their conclusion on these two points from the study:

…in 1880 and 1910 about 56.3 percent of Black and 66.9 percent of White households were nuclear households…(page 8)
According to the latest data, only 35 percent of Black children live with married parents whereas 76 percent of White children do. (page 9)
Any nuclear households in 1880 would have contained exactly zero children “born into slavery in 1860,” or out of slavery, because they would all have been 20 years old by then. This is important, because it demonstrates a specific intent, not just to make a revoltingly stupid comparison between the slave era and the present day (black homelessness was probably lower in slave states, too), but to tie that comparison to our first black president.

I really can't presume to speak for our black community but most of what I have read it seems they are insulted that slavery was used to score political points. If the conservatives expect to get any votes from that community they'd probably rethink their positions.

But it does seem pretty stupid to me. The reason I posted that excerpt was it made me laugh. It is a humor blog after all and that thought was pretty darn funny.

 

[Salt Jones]

And, it's nice that he has that option 17 hours later, as I said.
And, cool. His idiotic posts are still here.

By signing the pledge isn't Michele Bachman agreeing with the slavery/black child statement?

I agree with it, too, because it's a fact. More black kids had both their parents present in their lives than they do now.

That is probably true for white kids, too.

Do you think that is not true?

I know it's not true.

 

[Si modo]

By signing the pledge isn't Michele Bachman agreeing with the slavery/black child statement?

I agree with it, too, because it's a fact. More black kids had both their parents present in their lives than they do now.

That is probably true for white kids, too.

Do you think that is not true?

I know it's not true.

Oh. Then enlighten us. I'll await your citations.

 

[Salt Jones]

This is just mind boggling and has swept through the black blogs. Here is one response, part of which I found hilarious.


Michelle Bachmann is running for president on a pro-slavery, anti-porn*platform? - Blog - baratunde.com

read this analysis:

Michele Bachmann | Marriage Vow | Slavery | Mediaite

To be fair, The Marriage Vow doesn’t appear to be arguing that slavery was good (hey, they said it was “disastrous”), but rather, that Barack Obama is worse than slavery. That’s a key difference that needs to be highlighted. Besides, they used a footnote to a study by black scholars, so shouldn’t Jill just relax a little?

For my money, this is where the story gets really disgusting. The study that they cite was published in 2005, which means that any comparison to slavery must be made, not with our first black president, but with our 43rd white one. Furthermore, the data in the study only dates back to 1880, which means they not only had to stretch their pretzel to include Barack Obama, but also to conflate the data with slavery. They appear to be basing their conclusion on these two points from the study:

…in 1880 and 1910 about 56.3 percent of Black and 66.9 percent of White households were nuclear households…(page 8)
According to the latest data, only 35 percent of Black children live with married parents whereas 76 percent of White children do. (page 9)
Any nuclear households in 1880 would have contained exactly zero children “born into slavery in 1860,” or out of slavery, because they would all have been 20 years old by then. This is important, because it demonstrates a specific intent, not just to make a revoltingly stupid comparison between the slave era and the present day (black homelessness was probably lower in slave states, too), but to tie that comparison to our first black president.

I really can't presume to speak for our black community but most of what I have read it seems they are insulted that slavery was used to score political points. If the conservatives expect to get any votes from that community they'd probably rethink their positions.

But it does seem pretty stupid to me. The reason I posted that excerpt was it made me laugh. It is a humor blog after all and that thought was pretty darn funny.

I wonder what Herman Cain, Alan West and Tim Scott think of this?

 

[Salt Jones]

I agree with it, too, because it's a fact. More black kids had both their parents present in their lives than they do now.

That is probably true for white kids, too.

Do you think that is not true?

I know it's not true.

Oh. Then enlighten us. I'll await your citations.

Await away. Enlighten yourself.

 

[Trajan]

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

This is just mind boggling and has swept through the black blogs. Here is one response, part of which I found hilarious.

To the extent that the black family was even allowed to exist, it was under constant attack by state-supported and sanctioned terrorism. "A child born into slavery was more likely to be raised by his mother and father..." Really? A child born into slavery was the property of its master. The operative word was slavery. Period. Any relationship to its biological parents was far less respected than its commercial relationship to the American economy.

Why stop at two-parent households? Let's celebrate the free housing, healthcare and meal plan offered to every black slave! You know what else slavery did for black people? Exercise! Oh it was just great! We even got to work outside. Speaking of work, today, African-American unemployment is over 16 percent. In Milwauke, Wisc., over one-third of black men are unemployed. But during slavery times, every black man had a job! See? Things were better in the past, and now things are bad. Ah, the good old days...

Michelle Bachmann is running for president on a pro-slavery, anti-porn*platform? - Blog - baratunde.com

read this analysis:

Michele Bachmann | Marriage Vow | Slavery | Mediaite

To be fair, The Marriage Vow doesn’t appear to be arguing that slavery was good (hey, they said it was “disastrous”), but rather, that Barack Obama is worse than slavery. That’s a key difference that needs to be highlighted. Besides, they used a footnote to a study by black scholars, so shouldn’t Jill just relax a little?

For my money, this is where the story gets really disgusting. The study that they cite was published in 2005, which means that any comparison to slavery must be made, not with our first black president, but with our 43rd white one. Furthermore, the data in the study only dates back to 1880, which means they not only had to stretch their pretzel to include Barack Obama, but also to conflate the data with slavery. They appear to be basing their conclusion on these two points from the study:

…in 1880 and 1910 about 56.3 percent of Black and 66.9 percent of White households were nuclear households…(page 8)
According to the latest data, only 35 percent of Black children live with married parents whereas 76 percent of White children do. (page 9)
Any nuclear households in 1880 would have contained exactly zero children “born into slavery in 1860,” or out of slavery, because they would all have been 20 years old by then. This is important, because it demonstrates a specific intent, not just to make a revoltingly stupid comparison between the slave era and the present day (black homelessness was probably lower in slave states, too), but to tie that comparison to our first black president.

I agree, this sounds totally half baked and the comparisoon is dishonest, if they used Obama. do they have the whole study at the site?


For my money, this is where the story gets really disgusting. The study that they cite was published in 2005, which means that any comparison to slavery must be made, not with our first black president, but with our 43rd white one. Furthermore, the data in the study only dates back to 1880, which means they not only had to stretch their pretzel to include Barack Obama, but also to conflate the data with slavery. They appear to be basing their conclusion on these two points from the study:

 

[Bfgrn]

As for the Sharia law thing, what that calls for, and I quote, is "Rejection of Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human rights forms of totalitarian control."

And...we will replace it with our own anti-human totalitarian control.

It is amazing how the authoritarian right believes they are something else.

 

[Kuros]

Wouldn't it be refreshing if Michelle Bachmann could be judged on her views honestly presented in their entirety and not on distorted versions of those views or that she is a Christian or a woman or a conservative or a Republican or a Tea Party darling or, God forbid, all of those things.

Sour grapes.

This is the American vetting process. It is that befitting a free people deciding who shall become their Caesar: criticism errs on the side of brutally piercing. Bachmann is not getting special mistreatment.

It's too bad the left didn't vet their President. Do you think they will this time?

What the hell are you talking about?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASWvyAxeSxQ]YouTube - ‪Hillary Reiterates Criticism of Obama's Ties to Wright‬‏[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBu9LMw6SOk]YouTube - ‪Obama Biden 08‬‏[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUvwKVvp3-o]YouTube - ‪'Joe the Plumber' Becomes Focus of Debate‬‏[/ame]

 

[Trajan]

And, it's nice that he has that option 17 hours later, as I said.
And, cool. His idiotic posts are still here.

By signing the pledge isn't Michele Bachman agreeing with the slavery/black child statement?

I agree with it, too, because it's a fact. More black kids had both their parents present in their lives than they do now.

That is probably true for white kids, too.

Do you think that is not true?

we have a VERY strong 'suspicion' its true between 1964 and presently...

 

[Salt Jones]

This is just mind boggling and has swept through the black blogs. Here is one response, part of which I found hilarious.


Michelle Bachmann is running for president on a pro-slavery, anti-porn*platform? - Blog - baratunde.com

read this analysis:

Michele Bachmann | Marriage Vow | Slavery | Mediaite

To be fair, The Marriage Vow doesn’t appear to be arguing that slavery was good (hey, they said it was “disastrous&#8221, but rather, that Barack Obama is worse than slavery. That’s a key difference that needs to be highlighted. Besides, they used a footnote to a study by black scholars, so shouldn’t Jill just relax a little?

For my money, this is where the story gets really disgusting. The study that they cite was published in 2005, which means that any comparison to slavery must be made, not with our first black president, but with our 43rd white one. Furthermore, the data in the study only dates back to 1880, which means they not only had to stretch their pretzel to include Barack Obama, but also to conflate the data with slavery. They appear to be basing their conclusion on these two points from the study:

…in 1880 and 1910 about 56.3 percent of Black and 66.9 percent of White households were nuclear households…(page 8)
According to the latest data, only 35 percent of Black children live with married parents whereas 76 percent of White children do. (page 9)
Any nuclear households in 1880 would have contained exactly zero children “born into slavery in 1860,” or out of slavery, because they would all have been 20 years old by then. This is important, because it demonstrates a specific intent, not just to make a revoltingly stupid comparison between the slave era and the present day (black homelessness was probably lower in slave states, too), but to tie that comparison to our first black president.

I agree, this sounds totally half baked and the comparisoon is dishonest, if they used Obama. do they have the whole study at the site?


For my money, this is where the story gets really disgusting. The study that they cite was published in 2005, which means that any comparison to slavery must be made, not with our first black president, but with our 43rd white one. Furthermore, the data in the study only dates back to 1880, which means they not only had to stretch their pretzel to include Barack Obama, but also to conflate the data with slavery. They appear to be basing their conclusion on these two points from the study:

It was footnote #3. I'm looking at it and I post it so you can research as well.

http://www.americanvalues.org/pdfs/consequences_of_marriage.pdf

Right after the title page:

© 2005, Institute for American Values. No reproduction of the materials contained herein is permitted
without the written permission of the Institute for American Values

 

[Trajan]

I know it's not true.

Oh. Then enlighten us. I'll await your citations.

Await away. Enlighten yourself.

uhm not quite ....you said you know its not true...well? present your evidence.

 

[Salt Jones]

By signing the pledge isn't Michele Bachman agreeing with the slavery/black child statement?

I agree with it, too, because it's a fact. More black kids had both their parents present in their lives than they do now.

That is probably true for white kids, too.

Do you think that is not true?

we have a VERY strong 'suspicion' its true between 1964 and presently...

So, black kids between 1964 and 2011 have a worse 2 parent household ratio then a black child born into slavery in 1860?

 

[Salt Jones]

Oh. Then enlighten us. I'll await your citations.

Await away. Enlighten yourself.

uhm not quite ....you said you know its not true...well? present your evidence.

Why don't people read the links before they post?

Frederick Douglass Project: In the Classroom: Representing Slavery Packet 1

"For example, as former slave John Anderson explained, “I did not want to marry a girl belonging to my own place, because I knew I could not bear to see her ill-treated.” Moses Grandy agreed when he wrote that, “No colored man wishes to live at the house where his wife lives, for he has to endure the continual misery of seeing her flogged and abused without daring to say a word in her defense.”

"One day, there was a colored man – a peddler, with his cart – on the road. Jerry brought him in and said he was ready to be minister for us. He asked us a few questions, which we answered in a satisfactory manner, and then he declared us husband and wife. I did not want him to make us promise that we would always be true to each other, forsaking all others, as the white people do in their marriage service, because I knew that at any time our masters could compel us to break such a promise."

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most slave-owners encouraged their slaves to marry. It was believed that married men was less likely to be rebellious or to run away. Some masters favoured marriage for religious reasons and it was in the interests of plantation owners for women to have children.

Child-bearing started around the age of thirteen, and by twenty the women slaves would be expected to have four or five children.

To encourage childbearing some plantation owners promised women slaves their freedom after they had produced fifteen children. Several slaves recorded in their autobiographies that they were reluctant to marry women from the same plantation.

As John Anderson explained: "I did not want to marry a girl belonging to my own place, because I knew I could not bear to see her ill-treated."

Moses Grandy agreed he wrote: "no colored man wishes to live at the house where his wife lives, for he has to endure the continual misery of seeing her flogged and abused without daring to say a word in her defence."

As Henry Bibb pointed out: "If my wife must be exposed to the insults and licentious passions of wicked slave-drivers and overseers. Heaven forbid that I should be compelled to witness the sight."

A study of slave records by the Freedmen's Bureau of 2,888 slave marriages in Mississippi (1,225), Tennessee (1,123) and Louisiana (540), revealed that over 32 per cent of marriages were dissolved by masters as a result of slaves being sold away from the family home.

It sounds pretty 'Leave it Beaver' utopian to me!!!!

Slave Marriages

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What does your side do? Scream your judgments... lobby for legislation to ban things you don't like? Kill an abortion doctor or two? And you wonder why we call you Fascists?

Diazepam is used to relieve anxiety, muscle spasms, and seizures and to control agitation caused by alcohol withdrawal. Diazepam comes as a tablet, extended-release (long-acting) capsule, and concentrate (liquid) to take by mouth. Do not open, chew, or crush the extended-release capsules; swallow them whole....more at-

Diazepam - PubMed Health

You really don't like it when someone speaks the truth, do you? Do you NOT scream judgments ad nauseum? Do you NOT Lobby for legislation against people or practices you don't like? Didn't one of your fellow fascists kill an abortion doctor?

Look up Fascism.. and see where extremist right wingers fit into the definition.

This definition?

a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Are you saying that the people who want to trash regulations and allow companies free reign are the same ones that want to highly regiment companies?

FYI, Trajan is a lot less of a fascist than you.

 

[Trajan]

I agree with it, too, because it's a fact. More black kids had both their parents present in their lives than they do now.

That is probably true for white kids, too.

Do you think that is not true?

we have a VERY strong 'suspicion' its true between 1964 and presently...

So, black kids between 1964 and 2011 have a worse 2 parent household ratio then a black child born into slavery in 1860?

the comparison isn't valid. we have no way of knowing and I doubt it, they should not have used it.

 

[peace2011]

Destroy all the servers that host porn websites. Shut down Google for 2 months. As simple as that.

God created women breast for feeding milk to babies. Breast is not for sex and not for attraction.

Never go against God's basic rule or else people will be destroyed.

Animals have fur. Animals are never naked. Clothes are human beings artificial fur because human beings do not have fur.

Skin looks dirty so human skin and flesh should not be visible. Have you ever seen a sheep whose fur has been cut off? The "skin sheep" looks dirty.

Animals are better than useless people.

My understanding says that big breasts or boobs is some form of genetic mutation or diseases but foolish kids fall for it.

Porn stars and prostitutes have terrible diseases in their body and brains. People who are addicted to porn are also diseased.

 

[Salt Jones]

we have a VERY strong 'suspicion' its true between 1964 and presently...

So, black kids between 1964 and 2011 have a worse 2 parent household ratio then a black child born into slavery in 1860?

the comparison isn't valid. we have no way of knowing and I doubt it, they should not have used it.

I agree with you. Bachmann and, now, Santorum should have asked for it to be removed before signing the pledge. They can sign whatever they want, but I think the statement hurts their credibility.

 

[Zona]

we have a VERY strong 'suspicion' its true between 1964 and presently...

So, black kids between 1964 and 2011 have a worse 2 parent household ratio then a black child born into slavery in 1860?

the comparison isn't valid. we have no way of knowing and I doubt it, they should not have used it.

 

[Kuros]

Destroy all the servers that host porn websites. Shut down Google for 2 months. As simple as that.

What in the history of the world and public policy makes you think its as simple as that?

Even if you get an Amendment passed, and given the First Amendment barriers, that's what it would take, it would in good time join the ranks of the 18th.

Its amazing how so-called conservatives, blasting Obama for his command-and-control economic policies such as TARP and the Stimulus, are willing to break down doors and open private files to enforce a porn ban.