Bachmann signs The Family Lead pledge

[Trajan]

So the teamster's endorsing a candidate is the same as a candidate signing a pledge?

Seriously?

Are you going to stick with this?

Because if you are..I am about to spring a "gotcha" on ya.

in some ways its worse to endorse, because you the own that no matter what the candidate geos on to say or do there after.

a pledge is a delineated platform of spelled out, whether you agree with whatever pledge etc. we are discussing, imho, a blind endorsement doesn't always work out.

Ridiculous.

You aren't under any obligation whatsoever to do anything when a group endores you.

When you sign a pledge..you've signed on to what ever is in the pledge. And if you back out of it..you've messed up your integrity.

You aren't under any obligation whatsoever to do anything when a group endores you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Might as well just rename it "the homophobia pledge".

Scientists almost universally agree that sexual orientation IS NOT a choice, no matter how many times the homophobes try to claim it is. (even going so far as to sign a pledge asserting that falsehood)

Scientists almost universally agree? Since when? Do you have any evidence to back that up, or am I supposed to take the almost universally as proof that every time I find a study that says other wise it is simply wrong?

The truth is that no one knows enough about how sexual choice to have an informed opinion.

Did you read the language? It basically stated that there is no genetic determination for homosexuality. Um...the same can be said for heterosexuality. There is no straight gene is there? (or left handed gene for that matter).

That it did, and that was completely accurate.

Sexuality, like the world, is not black and white.

Which is my point, thanks for agreeing with me.

Besides that...what would it matter if it were a choice? Religion is a choice, yes? Could you imagine trying to enact such a law because of someone's religious choice?

If you find me advocating for laws like that feel free to call me on them.

Until then...

So this pledge is saying that marriage must be kept between a man and a woman, and as a candidate she would try to limit the freedoms of gays and lesbians with a constitutional amendment? What happened to her big "states rights" mantra? And she wants to do this because of promiscuity? Do you not get how those two things contradict each other?

Funny, you are entitled to your beliefs, but they are not entitled to theirs. What was it you just said about laws forcing choices on people and contradictory beliefs?

Ted Olson does: The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

How does writing discrimination into the constitution to keep gays and lesbians from creating the social and economic partnerships of legal marriage, combat promiscuity? .

Just because they believe that marriage is between a man and a woman it doesn't make them homophobic, unless you think Obama is homophobic.

The research that this "pledge" quotes has a disclaimer by the authors of it. Of course the authors of the "pledge" don't include it, but I will.

Gay life expectancy revisited

in which the researchers say:

In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia.​

How does being a lesbian adversely effect health?

Greatly improved is nice, but greatly improved is not the same as eliminated.

As for lesbians, I don't know, but the government seems to believe that there are some problems.

Gay, Lesbian and Transgender Health: MedlinePlus

 

[kaz]

Could't agree more. Edwards is a ******* POS...he's not running for president is he? (and certainly not in the "family values" party)

And yet for some reason I only see you actually caring enough to bring up the Republicans...

Do you bring up Republicans? Or only go on the defensive?

The next post is not going to be your backing up that I've ever defended Republicans because you pulled this like most of your posts out of your ass. Go ahead, show any post I've defended Republicans.

 

[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.

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?

How is it a wedge issue when there is majority support for repealing DOMA, getting rid of DADT and passing the DREAM Act?

Most people believe abortion should be restricted, how is that a wedge issue?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

In 2008, his position on gay marriage was the same as Bush's.

That is completely false. President Obama does not, nor has he ever, supported an amendment to the Constitution that would limit legal marriage to only a man and a woman.

Dick Cheney has done more to support same sex marriage than Obama.

 

[kaz]

In 2008, his position on gay marriage was the same as Bush's.

That is completely false. President Obama does not, nor has he ever, supported an amendment to the Constitution that would limit legal marriage to only a man and a woman.

Dick Cheney has done more to support same sex marriage than Obama.

Obama isn't President, he's a candidate for President. It's all he knows, winning was the worst thing that could happen to him. That's why he points fingers at his staff and is still trying to run against Bush. He has to run against someone, even when there is no longer anyone to run against.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The debt is from a combination of spending and tax cuts. And we don't tax to much.

The debt is from spending more money that the government had in the past. Tax cuts do not contribute to the debt unless they actually reduce revenue, which does not always happen, and we continue to spend like the revenue still exists.

I mean..what the heck are you using as a benchmark? What other country differs, that isn't an industrialized modern nation, so much to business? You people are using the 35% mark as if it's hard and fast. It isn't. And very few companies come close to paying that rate. Quite the opposite. They garner wealth from the tax payers.

Every expert agrees that the 35% rate is too high, which is why the government adds in all those deductions for investment, expenses, and hiring new workers. Since everyone agrees that 35% is too high, why don't we reduce the rate to 25%, and eliminate most of the deductions and loopholes. Or better yet, why not reduce the rate to 15%, which is about the average that large corporations pay anyway, and eliminate all deductions.

But as to spending..you have some merit there. For the first time in history..this country started wars and cut taxes. That's nuts. Along with making whole new entitlement programs and departments. No wonder Bush got rid of Paygo. None of that shit would have flown under that policy.

Bush did not get rid of PAYGO, it expired in 2002. By the way, under PAYGO we should haveincreased taxes when increasing spending. That means that PAYGO was effectively trashed under Clinton when Congress increased spending without raising taxes.

And under Eisenhower tax hikes kept the debt and deficit very low.[/QUOTE]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And whose problem is that, yours or theirs? "Back in the day", being referred to as ____ (fill in the blank) was "bad". Broad statements...

It's not my problem at all. Like I said..I tolerate it. I don't think anyone has the right to tell anyone else who they can spend their lives with. But that doesn't mean I have to buy into the life style either. It ain't my thing. Simple as that.

Seems pretty simple to me. You have a right to be as intolerant as you want as long as you do not try to force your intolerance on me. In return, I will not force mine on you, not will I force you to accept my tolerance.

I think the last part is where it breaks down for some progressives, they think they should be able to force people to actively accept everyone and everything they do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No comparison, QWB, between the two: Obama noting that some folks turn to God and guns in their hard times emotionally and repealing amendments. This is not a comparison of kind but a difference of type, and the pledge is awful. Most Americans know that and will vote accordingly.

You illustrate my point perfectly, thank you.

 

[elvis]

Does this woman really have a chance against Romney anyway?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is completely false. President Obama does not, nor has he ever, supported an amendment to the Constitution that would limit legal marriage to only a man and a woman.

Dick Cheney has done more to support same sex marriage than Obama.

Obama isn't President, he's a candidate for President. It's all he knows, winning was the worst thing that could happen to him. That's why he points fingers at his staff and is still trying to run against Bush. He has to run against someone, even when there is no longer anyone to run against.

Ain't that the truth.

 

[Modbert]

Does this woman really have a chance against Romney anyway?

Polling so far seems to say she's getting closer.

RealClearPolitics - Romney Leads, But Bachmann Surges in N.H.

RealClearPolitics - Bachmann Surges in Oregon, Montana

 

[elvis]

Does this woman really have a chance against Romney anyway?

Polling so far seems to say she's getting closer.

RealClearPolitics - Romney Leads, But Bachmann Surges in N.H.

RealClearPolitics - Bachmann Surges in Oregon, Montana

 

[Modbert]

It's a double edged sword for Republicans. The base won't support Romney and the base is the only real support that Bachmann has. Either one of them getting nominated would drive voters from the GOP to third party candidates. Though I believe Romney would fare better than Bachmann in a election against the President.

 

[Trajan]

Does this woman really have a chance against Romney anyway?

no ,not in the long run she doesn't and she won't have a chance against others who may or not get in too.

the media will put paid to her faster than palin, becasue they have more time

conversely to be fair, if they see romney really whacking Obama around say jan next year in head to head polling, they might take a break and whirl on romney with all they have.

IF the big big rep. money super delegates etc. had a brain they would push palin into the race to take fire for the rest. ( bachmann as I alluded will perform some of that for Romney I think)

 

[Trajan]

It's a double edged sword for Republicans. The base won't support Romney and the base is the only real support that Bachmann has. Either one of them getting nominated would drive voters from the GOP to third party candidates. Though I believe Romney would fare better than Bachmann in a election against the President.

who is the gop base again?

 

[Modbert]

who is the gop base again?

Tea Partiers. Which is why Tea Party folk are by a wide majority very Conservative. They want to kick out all the "RINOs" like Romney.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Thats the best you got? You throw back exactly what I said you were.

You are literally saying here...I know you are, but what am I? Weak, very very weak. Especially for an internet tough guy who is just a bad ass...lolololololololol You are killing me tough guy. YOu really are.

LMAO! Now you're spinning like the fake ass. left wing circle jerk that you are. And now You're claiming that you started all the labels. Well Ok then, that sounds like the childish dumbshit that everyone here knows that you are anyway. Jeezus make up your ******* mind you nutcase you. Dream on toad, this is only the beggining.

Internet Tough Guy ~BH

You are a real bad ass bro. Really! internet tough guys rule!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lololololololololol
[

This just in! Zona was spotted leaving a truck stop this morning. Not sure what sex it is. Apparently some toothless Trucker said that she had been working all night. No, not inside the Diner folks.

Zona

~BH

 

[American Legacy]

There's nothing controversial in the pledge. Whether a candidate signs or not, I would hope all Republican candidates agree with the principles espoused here.

 

[Salt Jones]

By signing the statement does she agree that black kids were better off in 1860?

I don't think she would say that and I don't think the pledge even suggests that. But I'm pretty sure that she would say a black child needs a mother and father in the home as much as any child needs that and that progressive policies have created an environment denying that to millions of black children as well as consigning them to generation after generation of crushing poverty and permanent unemployment. She has probably read the works of Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, and other dedicated black historians.

This is what the pledge says:

"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

By signing the pledge isn't she agreeing with the statement?

Nothing controversial, you say?