Bachmann signs The Family Lead pledge

[elvis]

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.

Hey Smiley...

you gonna bring us down with the family values candidate again?

 

[American Legacy]

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?

Black Americans today stand a greater chance of growing up in a single-parent home than they did in 1860. That's a sign of regression, not controversy.

 

[Annie]

Bachmann is irrelevant to all but the extreme right wing and the DNC.

 

[Salt Jones]

Ah, then you're just spouting bullshit.

I posted links on page 24 or 25. I even posted excerpts, but off course you're to dumb or lazy to read what you requested. Typical.

Where were these links 'proving' that kids today have both parents present more than kids years ago?

I see nothing by you on pp 24 and 25.

As I said, cite something or it's just bullshit. That's how it works. I don't do YOUR research.

Page 25, post 366. You lying sack of pig shit.

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

 

[Salt Jones]

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?

Black Americans today stand a greater chance of growing up in a single-parent home than they did in 1860. That's a sign of regression, not controversy.

Provide proof of your statement.

 

[Annie]

Nothing controversial, you say?

Black Americans today stand a greater chance of growing up in a single-parent home than they did in 1860. That's a sign of regression, not controversy.

Provide proof of your statement.

No brainer. Blacks family structure was better than white family structure, until civil rights era legislation of 1960's.

 

[uscitizen]

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?

Black Americans today stand a greater chance of growing up in a single-parent home than they did in 1860. That's a sign of regression, not controversy.

so do white children.

Your point?

 

[Annie]

Nothing controversial, you say?

Black Americans today stand a greater chance of growing up in a single-parent home than they did in 1860. That's a sign of regression, not controversy.

so do white children.

Your point?

Indeed. The great equalizer. thanks Johnson.

 

[Trajan]

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.

wow, here and I thought I was the gop base.....damn....

 

[Si modo]

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.

wow, here and I thought I was the gop base.....damn....

Doggie has always had special powers that way - he knows you better than you know you, knows what you think better than you (if you aren't an Obama worshipper, that is) - at least, that's what he posts.

 

[uscitizen]

Black Americans today stand a greater chance of growing up in a single-parent home than they did in 1860. That's a sign of regression, not controversy.

so do white children.

Your point?

Indeed. The great equalizer. thanks Johnson.

Johnson had something to do with the divorce rate?

 

[peace2011]

Yesterday I watched many rape videos. I do not know whether they were real rapes or fake rapes. Some videos looked like they were real rapes.

Everybody think of your family members and destroy or wipe out world pornography and prostitution immediately because millions of world people are getting sex mad or sex disease. When there is further financial crisis 50% of world population will be mad.

I am strong and dangerous. I can defend my family. But everybody think of your family members.

These are the websites I remember the names of

edited.

 

[uscitizen]

Why would anyone watch rape videos????

Is pornography the disease or a symptom?

to me Sex and violence have ZERO connection.

 

[Trajan]

Nothing controversial, you say?

Black Americans today stand a greater chance of growing up in a single-parent home than they did in 1860. That's a sign of regression, not controversy.

Provide proof of your statement.

you do realize that if they were to say 1964, they would be right...right? they screwed up using 1860, it was dumb, but their point, the larger one I think, I think they are trying to convey is gov. interference or do gooder prgm.s etc etc . been bad or well, not good for the African American over the last 45 years.

 

[Trajan]

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.

wow, here and I thought I was the gop base.....damn....

Doggie has always had special powers that way - he knows you better than you know you, knows what you think better than you (if you aren't an Obama worshipper, that is) - at least, that's what he posts.

yea well, I have to take action, I am not sure what to do, I value some of the tea party platform but to call me one is not correct.....I am ....alone....out here.....by....my...self...

In all seriousness the sheeple media has told him the base is the tea party so, ITS THE TEA PAY!! maybe I should just get on board?

 

[Foxfyre]

I posted links on page 24 or 25. I even posted excerpts, but off course you're to dumb or lazy to read what you requested. Typical.

Where were these links 'proving' that kids today have both parents present more than kids years ago?

I see nothing by you on pp 24 and 25.

As I said, cite something or it's just bullshit. That's how it works. I don't do YOUR research.

Page 25, post 366. You lying sack of pig shit.

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

I see no statistics in that post. Just some anecdotal recollections that may or may not be representative of the population and some scholarly commentary on that time.

Thomas Sowell has done exhaustive research on the black family, but his research is all in books and not easily accessible on line. But from what I've read, we might argue the stats a bit, but basically he is mostly in agreement with what is summarized in this piece:

`U' STUDY LOOKS AT ISSUE OF RACE, SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES

And that is further backed up here:

The (Poor) State of Black Families: A Portrait of Black America Before the 2010 Census

But saying black kids were more likely to have two parents at home in 1860 than they do now most likely is accurate. It does not infer that life was acceptable or even tolerable for black people in 1860 as the Bachmann critics are trying to spin that. It does not infer that slavery is okay or in any sense defensible as the left seems to be attempting to be putting into her mouth. All it says is that the situation of the black family at the current time is deplorable. And, in far too many cases, that is the truth.

If you look at it as I believe the statement was intended instead of trying to build all kinds of unintended strawmen out of it, there is probably some common ground for agreement among us all.

 

[Gadawg73]

Black Americans today stand a greater chance of growing up in a single-parent home than they did in 1860. That's a sign of regression, not controversy.

Provide proof of your statement.

No brainer. Blacks family structure was better than white family structure, until civil rights era legislation of 1960's.

Not civil rights legislation dumb ass.
Entitlement programs did it.

 

[Salt Jones]

Where were these links 'proving' that kids today have both parents present more than kids years ago?

I see nothing by you on pp 24 and 25.

As I said, cite something or it's just bullshit. That's how it works. I don't do YOUR research.

Page 25, post 366. You lying sack of pig shit.

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

I see no statistics in that post. Just some anecdotal recollections that may or may not be representative of the population and some scholarly commentary on that time.

Thomas Sowell has done exhaustive research on the black family, but his research is all in books and not easily accessible on line. But from what I've read, we might argue the stats a bit, but basically he is mostly in agreement with what is summarized in this piece:

`U' STUDY LOOKS AT ISSUE OF RACE, SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES

And that is further backed up here:

The (Poor) State of Black Families: A Portrait of Black America Before the 2010 Census

But saying black kids were more likely to have two parents at home in 1860 than they do now most likely is accurate. It does not infer that life was acceptable or even tolerable for black people in 1860 as the Bachmann critics are trying to spin that. It does not infer that slavery is okay or in any sense defensible as the left seems to be attempting to be putting into her mouth. All it says is that the situation of the black family at the current time is deplorable. And, in far too many cases, that is the truth.

If you look at it as I believe the statement was intended instead of trying to build all kinds of unintended strawmen out of it, there is probably some common ground for agreement among us all.

Would you have rather lived as a black slave child in a 2 parent household in 1860 or as a black kid in a single parent black household today?

 

[uscitizen]

Page 25, post 366. You lying sack of pig shit.

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

I see no statistics in that post. Just some anecdotal recollections that may or may not be representative of the population and some scholarly commentary on that time.

Thomas Sowell has done exhaustive research on the black family, but his research is all in books and not easily accessible on line. But from what I've read, we might argue the stats a bit, but basically he is mostly in agreement with what is summarized in this piece:

`U' STUDY LOOKS AT ISSUE OF RACE, SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES

And that is further backed up here:

The (Poor) State of Black Families: A Portrait of Black America Before the 2010 Census

But saying black kids were more likely to have two parents at home in 1860 than they do now most likely is accurate. It does not infer that life was acceptable or even tolerable for black people in 1860 as the Bachmann critics are trying to spin that. It does not infer that slavery is okay or in any sense defensible as the left seems to be attempting to be putting into her mouth. All it says is that the situation of the black family at the current time is deplorable. And, in far too many cases, that is the truth.

If you look at it as I believe the statement was intended instead of trying to build all kinds of unintended strawmen out of it, there is probably some common ground for agreement among us all.

Would you have rather lived as a black slave child in a 2 parent household in 1860 or as a black kid in a single parent black household today?

I will take door #3 thank you.

 

[Modbert]

wow, here and I thought I was the gop base.....damn....

I never said you weren't a part of the GOP base. I'm simply telling you that they are best represented through the Tea Party. Or are you going to tell me I'm wrong on that one? And if so, who better represents the GOP base as a group?