Bachmann signs The Family Lead pledge

[Modbert]

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.

How about them apples? While accusing me of saying I know Trajan better than he knows himself, you seem to think you know me better than I know myself.

 

[Salt Jones]

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.

Do you people even read the links you are defending?

"For example, in 1880 and 1910 about 56.3 percent of Black and 66.9 percent of White households were nuclear households, about 23.5 percent of Black and 19.7 percent of White households were extended family households, and 20.3 percent of Black and 13.4 percent of White households were fragmented or “broken” homes"

"Between 1950 and 1996, the percentage of Black families headed by married couples declined from 78 percent to 34 percent. Although Whites experienced similar trends in family formation, these trends were less dramatic. For example, between 1940 and 1990, the percentage of White children living with both parents dropped from 92.6 percent to 78.7 percent — considerably less than the 42.6 percent drop experienced by Black children."

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

 

[Modbert]

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?

Simply because I have a different opinion than you, I must be influenced somehow by the "sheepie" media. Ridiculous.

But hey, if you don't believe me, take Gallup's word for it.

Tea Party Supporters Overlap Republican Base

PRINCETON, NJ -- There is significant overlap between Americans who identify as supporters of the Tea Party movement and those who identify as conservative Republicans. Their similar ideological makeup and views suggest that the Tea Party movement is more a rebranding of core Republicanism than a new or distinct entity on the American political scene.

Conservative Republicans outnumber moderate/liberal Republicans in the general population by about a 2-to-1 margin; among Tea Party supporters, the ratio is well more than 3 to 1. More generally, almost 8 out of 10 Tea Party supporters are Republicans, compared with 44% of all national adults.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

The reason we have a Tea Party is that the GOP had become pretty much Democrat light. The Tea Party was every bit as angry and critical of the GOP as they were the Democrats. And because the Tea Party and similar groups now wield so many votes, the GOP is falling all over itself to make itself attractive to the Tea Party. Michelle Bachmann is a representative of the Tea Party, not the GOP.

The GOP is fiscally again swerving right almost exclusively due to the demands of the Tea Party movement. Woe to any Republican who doesn't follow suit. He or she is going to have a tough road to hoe unless he or she is in an ultra liberal, mostly Democratic district or state.

If the Tea Party forms the base of the GOP it is because the GOP joined the Tea Party, not the other way around.

 

[Si modo]

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.

How about them apples? While accusing me of saying I know Trajan better than he knows himself, you seem to think you know me better than I know myself.

No, I just read your words. I actually KNOW I can't read your mind, unlike what you tell us all you can do.

 

[Salt Jones]

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.

Doesn't that go for all families? Is the 2 parent household rate of 2011 vs. 1964 equal to or greater for any race/ethnic group in America?

The fact remains that they lied about a study to foster their preconceived opinions and Bachmann and Santorum signed onto the lie.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one is questioning that government assistance programs need reform.

However, since 7 whites are on assistance for every 1 black, then the argument can be made that 7 times the white children are in danger as the 1 black child.

Let's get race out of this.

 

[Trajan]

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.

thats not what you said.

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?

let me ask you same, who represents the Democratic party, who is their 'base'...?

 

[elvis]

No one is questioning that government assistance programs need reform.

However, since 7 whites are on assistance for every 1 black, then the argument can be made that 7 times the white children are in danger as the 1 black child.

Let's get race out of this.

except only ten percent of the US population is black. we can still take race out of it..
but the argument that white children are seven times more at risk... no.

 

[Modbert]

let me ask you same, who represents the Democratic party, who is their 'base'...?

There is no real big group on the Left that represents the Democratic party. It's not like the right with the Tea Party. Therefore I would say going by ideology, it's Liberals/Progressives. However, they only make up a slim majority of the party. As it's shown in Congress with the Blue Dogs, etc, the Democratic party compasses a vast length on the political spectrum that means they don't vote lock step on the issues.

What you have going on right now is the GOP is pandering to their base, that being people who are either part of Tea Party or support the Tea Party in their goals. That's why candidates like Michele Bachmann are doing so well and why candidates like Mitt Romney are beginning to falter.

However, the Democrats rarely pander to their 'base'.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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....

You might be, the Tea Party sure isn't.

 

[Modbert]

The reason we have a Tea Party is that the GOP had become pretty much Democrat light. The Tea Party was every bit as angry and critical of the GOP as they were the Democrats. And because the Tea Party and similar groups now wield so many votes, the GOP is falling all over itself to make itself attractive to the Tea Party. Michelle Bachmann is a representative of the Tea Party, not the GOP.

The GOP is fiscally again swerving right almost exclusively due to the demands of the Tea Party movement. Woe to any Republican who doesn't follow suit. He or she is going to have a tough road to hoe unless he or she is in an ultra liberal, mostly Democratic district or state.

If the Tea Party forms the base of the GOP it is because the GOP joined the Tea Party, not the other way around.

Except what I bolded is exactly what I said to Trajan in the first place that he took offense to.

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.

The Tea Party itself is a reaction to the GOP moving away from what many consider it's Conservative roots. That's why it comes as no surprise that the Tea Party itself is made up mostly by a vast majority of Conservative Republicans. Why would Democrats feel disenfranchised enough to join the Tea Party? The Democrats who are going to feel most disenfranchised by the Obama Administration are Liberals like myself. And I certainly don't trust the very Conservative Tea Party on social issues enough to want to vote with them.

I remember talking to the Tea Party folk when they came to my campus a couple months ago. The old lady was nice but she kept trying to say that social issues didn't matter. I mentioned the fact that in the state Congress, they deal with social issues all the time. So unless they plan on voting present all the time, then yes, it does matter. Eventually, I got to ask her about her opinion on the War on Drugs and she supported what is one of the biggest Government programs out there.

This is the same issue that came up in the country's Congress a couple months ago. A wide majority of the so-called "Tea Partiers" voted to keep the Patriot Act, that's not Small Government to me. And it's things like that which is why I don't trust the group as a whole.

Getting back to my original point however. Michele Bachmann has the support of the GOP base, which is why it's no surprise to me that she is considered the Tea Party candidate. Because when it comes to moderates in the party, they support Romney, Huntsman, or look elsewhere for a candidate. They're not going to support Bachmann for the same reasons why they don't support Palin.

Finally, the fact the GOP is swerving so hard to the right as of late because of the Tea Party only proves my point that they make up the GOP base. Is that a bad thing for them? Not necessarily. The GOP has changed itself to gain back those Tea Party folk. However, at the same time, a lot of the so-called Tea Party candidates have become more part of the establishment and have lost what made them Tea Party candidates in the first place.

Hopefully that clarifies what I mean Foxfyre.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one is questioning that government assistance programs need reform.

However, since 7 whites are on assistance for every 1 black, then the argument can be made that 7 times the white children are in danger as the 1 black child.

Let's get race out of this.

except only ten percent of the US population is black. we can still take race out of it..
but the argument that white children are seven times more at risk... no.

Yes, there is no way around this. We need to reform the system but without stupid racist code talk.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

The problem is that studies actually show that access to porn actually decreases rape.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Thanks.

That is one of the things everyone was focusing on being totally off the wall. It is good to know that data actually exists that can back it up, even if it is sketchy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

let me ask you same, who represents the Democratic party, who is their 'base'...?

There is no real big group on the Left that represents the Democratic party. It's not like the right with the Tea Party. Therefore I would say going by ideology, it's Liberals/Progressives. However, they only make up a slim majority of the party. As it's shown in Congress with the Blue Dogs, etc, the Democratic party compasses a vast length on the political spectrum that means they don't vote lock step on the issues.

What you have going on right now is the GOP is pandering to their base, that being people who are either part of Tea Party or support the Tea Party in their goals. That's why candidates like Michele Bachmann are doing so well and why candidates like Mitt Romney are beginning to falter.

However, the Democrats rarely pander to their 'base'.

Where the **** do you people get this bullshit from?

Take a look at the states the Blue dogs represent sometime, then compare them to Republicans from liberal states. You will see that the truth is that Republicans are just as broad spectrum as Democrats. There are far right, socially conservative Democrats, and far left, socially liberal Republicans.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Thanks.

That is one of the things everyone was focusing on being totally off the wall. It is good to know that data actually exists that can back it up, even if it is sketchy.

Yes such articles are of necessity 'sketchy' in their brevity. But again read Thomas Sowell or Shelby Steele or even the late William Raspberry, a most intelligent liberal, have done some really great research on this.

Start with this one that really blows big holes in a lot of the conventional wisdom and talking points we see so much of today:

The abbreviated book review:

This explosive new book challenges many of the long-prevailing assumptions about blacks, about Jews, about Germans, about slavery, and about education. Plainly written, powerfully reasoned and backed with a startling array of documented facts, Black Rednecks and White Liberals takes on not only the trendy intellectuals of our times but also such historic interpreters of American life as Alexis de Tocqueville and Frederick Law Olmsted.

In a series of long essays, this book presents an in-depth look at key beliefs behind many mistaken and dangerous actions, policies, and trends. It presents eye-opening insights into the historical development of the ghetto culture that is today wrongly seen as a unique black identity—a culture cheered on toward self-destruction by white liberals who consider themselves “friends” of blacks. An essay titled “The Real History of Slavery” presents a jolting re-examination of that tragic institution and the narrow and distorted way it is too often seen today.

The reasons for the venomous hatred of Jews, and of other groups like them in countries around the world, are explored in an essay that asks, “Are Jews Generic?” Misconceptions of German history in general, and of the Nazi era in particular, are also re-examined. So too are the inspiring achievements and painful tragedies of black education in the United States.

 

[Kuros]

Its time for a bit of levity in this thread courtesy of the late Bill Hicks.

I find it ironic that people who are against sexual thoughts are generally these fundamentalist Christians who also believe you should be fruitful and multiply. Seems like they would support sexual thoughts you know perhaps even a centerfold in the Bible. Miss Deuteronomy. Turn-offs: floods, locusts, smokers.

 

[rdean]

She's only writing down her few thoughts. Only it's on paper instead of her "hand".

 

[CitizenPained]

At least we officially know what the Lady with the Face thinks. I mean, I like it when Democrats sign pledges regarding the environment and education, so it works for me.