Bachmann signs The Family Lead pledge

[Si modo]

whoa, don't get pushy, you owe me , oh 6 answers by my count but lets call it 4 and take a number, I have to eat dinner in a minute.

Puppies with po' people relish!!! Yum!!!!maill ordered from halliburton.

I'm not pushy. I asked you a very simple question that you've avoided twice now. I've always addressed any of your posts.

Bullshit. You've not answered several of his posts. And, he repeated those questions to you.

I understand why you dodge them, though.

 

[Salt Jones]

What do you mean by sex trade? Are you lumping porn in with human trafficking and or prostitution?

Yes, she is, just like the vow that you insisted was all about porn did.

it doesn't matter... porn shouldn't be included. and really, wouldn't it make more sense for the rightwingnuts to worry about their own morality and stop trying to govern everyone elses'?

what i'd kind of like to know is why no one is talking about the fact that the "pledge" says black families were better off under slavery.

so the wingnuts are both racists and loons. it's just so funny to watch them talk about morality.

I was talking about it, but I received responses saying that the pledge statement was correct. Read pages 23-28.

 

[Si modo]

What do you mean by sex trade? Are you lumping porn in with human trafficking and or prostitution?

Yes, she is, just like the vow that you insisted was all about porn did.

it doesn't matter... porn shouldn't be included. and really, wouldn't it make more sense for the rightwingnuts to worry about their own morality and stop trying to govern everyone elses'?

what i'd kind of like to know is why no one is talking about the fact that the "pledge" says black families were better off under slavery.

so the wingnuts are both racists and loons. it's just so funny to watch them talk about morality.

It doesn't really say they were 'better off' under slavery, but I understand why you want to spin it that way. (It is really a statement on the decline of the two parent household over the years, for those who actually know how to think objectively. )

It's just so easy for folks to toss out the racism moniker and diminish real racism. So many must be proud that they've done that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Any statement that states black families were better off under slavery misjudges the reality of American slavery, period.

Any who defend it are mentally feeble, poorly educated, or malignantly motivated. In Michelle's case, I opt for #2. She simply does not the basics and principles of American history and core values.

 

[Salt Jones]

Yes, she is, just like the vow that you insisted was all about porn did.

it doesn't matter... porn shouldn't be included. and really, wouldn't it make more sense for the rightwingnuts to worry about their own morality and stop trying to govern everyone elses'?

what i'd kind of like to know is why no one is talking about the fact that the "pledge" says black families were better off under slavery.

so the wingnuts are both racists and loons. it's just so funny to watch them talk about morality.

It doesn't really say they were 'better off' under slavery, but I understand why you want to spin it that way. (It is really a statement on the decline of the two parent household over the years, for those who actually know how to think objectively. )

It's just so easy for folks to toss out the racism moniker and diminish real racism. So many must be proud that they've done that.

Then what does the statement say?

Would you have rather been a black slave in a 2 parent household in 1860 or a black American kid in a single parent household in 2011?

 

[Si modo]

it doesn't matter... porn shouldn't be included. and really, wouldn't it make more sense for the rightwingnuts to worry about their own morality and stop trying to govern everyone elses'?

what i'd kind of like to know is why no one is talking about the fact that the "pledge" says black families were better off under slavery.

so the wingnuts are both racists and loons. it's just so funny to watch them talk about morality.

It doesn't really say they were 'better off' under slavery, but I understand why you want to spin it that way. (It is really a statement on the decline of the two parent household over the years, for those who actually know how to think objectively. )

It's just so easy for folks to toss out the racism moniker and diminish real racism. So many must be proud that they've done that.

Then what does the statement say?

Would you have rather been a black slave in a 2 parent household in 1860 or a black American kid in a single parent household in 2011?

That's a no brainer, but apparently the pledge should have been more dumbed-down for many.

 

[Trajan]

whoa, don't get pushy, you owe me , oh 6 answers by my count but lets call it 4 and take a number, I have to eat dinner in a minute.

Puppies with po' people relish!!! Yum!!!!maill ordered from halliburton.

I'm not pushy. I asked you a very simple question that you've avoided twice now. I've always addressed any of your posts.

uhmmmmmm survey says?


no you have not, I can think of 4 right off the bat.

anyway, dinner was good, we scotched the puppies, I knew you were wondering, salmon with rice and veggies, no carbs.....

 

[Salt Jones]

It doesn't really say they were 'better off' under slavery, but I understand why you want to spin it that way. (It is really a statement on the decline of the two parent household over the years, for those who actually know how to think objectively. )

It's just so easy for folks to toss out the racism moniker and diminish real racism. So many must be proud that they've done that.

Then what does the statement say?

Would you have rather been a black slave in a 2 parent household in 1860 or a black American kid in a single parent household in 2011?

That's a no brainer, but apparently the pledge should have been more dumbed-down for many.

What does the statement say, your interpretation?

Would you have rather been a black slave in a 2 parent household in 1860 or a black American kid in a single parent household in 2011?

 

[Trajan]

and far as lib left right social etc , I cannot accept your delineation of such, I mean obama is not a liberal, so what can I say. *shrugs"

That's right, I said Obama is not a Liberal. I'm asking you however whether you think Olympia Snowe is "far left".

I think snowe has to swim in the water she lives in.as they all do.

I think shes a socially lib. rep. but has the habit of going off the reservation into rino territory, far left? No, not really.

that 62.9% is interesting, I'll take your word for it btw.

time for a q to you, what do you call a dem who only votes with say the party 70% of the time...I?

and obama was established as the most lib senator for 2007 just for the record. and yes I know hes president...we'll hash this out as we move along and you box yourself in further

 

[Modbert]

time for a q to you, what do you call a dem who only votes with say the party 70% of the time...I?

and obama was established as the most lib senator for 2007 just for the record. and yes I know hes president...we'll hash this out as we move along and you box yourself in further

Barack Obama the Senator and Barack Obama the President are not the same two people. But we both know that.

Furthermore, I would say a Democrat who votes with their party 70% is definitely not far right. I'd have to look at their positions more than anything.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What do you mean by sex trade? Are you lumping porn in with human trafficking and or prostitution?

Yes, she is, just like the vow that you insisted was all about porn did.

it doesn't matter... porn shouldn't be included. and really, wouldn't it make more sense for the rightwingnuts to worry about their own morality and stop trying to govern everyone elses'?

what i'd kind of like to know is why no one is talking about the fact that the "pledge" says black families were better off under slavery.

so the wingnuts are both racists and loons. it's just so funny to watch them talk about morality.

It matters because she is not a wingnut.

Why are you worried about other people's morality? Are you going to try and argue that Bachman is actually a philanderer? Or that she is a hypocrite for not taking in children even though she opposes abortion? If so, you might find yourself on the loosing end of that moral argument.

FYI, the pledge didn't actually say what you claim, and the language that implied that has been removed. A bit late, but it shows that they actually pay attention to criticism.

 

[Si modo]

Then what does the statement say?

Would you have rather been a black slave in a 2 parent household in 1860 or a black American kid in a single parent household in 2011?

That's a no brainer, but apparently the pledge should have been more dumbed-down for many.

What does the statement say, your interpretation?

....

You are serious, huh?

So, what do you think something like this says, (for example):

Before women could vote, the rate of violence against women was less than one tenth what it is now.

Just for example.

And, I agree with that. In fact, I think it's a good example of how much violence against women has increased in less than 100 years. Not being able to vote is bad, but violence against women is bad, too.

So, that would mean to you that I think the vote needs to be taken away from women, right?

....
Would you have rather been a black slave in a 2 parent household in 1860 or a black American kid in a single parent household in 2011?

Let's see if my comment about a no-brainer and now this post give you a clue.

*insert Jeopardy theme*

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For someone who was mocking my political positions last night, you certainly seem to have no problem using the government to enforce your morality onto others.

It has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with ethics and common sense.

Do you think that it's unfair for the government to 'push' its morality on others via laws against rape, child abuse, drunk driving...?

laws against rape, child abuse and drunk driving exist to protect the victims who would be affected by the perpetrator. they are not intended to protect someone from themselves.

Explain the laws that make the possession of marijuana illegal. Or, for that matter, that make wearing seat belts mandatory. I would love to see you twist those around to not being about someone imposing their morality on someone else, especially since you probably support that impose your morality on other people while crying about others doing the same thing because you do not like it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with ethics and common sense.

Do you think that it's unfair for the government to 'push' its morality on others via laws against rape, child abuse, drunk driving...?

Last I checked:

Rape, child abuse, and drunk driving are all things that harm others. That's like saying the government is pushing its morality onto others when they have laws against murder.

Your arguments have everything to do with morality, though they do not hinge with reality.

Can you prove that porn does not harm others? Are you aware that one of the biggest porn stars of the 1970s claimed that she was forced into the profession?

 

[Trajan]

time for a q to you, what do you call a dem who only votes with say the party 70% of the time...I?

and obama was established as the most lib senator for 2007 just for the record. and yes I know hes president...we'll hash this out as we move along and you box yourself in further

Barack Obama the Senator and Barack Obama the President are not the same two people. But we both know that.

Furthermore, I would say a Democrat who votes with their party 70% is definitely not far right. I'd have to look at their positions more than anything.

how about parties.....as to the reps shunning or oh, forgot the phraseology you used but scotching rinos or those impure from their ranks because they are beholden to their base ( the tea party).....

 

[Si modo]

For the record, I think it's silly to try to ban porn.

I DON'T think it's silly to pledge to try one's best to protect children from exposure to it.

I think most child development experts would agree that is in the best interest of the children.

I DON'T think it's silly to pledge to try to protect women (and even some men, perhaps) from being coerced into being part of that industry, either.


I really don't know what the panic attacks in this thread are all about. (Well, yeah, I do. Partisans are lame and they don't think for themselves, rather they just parrot what other partisans think.)

And, for the record, I doubt I would vote for Bachmann, unless she was my only choice against Obama (at this point).

 

[Modbert]

Can you prove that porn does not harm others? Are you aware that one of the biggest porn stars of the 1970s claimed that she was forced into the profession?

So are you for banning pornography then? Or are you just trying to play devil's advocate?

As long as pornography is between consenting adults, I don't care about it. If it involves kids or men/women who are being forced into it, then that's wrong. Simple as that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We do legislate to protect people from themselves. Like alcohol and drugs and protecting against predatory bankers.

Again, it's more about the effects of porn than it is the low class sleezy men and women who do it.

we do not legislate to keep people from drinking. we legislate to keep people from being injured by drunks.

and i don't think drugs should be outlawed either.

Are you trying to say that public intoxication is not a criminal offense? Can you explain how being drunk in public puts other people at risk in such a way that the only possible way to deal with it is to make being drunk outside your house a crime?

 

[Modbert]

how about parties.....as to the reps shunning or oh, forgot the phraseology you used but scotching rinos or those impure from their ranks because they are beholden to their base ( the tea party).....

What do you mean? Are you asking me if I consider someone who votes the Party line 70% of the time a DINO? No, I wouldn't.

 

[Trajan]

how about parties.....as to the reps shunning or oh, forgot the phraseology you used but scotching rinos or those impure from their ranks because they are beholden to their base ( the tea party).....

What do you mean? Are you asking me if I consider someone who votes the Party line 70% of the time a DINO? No, I wouldn't.

uhm no I said-

how about parties.....as to the reps shunning or oh, forgot the phraseology you used but scotching rinos or those impure from their ranks because they are beholden to their base ( the tea party).