Bachmann signs The Family Lead pledge

[Modbert]

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).

Mind clarifying your question by rephrasing it? I think I know what you're trying to get at but I rather get clarification first.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

non-sequitur alert...

Don't mind Trajan. Windbag was trying to argue last night that Olympia Snowe was "far left". I told him he was out of his tree. He also tried to argue that Chris Christie is a Social Liberal.

You get gems like these:

Look it up yourself.

Snowe isn't far left. I said she was a Liberal Republican at best.

She is far left.

Your problem is that you have no idea where the center is.

Hear that? A woman who votes with the GOP 62.9% of the time in almost 400 votes is somehow far left now.

This is the kind of stuff you missed last night and I've been missing lately because I'm not in the trenches.

63%? I thought you claimed it was 83%, what happened?

 

[cielo42]

what a tool...the pledge shouldn't even be legal

 

[Si modo]

what a tool...the pledge shouldn't even be legal

 

[Trajan]

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).

Mind clarifying your question by rephrasing it? I think I know what you're trying to get at but I rather get clarification first.

in the past you have made comments as to the reps cons or tea party base felt that certain members were not ideologically pure.....and were scorned, called rinos mobilized against etc.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Any statement that claims that is what the pledge said misrepresents reality as it is.

Anyone who has to lie when attacking anything is either an idiot or an asshole. In your case I opt for option 3, you are an idiotic asshole.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

If your standard is actual harm, however you define it, how can you you be sure that no harm occurs? If your standard is simply consent then you are fine not to actually care.

 

[Modbert]

63%? I thought you claimed it was 83%, what happened?

Where did I claim 83%? I never claimed 83%.

That's your problem, not mine.

She supports the Death Penalty and is a huge proponent of The War on Drugs. She also supports the U.S embargo on Cuba. She supported the War on Iraq invasion.

She voted for the Bush Tax Cut extensions in 2011. She backed McCain in 2008.

Olympia Snowe on the Issues

She opposed the Health Care Reform bill. She's voted yes several times on proposals to constitutionally ban burning the flag. She voted in 1996 to ban Gay Marriage. In October of 2001 she voted to loosen restrictions on cell phone wiretapping.

She voted no for background checks at gun shows.

She voted with Republican Party 62.9% of the time including 326 votes. (Sep 2007) but that somehow makes her far left? You're out of your tree.

I've been quoting Ontheissues this entire time.

The only one trying to derail the discussion is yourself. Someone who votes with the Republicans 62.9% of the time is not far left, simple as that.

The issue here is you think you have a monopoly on how to define terms.

Why do you keep trying to change what I say throughout our discussions? This is what? The 3rd or 4th in the past day I've had to correct you now?

 

[Modbert]

in the past you have made comments as to the reps cons or tea party base felt that certain members were not ideologically pure.....and were scorned, called rinos mobilized against etc.

Are you saying that in the past I've made comments that Republicans, Conservatives, and Tea Party members have said that certain members of the GOP are not ideologically pure enough to be considered a Republican? Yes, I have made such comments because there have been various cases where that has happened.

Romney is probably the most prominent example.

 

[snjmom]

If your standard is actual harm, however you define it, how can you you be sure that no harm occurs? If your standard is simply consent then you are fine not to actually care.

Pornography is fine. Coercion is harmful, whether for pornography, labor, sex, money, etc.

I love the part where homosexuality is a subset of promiscuity.

And all women should marry for fear of economic hardship. Sounds an awful lot like coercing a sexual relationship to me.

 

[MarcATL]

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.

A day late and a dollar short.

What this pledge shows the public, clear as day, is that Bachmann is off her rockers. She's a moonbat.

And it took such blatant and flagrant depictions for you to state that you won't consider her.

WoW!

Telling....very telling.

 

[CitizenPained]

What if we banned all internet porn and REALLY cracked down on it? What if you had to actually go down to the smut shop in person, like the olden days?

That would make it much harder for teens to get ahold of porn (unless they're buying it offline to be delivered).

Would anyone here object?

 

[jillian]

What if we banned all internet porn and REALLY cracked down on it? What if you had to actually go down to the smut shop in person, like the olden days?

That would make it much harder for teens to get ahold of porn (unless they're buying it offline to be delivered).

Would anyone here object?

read.....

Jacobellis v. Ohio

 

[CitizenPained]

What if we banned all internet porn and REALLY cracked down on it? What if you had to actually go down to the smut shop in person, like the olden days?

That would make it much harder for teens to get ahold of porn (unless they're buying it offline to be delivered).

Would anyone here object?

read.....

Jacobellis v. Ohio

Don't hide. I asked you what you thought.

 

[Si modo]

What if we banned all internet porn and REALLY cracked down on it? What if you had to actually go down to the smut shop in person, like the olden days?

That would make it much harder for teens to get ahold of porn (unless they're buying it offline to be delivered).

Would anyone here object?

Yes. I would.

First of all, there is no clear delineation between what is porn and what isn't. So, it's difficult to ban something when you can't define it.

Secondly, as the internet is international, our banning it won't make a lick of difference in its online availability. Of course, our federal government could pull a China/Google thing, but I am beyond uncomfortable with that sort of crap.

I AM comfortable in giving parents the best tools available to protect their children from being exposed to it online.

 

[Modbert]

What if we banned all internet porn and REALLY cracked down on it? What if you had to actually go down to the smut shop in person, like the olden days?

That would make it much harder for teens to get ahold of porn (unless they're buying it offline to be delivered).

Would anyone here object?

Yes. Stop trying to legislate morality.

 

[jillian]

What if we banned all internet porn and REALLY cracked down on it? What if you had to actually go down to the smut shop in person, like the olden days?

That would make it much harder for teens to get ahold of porn (unless they're buying it offline to be delivered).

Would anyone here object?

read.....

Jacobellis v. Ohio

Don't hide. I asked you what you thought.

who's hiding? EDUCATE YOURSELF. there are constitutional standards. that was just one case. loons can't just ban what they don't like.

 

[ABikerSailor]

What if we banned all internet porn and REALLY cracked down on it? What if you had to actually go down to the smut shop in person, like the olden days?

That would make it much harder for teens to get ahold of porn (unless they're buying it offline to be delivered).

Would anyone here object?

Yo..........Skanky Sin Pained...........yes......I would object to banning porn.

I mean, what part of free speech (guaranteed in the Constitution) do you not get?

Wanna talk about the People vs. Larry Flynt?

 

[CitizenPained]

What if we banned all internet porn and REALLY cracked down on it? What if you had to actually go down to the smut shop in person, like the olden days?

That would make it much harder for teens to get ahold of porn (unless they're buying it offline to be delivered).

Would anyone here object?

Yes. I would.

First of all, there is no clear delineation between what is porn and what isn't. So, it's difficult to ban something when you can't define it.

Secondly, as the internet is international, our banning it won't make a lick of difference in its online availability. Of course, our federal government could pull a China/Google thing, but I am beyond uncomfortable with that sort of crap.

I AM comfortable in giving parents the best tools available to protect their children from being exposed to it online.

It's impossible to restrict porn online unless you're sitting over your kid's shoulder. Plus they can just go to their friend's house.

As far as a delineation on what porn 'is' - I think it can be figured out.

We already prohibit the viewing or distribution of child porn. That is available online and happens to be a booming industry overseas. Child sex slaves. Disgusting. I can't imagine you object to that ban.

Purposely exposing your kids to pornography is sexual assault in many places, and for good reason.

 

[CitizenPained]

read.....

Jacobellis v. Ohio

Don't hide. I asked you what you thought.

who's hiding? EDUCATE YOURSELF. there are constitutional standards. that was just one case. loons can't just ban what they don't like.

Stop talking as though the courts have never backtracked or voided a previous ruling. Stop acting as though the court is the end all be all. You most certainly wouldn't be making this argument if we were talking about Lawrence before SCOTUS had made its ruling.

It isn't about morals or free speech. For me, it's the harm principle. And I fully support government regulation when it comes to the porn industry.