Bachmann signs The Family Lead pledge

[Si modo]

This is completely confusing.

I understand completely why it does confuse you.

Well then maybe you want to clarify your post.

Why the heck would you put up that there should be voter suppression?

Are you agreeing with me?

Or is this something out of left field.

I made a pretty plain assertion that violence against women was under reported...something you seemed to agree with..

Then..you came up with the woman's suffrage thing.

You should know..that I completely agree that women are equal Americans. And should have the rights of all Americans.

I didn't agree with anything.

I believe that the rate of violence against women before they had the vote is much less than it is today.

You said it was under-reported and that's why. But, you don't know that the rate was greater because of the fact of under reporting. I don't know if the rate was less because of under reporting, for sure, either.

So, both of us have a belief on that. But, what matters, is my belief on it because I am the one making the statement.



Now, compare to the statement that Bachmann agreed with; that although slavery was bad, African American children more often live in single parent households now than they did during slavery (paraphrased).

So, irrespective of what the data shows and considering under reporting, neither you nor I know that is a fact - that there are more single parent households now than before. But, she believes it is. I also believe it is true.

So, if you want to be consistent, and based on my statement above, you assume - erroneously - that I no longer want women to have the vote. I guess, to be consistent, you also must believe that I am a misogynist.







I won't go through this again because I am pretty sure that you are being willfully obtuse rather than just being a ******* idiot.

 

[Si modo]

I just did..the whole video is there for you to see.

She's a bigot and a racist.

Christianity is a culture that supports slavery. You won't hear me saying it's "unequal" to others.

She is talking about the culture of France, not Christianity. I guess that proves you didn't even watch the video you posted.

No.

This proves you didn't understand my post.

Christianity advocates for slavery.

What part of that don't you get.

So, as others have said, because she is a white and a Christian, she is a racist.

 

[Sallow]

I understand completely why it does confuse you.

Well then maybe you want to clarify your post.

Why the heck would you put up that there should be voter suppression?

Are you agreeing with me?

Or is this something out of left field.

I made a pretty plain assertion that violence against women was under reported...something you seemed to agree with..

Then..you came up with the woman's suffrage thing.

You should know..that I completely agree that women are equal Americans. And should have the rights of all Americans.

I didn't agree with anything.

I believe that the rate of violence against women before they had the vote is much less than it is today.

You said it was under-reported and that's why. But, you don't know that the rate was greater because of the fact of under reporting. I don't know if the rate was less because of under reporting, for sure, either.

So, both of us have a belief on that. But, what matters, is my belief on it because I am the one making the statement.



Now, compare to the statement that Bachmann agreed with; that although slavery was bad, African American children more often live in single parent households now than they did during slavery (paraphrased).

So, irrespective of what the data shows and considering under reporting, neither you nor I know that is a fact - that there are more single parent households now than before. But, she believes it is. I also believe it is true.

So, if you want to be consistent, and based on my statement above, you assume - erroneously - that I no longer want women to have the vote. I guess, to be consistent, you also must believe that I am a misogynist.







I won't go through this again because I am pretty sure that you are being willfully obtuse rather than just being a ******* idiot.

I look at this post and I don't really get angry..I get sad.

Because it ignores some really basic history.

Things have not gotten worse..they've gotten better.

Women are doing much better then they did before.

So are black people.

And what's sad is that some people have this sepia colored nostagia of a perfect America "that was"..

And the reality was..it wasn't.

 

[Si modo]

Well then maybe you want to clarify your post.

Why the heck would you put up that there should be voter suppression?

Are you agreeing with me?

Or is this something out of left field.

I made a pretty plain assertion that violence against women was under reported...something you seemed to agree with..

Then..you came up with the woman's suffrage thing.

You should know..that I completely agree that women are equal Americans. And should have the rights of all Americans.

I didn't agree with anything.

I believe that the rate of violence against women before they had the vote is much less than it is today.

You said it was under-reported and that's why. But, you don't know that the rate was greater because of the fact of under reporting. I don't know if the rate was less because of under reporting, for sure, either.

So, both of us have a belief on that. But, what matters, is my belief on it because I am the one making the statement.



Now, compare to the statement that Bachmann agreed with; that although slavery was bad, African American children more often live in single parent households now than they did during slavery (paraphrased).

So, irrespective of what the data shows and considering under reporting, neither you nor I know that is a fact - that there are more single parent households now than before. But, she believes it is. I also believe it is true.

So, if you want to be consistent, and based on my statement above, you assume - erroneously - that I no longer want women to have the vote. I guess, to be consistent, you also must believe that I am a misogynist.







I won't go through this again because I am pretty sure that you are being willfully obtuse rather than just being a ******* idiot.

I look at this post and I don't really get angry..I get sad.

Because it ignores some really basic history.

Things have not gotten worse..they've gotten better.

Women are doing much better then they did before.

So are black people.

And what's sad is that some people have this sepia colored nostagia of a perfect America "that was"..

And the reality was..it wasn't.

Dodge.

And, I understand why.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This is completely confusing.

I TOLD you you had already had enough crack!

Ya shoulda listened...

 

[Uncensored2008]

"Diluting" it?

How exactly?

Conservatism was on the forefront of maintaining racists mores.

Still are..

George Wallace - Democrat
Robert Byrd - Democrat
Orval Faubus (Yo Daddy?) - Democrat
Bull Conner - Democrat
Farris Bryant - Democrat
Harry Montgomery - Democrat
Fielding Wright - Democrat
Ad Nasium - Democrats all

What was that you were ******* lying about again?

Hey Shallow, you've got a party - no room for integrity!

 

[snjmom]

"Diluting" it?

How exactly?

Conservatism was on the forefront of maintaining racists mores.

Still are..

George Wallace - Democrat
Robert Byrd - Democrat
Orval Faubus (Yo Daddy?) - Democrat
Bull Conner - Democrat
Farris Bryant - Democrat
Harry Montgomery - Democrat
Fielding Wright - Democrat
Ad Nasium - Democrats all

What was that you were ******* lying about again?

Hey Shallow, you've got a party - no room for integrity!

Would not everyone of those have switched to the GOP after Nixon?

Except Wallace. Getting shot humbled him a bit about how wrong headed he had been.

 

[Si modo]

"Diluting" it?

How exactly?

Conservatism was on the forefront of maintaining racists mores.

Still are..

George Wallace - Democrat
Robert Byrd - Democrat
Orval Faubus (Yo Daddy?) - Democrat
Bull Conner - Democrat
Farris Bryant - Democrat
Harry Montgomery - Democrat
Fielding Wright - Democrat
Ad Nasium - Democrats all

What was that you were ******* lying about again?

Hey Shallow, you've got a party - no room for integrity!

Would not everyone of those have switched to the GOP after Nixon?

Except Wallace. Getting shot humbled him a bit about how wrong headed he had been.

Pssst. Byrd died last year........a Democrat.

 

[L.K.Eder]

No.

The fact that she signs a pledge that states that blacks had it better under slavery and she points out that "not all cultures are equal" makes her racist.

It's not at all odd.

Fact is, there is more violence against women in the present day than there was in 1918, before women could vote.

In your mind, my saying that means that I think women were better off when they couldn't vote.

Are you crazy?

There was massive violence against women.

It just wasn't reported.

Or even really recorded...with any sort of precision.

Are you crazy?

There was massive violence against women.

It just wasn't reported.

Or even really recorded...with any sort of precision.

Assume it's true or at least assume that I believe it to be true (and I do). So, that's what I obviously mean, right? That women should no longer have the vote.

This is completely confusing.

it becomes a little less confusing if you accept that for si modo a fact is what she believes to be true.

just like bachmann

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Diluting" it?

How exactly?

Conservatism was on the forefront of maintaining racists mores.

Still are..

George Wallace - Democrat
Robert Byrd - Democrat
Orval Faubus (Yo Daddy?) - Democrat
Bull Conner - Democrat
Farris Bryant - Democrat
Harry Montgomery - Democrat
Fielding Wright - Democrat
Ad Nasium - Democrats all

What was that you were ******* lying about again?

Hey Shallow, you've got a party - no room for integrity!

Are you claiming those guys were liberals?

Do you know that the Democrats were the conservative party of the South prior to 1964?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The important point here is that the sort of people who actually vote in Republican primaries love this sort of shit.

Unless you vote in GOP primaries, you have no idea what those voters love.

Or, do you believe you read minds?

Because that would be, well, ******* crazy.

So Bachmann is now leading in Iowa because?

 

[CitizenPained]

Iowa is pretty representative of American politics: Polar.

Not surprising she's gained 'momentum' amongst Iowa Republicans...but the poll was conducted by a Republican newspaper, and it tends to be pretty homophobic and such.

Mit Romney will have hard time against her. In the last election, Iowa went all "Huckaboom" crazy. vomitvomit

disclosure: I grew up in Iowa

 

[Seawytch]

Oh, you said it was "regarding slavery". Of course, that means something entirely different than "about slavery".

Idiot.

Doushenozzle, I'm asking folks like you that are defending this, why slavery was mentioned at all. Seems like dog whistles to me...

Because it was giving a time reference.

What a ******* moron you are.

My saying that there was much less violence against women before they had the vote than now means that I think women shouldn't have the vote to the idiots here.

All moot now isn't it? They took it off their pledge. Now, if there was nothing wrong with their "time reference", why would they take the reference to slavery off their already horribly homophobic pledge?

 

[jillian]

Doushenozzle, I'm asking folks like you that are defending this, why slavery was mentioned at all. Seems like dog whistles to me...

Because it was giving a time reference.

What a ******* moron you are.

My saying that there was much less violence against women before they had the vote than now means that I think women shouldn't have the vote to the idiots here.

All moot now isn't it? They took it off their pledge. Now, if there was nothing wrong with their "time reference", why would they take the reference to slavery off their already horribly homophobic pledge?

I do love how the moral contortionists are twisting themselves into a pretzel trying to defend racists and loons.

 

[jillian]

The important point here is that the sort of people who actually vote in Republican primaries love this sort of shit.

Unless you vote in GOP primaries, you have no idea what those voters love.

Or, do you believe you read minds?

Because that would be, well, ******* crazy.

So Bachmann is now leading in Iowa because?

because rightwingnut voters of the repub "base" love garbage like this. it's like tossing them red meat.

 

[Sallow]

George Wallace - Democrat
Robert Byrd - Democrat
Orval Faubus (Yo Daddy?) - Democrat
Bull Conner - Democrat
Farris Bryant - Democrat
Harry Montgomery - Democrat
Fielding Wright - Democrat
Ad Nasium - Democrats all

What was that you were ******* lying about again?

Hey Shallow, you've got a party - no room for integrity!

Would not everyone of those have switched to the GOP after Nixon?

Except Wallace. Getting shot humbled him a bit about how wrong headed he had been.

Pssst. Byrd died last year........a Democrat.

And beside the KKK thing..which he disavowed long ago..what was your issue with the man?

 

[Sallow]

"Diluting" it?

How exactly?

Conservatism was on the forefront of maintaining racists mores.

Still are..

George Wallace - Democrat
Robert Byrd - Democrat
Orval Faubus (Yo Daddy?) - Democrat
Bull Conner - Democrat
Farris Bryant - Democrat
Harry Montgomery - Democrat
Fielding Wright - Democrat
Ad Nasium - Democrats all

What was that you were ******* lying about again?

Hey Shallow, you've got a party - no room for integrity!

And?

The names I recognize were at one time DixieCrats. Very conservative.

And what's this "Yo Daddy" thing? You know the TOS? You know that it's prohibited to include family members?

 

[CitizenPained]

Unless you vote in GOP primaries, you have no idea what those voters love.

Or, do you believe you read minds?

Because that would be, well, ******* crazy.

So Bachmann is now leading in Iowa because?

because rightwingnut voters of the repub "base" love garbage like this. it's like tossing them red meat.

You'd be surprised. They're normal, everyday, pie-baking, church-going, generous, polite, hardworking Iowans.

 

[MarcATL]

So Bachmann is now leading in Iowa because?

because rightwingnut voters of the repub "base" love garbage like this. it's like tossing them red meat.

You'd be surprised. They're normal, everyday, pie-baking, church-going, generous, polite, hardworking Iowans.

Be that as it may, yet they consistently, CONSISTENTLY, respond the same way to the reprehensible red meat rabid RWers like Bachmann and others toss to them. And they eat it up every. single. time.

 

[CitizenPained]

Not really. Iowa as a whole tends to get progressive quicker than, say, Georgia.

The problem is that overall, Repubs in Iowa aren't THAT horrid. It's the caucus system - only a few people participate. State-wide elections are different.

I guess most primaries are like that, but Iowa Republicans are laaaazyyyyyy.