Bachmann signs The Family Lead pledge

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.

:cuckoo:

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.
There is nothing racist about anything in that pledge and that has been demonstrated over and over again.

But, continue marginalizing real racism with your propensity to cry wolf.
 
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.

:cuckoo:

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?
Because of idiots like you crying wolf about racism.

Nice dodge, by the way.
 
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.
There is nothing racist about anything in that pledge and that has been demonstrated over and over again.

But, continue marginalizing real racism with your propensity to cry wolf.

The very idea that blacks were better off during slavery compared to today is racist at the core. That you do not understand or comprehend that speaks volumes to your character.

BTW, how do YOU define "real racism" today?
 
I do love how the moral contortionists are twisting themselves into a pretzel trying to defend racists and loons.
There is nothing racist about anything in that pledge and that has been demonstrated over and over again.

But, continue marginalizing real racism with your propensity to cry wolf.

The very idea that blacks were better off during slavery compared to today is racist at the core.

....
Too true.

And if the pledge said that, you would have a point.

It didn't and doesn't.

So, no point.
 
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.

:cuckoo:

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?
Because of idiots like you crying wolf about racism.

Nice dodge, by the way.

There was no dodge...I asked why it was brought up at all and you made a pathetic, grasping for straws, claim that it was some sort of "time reference".

Whether intentionally racist or not, the statement angered African Americans. There was a definite perceived racism in the statement. The decidedly homophobic, but potentially unintentionally racist, morons at this "Family" association recognized that and took it down.

How incredibly dense are you that you can't?
 
Last edited:
There is nothing racist about anything in that pledge and that has been demonstrated over and over again.

But, continue marginalizing real racism with your propensity to cry wolf.

The very idea that blacks were better off during slavery compared to today is racist at the core.

....
Too true.

And if the pledge said that, you would have a point.

It didn't and doesn't.

So, no point.
*sigh*

What did it say?

Besides, didn't Bachmann herself UTTER those words? That blacks were better off then than now?
 
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?
Because of idiots like you crying wolf about racism.

Nice dodge, by the way.

There was no dodge...I asked why it was brought up at all and you made a pathetic, grasping for straws, claim that it was some sort of "time reference".

Whether intentionally racist or not, the statement angered African Americans. There was a definite perceived racism in the statement. The decidedly homophobic, but unintentionally racist, morons at this "Family" association recognized that and took it down.

How incredibly dense are you that you can't?
I didn't bring it up at all. It is the chicken littles like you in this thread screaming about non-existent racism in a statement that no longer exists on the pledge.

There was nothing racist about the statement, either intentionally or otherwise, except to partisan hacks and idiots who will use racism as a political tool. That marginalizes real racism.

Good job. :thup:
 
The very idea that blacks were better off during slavery compared to today is racist at the core.

....
Too true.

And if the pledge said that, you would have a point.

It didn't and doesn't.

So, no point.
*sigh*

What did it say?

Besides, didn't Bachmann herself UTTER those words? That blacks were better off then than now?
It said that more blacks grow up in single parent households than they did prior to the Civil War( while at the same time acknowledging that slavery is bad).

And, to you and other idiots, that's racist.

No, that's just idiocy or insanity or selling out and using racism as a tool. It's not as if I and hundreds of others haven't seen you do just that in the past, either. ;)
 
And, to repeat myself, I am no fan of Bachmann.

When the lipstick on a pig statement came out and so many were crying sexism, I was just as vehement about that issue not being sexism.

This sort of selling out of real issues that exist for minorities and women which marginalizes those issues is stupidly dangerous to us all. If I can appeal to any of you to consider the larger picture, that would be good.

Here, if it makes it easier to see my point: I think Bachmann is not anyone we should consider for the POTUS. I don't like her style at all. If the election were between her and Obama, I would likely write myself in.
 
Last edited:
Bachmann was the one pandering to race for political purposes...



But one particular piece has everyone up in arms over the idea that she and other signatories think that black people were better off during slavery:

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 African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President.



Do Bachmann and others who signed the pledge actually think we were better off without freedom and with all of the other emotional and physical horrors that accompanied being enslaved? We don't know, quite honestly doubt they care, and don't believe that's actually the point (and the very accuracy of the statement -- including whether living arrangements during slavery are what we'd consider "two-parent households" -- is a whole different conversation).



What's actually disturbing here is the total willingness to invoke slavery -- as well as the current state of the black family -- to serve as a cheap emotional hook to promote a conservative agenda that has nothing more to do with African Americans than it does with anyone else (not unlike the infamous "The most dangerous place for an African American is in the womb" billboards).



So while Bachmann and others who sign this pledge will score points with racists who like the dig at black people as well as conservatives who like the underlying political ideology of "The Marriage Vow," the rest of us should focus not so much on what they believe about the state of the African-American family but on what they're willing to say about it to serve their own political ambitions.

Error: Cookies must be enabled - Powered by Hoop.la

http://africanamerica.org



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

I do love how the demagogues and liars claim that the phrase "Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families."

So then. you fascist democrats are claiming that slavery had a positive impact on African-American families?

I understand, after all -it was YOU who was enslaving them - so obviously you think your acts were righteous.

How DARE Bachmann agree that "Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families?"
 
15th post
Yep..I admired him for his racism.

Got it.:lol:

Why not - your positions are virtually identical to Orval Faubus, so it's natural to think that racism is what attracted you to Byrd.

Oh that's right, you claim "It not racist if against whites!"

ROFL, you just switched targets, your attitude, motive and rhetoric are the same old racist shit that democrats have been spewing since Andrew Jackson formed your shameful party.
 
You know I really pray Palin runs now. She will split the mamma grizzley vote with Bachmann and then a STRONG economic candidate like Cain, Romney or Perry will emerge from it. I fear Bachmann representing the GOP. I couldn't vote for her (or Obama for that matter). I don't think I could vote for the lesser of two evils on that one either!
 
Back
Top Bottom