Bachmann signs The Family Lead pledge

[Spoonman]

Are you crazy?

There was massive violence against women.

It just wasn't reported.

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

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

Quick question........Bachmann believes in women not being allowed to vote.

So, why is she running for President?

where did you pull that brilliant bit of misinformation from?

 

[rightwinger]

The stimulus was supposed to help states balance the budgets, just as Krugman. Everyone uses accounting tricks, why are you only whinging about Perry?

As for Godfather's, it has consistently won awards for the best chain pizza.

Well thanks, Captain Obvious...I guess you missed the part where Perry slammed the stimulus at every turn. Big hypocrite still took the loot he slammed. Perry used dirty accounting tricks to "balance" his budget on top of taking the $ he panned. Oh, and running a business selling crappy pizza doesn't mean you can run a country.

neither does being a community organizer

or a Senator

 

[Uncensored2008]

Bachmann claimed she signed up to the points but not to the preamble. She needs to do a better job of reading what she puts her name to

She needs to grow some balls and tell you sleazy, lying scum to go **** yourselves.

You know, you democrats used to keep slaves? You fought a civil war when the Republicans told you that you couldn't keep slaves anymore.

Now you'll claim that is an endorsement of slavery - it isn't, but you Goebbels types will lie and smear. It's all part of the service you perform.

 

[Gadawg73]

Cain's campaign takes a large hit from Bachman in the race as he is a Tea party candidate also.
I like a Romney Cain or Cain Romney ticket. That is a home run!

 

[Uncensored2008]

why would you think they weren't intended? or that anything was "read into" them?

Because she has an IQ of greater than 40, unlike you.

Let's look:

“Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families,"

Pretty racist, huh? Well, it offends you fascists, who seem to think slavery was a great thing.

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

Pretty racist.

Oh sure, it's 100% true - irrefutable in fact. BUT it's racist because, um, uh SARAH PALIN IS STUPID!

" than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”

100% true, can't be denied - BUT it's racist because, um, uh SARAH PALIN IS STUPID!

Look Jillian, I realize that you're as dumb as a goat turd - but the sleazy ***** you mindlessly ape (how could you be anything other than mindless, eh?) are pulling a Goebbels level "big lie" routine.

There isn't anything racist or pro-slavery - just more slander from your shameless liars.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And why are we even having a conversation about Perry who isn't running and Cain who might as well not be?

Not sure, I am just trying to keep the facts straight.

 

[CitizenPained]

A child born in 1860 was also more likely to become an orphan.

 

[bodecea]

Bachmann claimed she signed up to the points but not to the preamble. She needs to do a better job of reading what she puts her name to

She needs to grow some balls and tell you sleazy, lying scum to go **** yourselves.

You know, you democrats used to keep slaves? You fought a civil war when the Republicans told you that you couldn't keep slaves anymore.

Now you'll claim that is an endorsement of slavery - it isn't, but you Goebbels types will lie and smear. It's all part of the service you perform.

Name some democrats here who used to keep slaves, Uncensored. Name names you tool.

 

[Foxfyre]

A child born in 1860 was also more likely to become an orphan.

Which is pertinent to the original statement how? Nor is it pertinent that the black child born in 1860 had far less chance of being mugged, knifed, or murdered in the streets than does a child born into the projects in America today and was far less likely to grow up with the mentality that such is the way of life. And no, acknowledging that truth is not any kind of endorsement of slavery any more than was noting that black kids have much less chance of growing up with a mom and dad in the home these days.

Living in a place where you are always in danger of stray bullets or street thugs is bad. Whether you descend from slaves or not.

Living in a loving home with a mom and dad present is the best possible situation for all children whether they descend from slaves or not.

 

[bodecea]

A child born in 1860 was also more likely to become an orphan.

Which is pertinent to the original statement how? Nor is it pertinent that the black child born in 1860 had far less chance of being mugged, knifed, or murdered in the streets than does a child born into the projects in America today and was far less likely to grow up with the mentality that such is the way of life. And no, acknowledging that truth is not any kind of endorsement of slavery any more than was noting that black kids have much less chance of growing up with a mom and dad in the home these days.

Living in a place where you are always in danger of stray bullets or street thugs is bad. Whether you descend from slaves or not.

Living in a loving home with a mom and dad present is the best possible situation for all children whether they descend from slaves or not.

So...let me confirm. You agree that a child born into SLAVERY had it better than a child today born into a one parent home?

 

[Foxfyre]

A child born in 1860 was also more likely to become an orphan.

Which is pertinent to the original statement how? Nor is it pertinent that the black child born in 1860 had far less chance of being mugged, knifed, or murdered in the streets than does a child born into the projects in America today and was far less likely to grow up with the mentality that such is the way of life. And no, acknowledging that truth is not any kind of endorsement of slavery any more than was noting that black kids have much less chance of growing up with a mom and dad in the home these days.

Living in a place where you are always in danger of stray bullets or street thugs is bad. Whether you descend from slaves or not.

Living in a loving home with a mom and dad present is the best possible situation for all children whether they descend from slaves or not.

So...let me confirm. You agree that a child born into SLAVERY had it better than a child today born into a one parent home?

That is not what I said, inferred, agreed, implied, or suggested in any way.

Nor did Rick Santorum.

Nor did Michelle Bachmann.

Nor did the pledge that was signed.

That's just the way some leftists on this thread have been trying to spin it because they can't debate the point on its own merits without admitting that the statement was right. Or without admitting that neither Bachmann nor Santorum were in any way racist on that issue.

 

[Salt Jones]

A child born in 1860 was also more likely to become an orphan.

Which is pertinent to the original statement how? Nor is it pertinent that the black child born in 1860 had far less chance of being mugged, knifed, or murdered in the streets than does a child born into the projects in America today and was far less likely to grow up with the mentality that such is the way of life. And no, acknowledging that truth is not any kind of endorsement of slavery any more than was noting that black kids have much less chance of growing up with a mom and dad in the home these days.

Living in a place where you are always in danger of stray bullets or street thugs is bad. Whether you descend from slaves or not.

Living in a loving home with a mom and dad present is the best possible situation for all children whether they descend from slaves or not.

A child born in slavery into a 2 parent household was a child born a slave. Did the specter of being sold to another master, away from parents, or that fact that your mom could be forced to have sex with someone other than your father have an impact on the household?

 

[Salt Jones]

why would you think they weren't intended? or that anything was "read into" them?

Because she has an IQ of greater than 40, unlike you.

Let's look:

“Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families,"

Pretty racist, huh? Well, it offends you fascists, who seem to think slavery was a great thing.

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

Pretty racist.

Oh sure, it's 100% true - irrefutable in fact. BUT it's racist because, um, uh SARAH PALIN IS STUPID!

" than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”

100% true, can't be denied - BUT it's racist because, um, uh SARAH PALIN IS STUPID!

Look Jillian, I realize that you're as dumb as a goat turd - but the sleazy ***** you mindlessly ape (how could you be anything other than mindless, eh?) are pulling a Goebbels level "big lie" routine.

There isn't anything racist or pro-slavery - just more slander from your shameless liars.

Did Herman Cain sign the pledge? Did anyone get Cain, Alan West, Tim Scott or Michael Steele's opinion on the statement?

 

[bodecea]

Which is pertinent to the original statement how? Nor is it pertinent that the black child born in 1860 had far less chance of being mugged, knifed, or murdered in the streets than does a child born into the projects in America today and was far less likely to grow up with the mentality that such is the way of life. And no, acknowledging that truth is not any kind of endorsement of slavery any more than was noting that black kids have much less chance of growing up with a mom and dad in the home these days.

Living in a place where you are always in danger of stray bullets or street thugs is bad. Whether you descend from slaves or not.

Living in a loving home with a mom and dad present is the best possible situation for all children whether they descend from slaves or not.

So...let me confirm. You agree that a child born into SLAVERY had it better than a child today born into a one parent home?

That is not what I said, inferred, agreed, implied, or suggested in any way.

Nor did Rick Santorum.

Nor did Michelle Bachmann.

Nor did the pledge that was signed.

That's just the way some leftists on this thread have been trying to spin it because they can't debate the point on its own merits without admitting that the statement was right. Or without admitting that neither Bachmann nor Santorum were in any way racist on that issue.

Of they inferred that. WHY oh WHY make a comparison between children today and those raised as property? Answer that one for us, please.

 

[Foxfyre]

A child born in 1860 was also more likely to become an orphan.

Which is pertinent to the original statement how? Nor is it pertinent that the black child born in 1860 had far less chance of being mugged, knifed, or murdered in the streets than does a child born into the projects in America today and was far less likely to grow up with the mentality that such is the way of life. And no, acknowledging that truth is not any kind of endorsement of slavery any more than was noting that black kids have much less chance of growing up with a mom and dad in the home these days.

Living in a place where you are always in danger of stray bullets or street thugs is bad. Whether you descend from slaves or not.

Living in a loving home with a mom and dad present is the best possible situation for all children whether they descend from slaves or not.

A child born in slavery into a 2 parent household was a child born a slave. Did the specter of being sold to another master, away from parents, or that fact that your mom could be forced to have sex with someone other than your father have an impact on the household?

Different subject for a different topic.

All the pledge said was that it was sad that even a child born into slavery, as terrible and indefensible as slavery was, had a better chance to live with a mom and dad in the home than does a black child now. It was their way of illustrating how deploriable the situation is now.

They were not saying that anything about slavery was good.
They were not dissing single parents or suggesting that a single parent could not do a great job of parenting a child.
They were not presuming that kids who lose their fathers for any reason are doomed.
They were not suggesting that there are sometimes very good reasons for sending the dad packing.
But they are acknowledging that the best situation for kids is to have a loving mom and dad home--daddy is important--and we should be promoting policies that encourage that.

If you want to argue that it isn't a good thing to have a dad in the home go ahead. But you better bring your lunch if you expect to persuade me.

 

[bodecea]

A child born in 1860 was also more likely to become an orphan.

Which is pertinent to the original statement how? Nor is it pertinent that the black child born in 1860 had far less chance of being mugged, knifed, or murdered in the streets than does a child born into the projects in America today and was far less likely to grow up with the mentality that such is the way of life. And no, acknowledging that truth is not any kind of endorsement of slavery any more than was noting that black kids have much less chance of growing up with a mom and dad in the home these days.

Living in a place where you are always in danger of stray bullets or street thugs is bad. Whether you descend from slaves or not.

Living in a loving home with a mom and dad present is the best possible situation for all children whether they descend from slaves or not.

A child born in slavery into a 2 parent household was a child born a slave. Did the specter of being sold to another master, away from parents, or that fact that your mom could be forced to have sex with someone other than your father have an impact on the household?

I would like someone to explain what solid family values can be imparted to a child when they are a piece of property. When their parents are property. When they or their parents could be sold at any time and the law supported that behavior. When they had no recourse with the law if they were even just randomly beaten or killed by their owner?

 

[bodecea]

Which is pertinent to the original statement how? Nor is it pertinent that the black child born in 1860 had far less chance of being mugged, knifed, or murdered in the streets than does a child born into the projects in America today and was far less likely to grow up with the mentality that such is the way of life. And no, acknowledging that truth is not any kind of endorsement of slavery any more than was noting that black kids have much less chance of growing up with a mom and dad in the home these days.

Living in a place where you are always in danger of stray bullets or street thugs is bad. Whether you descend from slaves or not.

Living in a loving home with a mom and dad present is the best possible situation for all children whether they descend from slaves or not.

A child born in slavery into a 2 parent household was a child born a slave. Did the specter of being sold to another master, away from parents, or that fact that your mom could be forced to have sex with someone other than your father have an impact on the household?

Different subject for a different topic.

All the pledge said was that it was sad that even a child born into slavery, as terrible and indefensible as slavery was, had a better chance to live with a mom and dad in the home than does a black child now. It was their way of illustrating how deploriable the situation is now.

They were not saying that anything about slavery was good.
They were not dissing single parents or suggesting that a single parent could not do a great job of parenting a child.
They were not presuming that kids who lose their fathers for any reason are doomed.
They were not suggesting that there are sometimes very good reasons for sending the dad packing.
But they are acknowledging that the best situation for kids is to have a loving mom and dad home--daddy is important--and we should be promoting policies that encourage that.

If you want to argue that it isn't a good thing to have a dad in the home go ahead. But you better bring your lunch if you expect to persuade me.

And that is total bull crap.


And I would like Bachman and her ilk try to sell the notion that slavery might have given a child a better chance to live with a mom and dad than today.....that will go over so very very well, IMO.

 

[Trajan]

A child born in 1860 was also more likely to become an orphan.

Which is pertinent to the original statement how? Nor is it pertinent that the black child born in 1860 had far less chance of being mugged, knifed, or murdered in the streets than does a child born into the projects in America today and was far less likely to grow up with the mentality that such is the way of life. And no, acknowledging that truth is not any kind of endorsement of slavery any more than was noting that black kids have much less chance of growing up with a mom and dad in the home these days.

Living in a place where you are always in danger of stray bullets or street thugs is bad. Whether you descend from slaves or not.

Living in a loving home with a mom and dad present is the best possible situation for all children whether they descend from slaves or not.

So...let me confirm. You agree that a child born into SLAVERY had it better than a child today born into a one parent home?

it appears , appears to me that the point the vow clumsily makes is that first let me say I don't see their focus on slavery, the focus is not on SLAVERY but the status of the parented family as in 2 , in that here we are in 2011 and have a less cohesive negro family than in the 1860's despite all that we have tried to not let that happen. *shrugs*

here is the vow;

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."

 

[Foxfyre]

A child born in slavery into a 2 parent household was a child born a slave. Did the specter of being sold to another master, away from parents, or that fact that your mom could be forced to have sex with someone other than your father have an impact on the household?

Different subject for a different topic.

All the pledge said was that it was sad that even a child born into slavery, as terrible and indefensible as slavery was, had a better chance to live with a mom and dad in the home than does a black child now. It was their way of illustrating how deploriable the situation is now.

They were not saying that anything about slavery was good.
They were not dissing single parents or suggesting that a single parent could not do a great job of parenting a child.
They were not presuming that kids who lose their fathers for any reason are doomed.
They were not suggesting that there are sometimes very good reasons for sending the dad packing.
But they are acknowledging that the best situation for kids is to have a loving mom and dad home--daddy is important--and we should be promoting policies that encourage that.

If you want to argue that it isn't a good thing to have a dad in the home go ahead. But you better bring your lunch if you expect to persuade me.

And that is total bull crap.


And I would like Bachman and her ilk try to sell the notion that slavery might have given a child a better chance to live with a mom and dad than today.....that will go over so very very well, IMO.

They weren't saying that it was because of slavery and you know it. I think you are intentionally twisting what I am saying and trying to make it look like I'm saying something else.

But oh well. If it makes you happy to do that please rave on.

But for the record:

I am not saying that slavery gave a child a better chance to have a mom and dad in the home.
The pledge didn't say that.
Michelle Bachmann didn't say that.
Rick Santorum didn't say that.

And no matter how many times you distort what is being said, it won't change the fact that none of us said that.

 

[bodecea]

Different subject for a different topic.

All the pledge said was that it was sad that even a child born into slavery, as terrible and indefensible as slavery was, had a better chance to live with a mom and dad in the home than does a black child now. It was their way of illustrating how deploriable the situation is now.

They were not saying that anything about slavery was good.
They were not dissing single parents or suggesting that a single parent could not do a great job of parenting a child.
They were not presuming that kids who lose their fathers for any reason are doomed.
They were not suggesting that there are sometimes very good reasons for sending the dad packing.
But they are acknowledging that the best situation for kids is to have a loving mom and dad home--daddy is important--and we should be promoting policies that encourage that.

If you want to argue that it isn't a good thing to have a dad in the home go ahead. But you better bring your lunch if you expect to persuade me.

And that is total bull crap.


And I would like Bachman and her ilk try to sell the notion that slavery might have given a child a better chance to live with a mom and dad than today.....that will go over so very very well, IMO.

They weren't saying that it was because of slavery and you know it. I think you are intentionally twisting what I am saying and trying to make it look like I'm saying something else.

But oh well. If it makes you happy to do that please rave on.

But for the record:

I am not saying that slavery gave a child a better chance to have a mom and dad in the home.
The pledge didn't say that.
Michelle Bachmann didn't say that.
Rick Santorum didn't say that.

And no matter how many times you distort what is being said, it won't change the fact that none of us said that.

Oh really? Then why is slavery brought up then?

Really, do you think people are that stupid?