Bachmann signs The Family Lead pledge

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

You’d think a lawyer would know that.

Then again you’d think a lawyer would know something about the Constitution as well.

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.

It would seem your ignorance of slavery in the United States is as comprehensive and profound as that of the signatories.

 

[oreo]

BREAKING: Bachmann pledges to ban pornography | ThinkProgress

BREAKING: BACHMANN PLEDGES TO BAN PORNOGRAPHY | Tonight, Michele Bachmann became the first presidential candidate to sign a pledge created by THE FAMiLY LEADER, an influential social-conservative group in Iowa. By signing the pledge Bachmann “vows” to “uphold the institution of marriage as only between one man and one woman” by committing herself to 14 specifics steps. The ninth step calls for the banning of “all forms” of pornography. The pledge also states that homosexuality is both a choice and a health risk. You can read all the details of the pledge here.

And it says that homosexuality is both a choice and a health risk.

"Small government Conservatism" at it's finest.

Edit:

I didn't see the footnotes, I'll admit. If she was just referring to child pornography then I was incorrect in my OP.

That being said, the vow was written pretty poorly then. I read it originally as women and the future generation of this country later on, not today. Because why mention women and banning all forms of pornography in the same sentence if you mean to ban only child pornography?

But again, if the pledge refers to just child pornography, then I was incorrect in posting my OP and was wrong.

Edit #2:

OPINION: Relax. Bachmann Didn't Pledge To Ban Pornography  - News - Talk Radio News Service: News, Politics, Media

When reached for comment, Bob Vander Plaats, the organization’s president, appeared surprised that the language has been interpreted as a call to outlaw adult entertainment.

“We are not calling for a nationwide band on pornography,” Vander Plaats said during a phone interview. “The bullet point doesn’t even come close to calling for that.”

Vander Plaats explained that the language was meant to imply opposition to women being forced into pornography or prostitution, a far cry from the Think Progress headline: BREAKING: Bachmann pledges to ban pornography

YEAH--BANNING child pornography is probably a good idea--- Da--Duh!

As far a family institutions--meaning men and women both participating in raising and providing for their own children--YEAH--that's probably a good idea too.

Gay marriage--I am a fiscal conservative--and really don't care if two people of the same sex want to get married. We have a lot more problems in this COUNTRY that affects all of us--versus gay marriage.

You know--like 14.3 trillion in red ink--with another 64 trillion in unfunded liabilities due to babyboomers entering social security-medicare--and there's no freakin money in the US Treasury to pay for it.

 

[MarcATL]

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 can't because it's simply not true.

The FACTS dictate that slavery was the GENESIS of the decline of the Black Family.

They were, as you already pointed out, split up and broken up because slaves were sold at will, not as families, but as individual slaves. So a son, a daughter, a strong father or a mother can be sold at any moment to any slaveowner and that would be that.

Moreover, slaves weren't allowed to be married. It was, in fact, ILLEGAL for them or anyone else to marry them.

These people have just opened a can of worms...they have no idea.

Yet, the racist and rabid far RW nutjobs are sitting here defending the racist swill from these people.

Dispicable!!

*spits*

 

[Salt Jones]

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.

Same topic, same subject. 2 slave parents don't have the power to make a single decision in that child's life, Can't keep them from being sold or given as a gift, yet the pledge falsely implies that life was better. The study they used didn't even say any of what the pledge falsely cited. You are defending a lie the authors of the pledge weren't willing to defend.

 

[Trajan]

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?

you are assuming they think the kids belong or are better off in slavery?


anyway, they did that becasue that makes the picture or the point they are trying to make even starker. they didn't need to, I have said it was ill advised, but if they had said say, 1900, you would have no issue with the vow?

 

[Salt Jones]

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?

you are assuming they think the kids belong or are better off in slavery?


anyway, they did that becasue that makes the picture or the point they are trying to make even starker. they didn't need to, I have said it was ill advised, but if they had said say, 1900, you would have no issue with the vow?

But they didn't say 1900, they said 1860. They falsified a study, changing the start and stop dates and they lied to bolster their argument. Case closed. Or do you disagree?

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

Doubtful. But they were more likely to die before their 10th birthday.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

Can't, Robert Byrd is maggot food.

Your shameful party is the party of slavery - simple fact.

Don't like it? Find a better party.

 

[Salt Jones]

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

Doubtful. But they were more likely to die before their 10th birthday.

Are you really this stupid or is it an act? What do you think happened during slavery?

 

[Uncensored2008]

A child born in slavery into a 2 parent household was a child born a slave.

Did it really take Olbermann, Madcow and Huffingpo to clue you in to that?

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?

What did the pledge say on that?

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

I guess it did.

Y'all are so caught up in your hate speech that you don't even pay attention to the subject.

 

[Salt Jones]

A child born in slavery into a 2 parent household was a child born a slave.

Did it really take Olbermann, Madcow and Huffingpo to clue you in to that?

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?

What did the pledge say on that?

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

I guess it did.

Y'all are so caught up in your hate speech that you don't even pay attention to the subject.

Why did Family Leader lie about the study they cite?

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

To illustrate that the attack on families is so devastating that it has driven that one aspect of life lower than the darkest days of the Republic.

I have an suggestion, THINK instead of spew.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Why can't solid values be taught to property? Frederick Douglass was taught to read by one of his owners, and perfected it on his own. The fact that he was a slave did nothing to prevent him from learning, nor did the fact that it was actually illegal to teach him in the first place. He later worked for abolition, immigrant rights, and even women's suffrage.

Slavery is a deplorable institution, but the people who are slaves are still capable of setting examples for their children, and those children are quite capable of learning those values, and many other things, and eventually lifting themselves out of slavery and fighting for rights of everyone.

Individuals are capable of anything they put their minds to accomplishing, even imparting values on slaves.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You’d think a lawyer would know that.

According to Bacnmann all she ever say was the bullet points, not the "preamble." Since the preamble is actually on a separate page it is entirely possible that she never saw the part about slavery because the Family Leader Council never included it.

Then again you’d think a lawyer would know something about the Constitution as well.

Unlike, for example, you? Aren't you the guy that thinks Plessy v Ferguson is still the law of the land?

It would seem your ignorance of slavery in the United States is as comprehensive and profound as that of the signatories.

Can you provide us with actual numbers to refute the claim in the preamble, or are you simply relying on your vast personal knowledge as a former slave?

 

[Salt Jones]

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?

Why can't solid values be taught to property? Frederick Douglass was taught to read by one of his owners, and perfected it on his own. The fact that he was a slave did nothing to prevent him from learning, nor did the fact that it was actually illegal to teach him in the first place. He later worked for abolition, immigrant rights, and even women's suffrage.

Slavery is a deplorable institution, but the people who are slaves are still capable of setting examples for their children, and those children are quite capable of learning those values, and many other things, and eventually lifting themselves out of slavery and fighting for rights of everyone.

Individuals are capable of anything they put their minds to accomplishing, even imparting values on slaves.

No one said people can't lift themselves.

The whisper that my master was my father may or may not be true. [However], true or false, the fact remains, in all its glaring odiousness, that slaveholders have ordained, and by law established, that the children of slave women shall in all cases follow the condition of their mothers. This is done too obviously to administer to their own lusts and to make the gratification of their wicked desires profitable as well as pleasurable; for by this cunning arrangement, the slaveholder, in cases not a few, sustains to his slaves the double relation of master and father.

I know of such cases; and it is worthy of remark that such slaves invariably suffer greater hardships, and have more to contend with, than others do. They are, in the first place, a constant offence to their mistress. She is ever disposed to find fault with them; they can seldom do any thing to please her. She is never better pleased than when she sees them under the lash, especially when she suspects her husband of showing to his mulatto children favors which he withholds from his black slaves. The master is frequently compelled to sell these slaves, out of deference to the feelings of his white wife. Cruel as this deed may strike anyone to be, for a man to sell his own children to human flesh-mongers, it is often the dictate of humanity for him to do so. Unless he does this, he must not only whip them himself, but must stand by and see one white son tie up his brother, of but few shades darker complexion than himself, and ply the gory lash to his naked back; and if he lisp one word of disapproval, it is set down to his parental partiality, and only makes a bad matter worse, both for himself and the slave whom he would protect and defend.

Source: Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the life of Frederick Douglass. (Boston: Anti-Slavery Office 1845)

Frederick Douglass Project: In the Classroom: Representing Slavery Packet 1

 

[Si modo]

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?

The irony.

 

[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.

Same topic, same subject. 2 slave parents don't have the power to make a single decision in that child's life, Can't keep them from being sold or given as a gift, yet the pledge falsely implies that life was better. The study they used didn't even say any of what the pledge falsely cited. You are defending a lie the authors of the pledge weren't willing to defend.

Nope. You're still trying to divert this to something debatable to make the pledge, Bachmann, Santorum, and possibly me or any who agree with me look stupid, bad, ignorant, or wrong or whatever.\

They found out quickly that those of you on the left would do that which is why they took the slavery reference out of the pledge. Or perhaps they took it out because they were having a hard time backing it up statistically.

They were not arguing in any way shape or form that ANYTHING about slavery was good. All they were doing is using a historical reference to illustrate that too many black children do not have a mom and dad in the home today. I suppose so many of you are refusing to acknowledge or focus on that because then you might have to look at what policies have caused and/or encourage and/or promoted that condition. And I suspect not many of you, if anybody on the left, wants to do that.

It's so much more fun to bash a Christian organization or a Michelle Bachmann or a Rick Santorum or some conservative on a message board than it is to look at anything they say on its own merits, most especially anything that could even possibly make a leftist uncomfortable.

 

[Salt Jones]

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.

Same topic, same subject. 2 slave parents don't have the power to make a single decision in that child's life, Can't keep them from being sold or given as a gift, yet the pledge falsely implies that life was better. The study they used didn't even say any of what the pledge falsely cited. You are defending a lie the authors of the pledge weren't willing to defend.

Nope. You're still trying to divert this to something debatable to make the pledge, Bachmann, Santorum, and possibly me or any who agree with me look stupid, bad, ignorant, or wrong or whatever.\

They found out quickly that those of you on the left would do that which is why they took the slavery reference out of the pledge. Or perhaps they took it out because they were having a hard time backing it up statistically.

They were not arguing in any way shape or form that ANYTHING about slavery was good. All they were doing is using a historical reference to illustrate that too many black children do not have a mom and dad in the home today. I suppose so many of you are refusing to acknowledge or focus on that because then you might have to look at what policies have caused and/or encourage and/or promoted that condition. And I suspect not many of you, if anybody on the left, wants to do that.

It's so much more fun to bash a Christian organization or a Michelle Bachmann or a Rick Santorum or some conservative on a message board than it is to look at anything they say on its own merits, most especially anything that could even possibly make a leftist uncomfortable.

Why did they falsify the study to make their illustration? As a black man living in America I am well aware of the issues concerning the black family. I don't need anyone to "illustrate" for me.

 

[Si modo]

Same topic, same subject. 2 slave parents don't have the power to make a single decision in that child's life, Can't keep them from being sold or given as a gift, yet the pledge falsely implies that life was better. The study they used didn't even say any of what the pledge falsely cited. You are defending a lie the authors of the pledge weren't willing to defend.

Nope. You're still trying to divert this to something debatable to make the pledge, Bachmann, Santorum, and possibly me or any who agree with me look stupid, bad, ignorant, or wrong or whatever.\

They found out quickly that those of you on the left would do that which is why they took the slavery reference out of the pledge. Or perhaps they took it out because they were having a hard time backing it up statistically.

They were not arguing in any way shape or form that ANYTHING about slavery was good. All they were doing is using a historical reference to illustrate that too many black children do not have a mom and dad in the home today. I suppose so many of you are refusing to acknowledge or focus on that because then you might have to look at what policies have caused and/or encourage and/or promoted that condition. And I suspect not many of you, if anybody on the left, wants to do that.

It's so much more fun to bash a Christian organization or a Michelle Bachmann or a Rick Santorum or some conservative on a message board than it is to look at anything they say on its own merits, most especially anything that could even possibly make a leftist uncomfortable.

Why did they falsify the study to make their illustration? As a black man living in America I am well aware of the issues concerning the black family. I don't need anyone to "illustrate" for me.

But maybe others are not aware. I would seem that it would be a good idea that most are aware of a situation needing improvement for a group, irrespective of what group it is.

 

[Foxfyre]

Same topic, same subject. 2 slave parents don't have the power to make a single decision in that child's life, Can't keep them from being sold or given as a gift, yet the pledge falsely implies that life was better. The study they used didn't even say any of what the pledge falsely cited. You are defending a lie the authors of the pledge weren't willing to defend.

Nope. You're still trying to divert this to something debatable to make the pledge, Bachmann, Santorum, and possibly me or any who agree with me look stupid, bad, ignorant, or wrong or whatever.\

They found out quickly that those of you on the left would do that which is why they took the slavery reference out of the pledge. Or perhaps they took it out because they were having a hard time backing it up statistically.

They were not arguing in any way shape or form that ANYTHING about slavery was good. All they were doing is using a historical reference to illustrate that too many black children do not have a mom and dad in the home today. I suppose so many of you are refusing to acknowledge or focus on that because then you might have to look at what policies have caused and/or encourage and/or promoted that condition. And I suspect not many of you, if anybody on the left, wants to do that.

It's so much more fun to bash a Christian organization or a Michelle Bachmann or a Rick Santorum or some conservative on a message board than it is to look at anything they say on its own merits, most especially anything that could even possibly make a leftist uncomfortable.

Why did they falsify the study to make their illustration? As a black man living in America I am well aware of the issues concerning the black family. I don't need anyone to "illustrate" for me.

They didn't falsify anything. There isn't a huge easily accessible stack of information available on this, but what there is pretty well backs up the statement in the pledge:

These statements are sourced and annotated at the bottom of the page:

"Although slave marriages and family ties lacked legal sanction, and owners were free to sell husbands away from wives and parents away from children, most African Americans married and lived in two-parent households both before and after emancipation. Fathers played a larger familial role than previously thought. The nuclear family received support from an involved network of kin. Indeed, the kinship system forged under slavery would continue to function in twentieth-century rural and urban communities as a source of mutual assistance and cultural continuity."

". . . and has rebutted the notion that the high incidence of single-parent, femaleheaded households among African Americans today is a legacy of slavery."

African-American Families

It is true that little respect for the black family existed in the 18th century, but by the mid 19th century the nuclear black family was common.

So to turn it back on you, why are some of you folks so eager to declare false a supportable statement?