Bachmann signs The Family Lead pledge

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Conservatism supported slavery, and then defended segregation. Party ID is irrelevant. Only retards try to associate the party ID of someone 100 years or more ago with the modern day party.

Oh, and PS, Saddam Hussein called his elite troops the REPUBLICAN Guard. I guess by your nitwittery that makes the GOP the party of Saddam.

 

[bodecea]

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 All they were doing is using a historical reference to illustrate that too many black children do not have a mom and dad in the home today.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.

Or have someone tell you that a child might have been better a slave than now in a one parent home.


Next they'll tell us that Jews might have been better in the Death Camps than in 1 parent homes.

 

[Trajan]

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.

well you are not their target frankly, they are speaking to those that have assisted in the issues that face the black family community today..that my particular take...*shrugs*

 

[bodecea]

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.

Wait....Robert Byrd used to keep slaves?


BTW, since you hold people today responsible for what people did over a hundred years ago, I suppose you are a BIG proponent of Slave Reparations.

Aren't you.

 

[Trajan]

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?

I have already said they should never have used that date 4-8 pages back...

 

[Trajan]

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.

Or have someone tell you that a child might have been better a slave than now in a one parent home.


Next they'll tell us that Jews might have been better in the Death Camps than in 1 parent homes.

you know, I have posed 2 posts to you on this, you never answered them did you read them?

I don't agree with you much but I thought that at least you were logical, can you stop for a moment, please read what I wrote and give me your take on what I said, please?

 

[Stephanie]

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.

Or have someone tell you that a child might have been better a slave than now in a one parent home.


Next they'll tell us that Jews might have been better in the Death Camps than in 1 parent homes.

good gawd, the dramatics.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Or have someone tell you that a child might have been better a slave than now in a one parent home.


Next they'll tell us that Jews might have been better in the Death Camps than in 1 parent homes.

you know, I have posed 2 posts to you on this, you never answered them did you read them?

I don't agree with you much but I thought that at least you were logical, can you stop for a moment, please read what I wrote and give me your take on what I said, please?

I hope she will do it for you. I don't recall an instance where she has ever done that for me. However, I just posted support for the 1860 date. I wonder if anybody on the left bothered to read it?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

The pledge was not about families. It was about an agenda

To open up with a nonsense statement that black families were better off under white masters than they are under Obama tipped off the true purpose of the pledge. Bachmann and Santorum were stupid enough to jump into it

 

[Stephanie]

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.

The pledge was not about families. It was about an agenda

To open up with a nonsense statement that black families were better off under white masters than they are under Obama tipped off the true purpose of the pledge. Bachmann and Santorum were stupid enough to jump into it

LOL, what did I tell you folks, they just keep adding more bs to the pledge. and to think this is still ALL they want to talk about. not the 10% unemployment, high gas prices, sky high food prices, new TAXES being pushed by the Obama AFTER he ran up a two trillion dept in just TWO YEARS...

 

[Dot Com]

It matters to the Repub base/Iowa caucus' Stephanie

 

[Stephanie]

It matters to the Repub base/Iowa caucus' Stephanie

Wrong dottie dear, it only matters to you all who want to DEFLECT from the REAL problems and if you think it can hurt Bachmann. don't be so damn dishonest. The majority of the people are worried about jobs, paying for food, paying for gas worried the Obama and his clown administration wants to RAISE THEIR TAXES to pay for his mishandling of things.

 

[Dot Com]

It matters to the Repub base/Iowa caucus' Stephanie

Wrong dottie dear, it only matters to you all who want to DEFLECT from the REAL problems and if you think it can hurt Bachmann. don't be so damn dishonest. The majority of the people are worried about jobs, paying for food, paying for gas worried the Obama and his clown administration wants to RAISE THEIR TAXES to pay for his mishandling of things.

So you're saying that Bachmann is wasting time by signing meaningless pledges? IOW- she's not fit to win the primary?

 

[Stephanie]

It matters to the Repub base/Iowa caucus' Stephanie

Wrong dottie dear, it only matters to you all who want to DEFLECT from the REAL problems and if you think it can hurt Bachmann. don't be so damn dishonest. The majority of the people are worried about jobs, paying for food, paying for gas worried the Obama and his clown administration wants to RAISE THEIR TAXES to pay for his mishandling of things.

So you're saying that Bachmann is wasting time by signing meaningless pledges? IOW- she's not fit to win the primary?

you are so DISHONEST, I SAID NO SUCH THING..

you should be ashamed, but I know you aren't so I won't bother.

 

[Trajan]

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.

The pledge was not about families. It was about an agenda

and so what? Oh wait the left never ever pursues "agendas" thx capt. obvious...

To open up with a nonsense statement that black families were better off under white masters than they are under Obama tipped off the true purpose of the pledge. Bachmann and Santorum were stupid enough to jump into it

ok thx for playing , you didn't even read the effing thing...goodbye.

 

[Zona]

Aaaaaaannnnnnddddddd they took it out. If it werent offensive, why would they take that part out? I heard Bachmann even lied and said it wasnt there when she signed it? Is this true? If so, you defenders really are idiots.

 

[Dot Com]

Wrong dottie dear, it only matters to you all who want to DEFLECT from the REAL problems and if you think it can hurt Bachmann. don't be so damn dishonest. The majority of the people are worried about jobs, paying for food, paying for gas worried the Obama and his clown administration wants to RAISE THEIR TAXES to pay for his mishandling of things.

So you're saying that Bachmann is wasting time by signing meaningless pledges? IOW- she's not fit to win the primary?

you are so DISHONEST, I SAID NO SUCH THING..

you should be ashamed, but I know you aren't so I won't bother.

It's what you've been arguing for the last 3-pages, the document she signed is of very little, if any, importance. Why'd she take the time to read it, let alone sign it?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Aaaaaaannnnnnddddddd they took it out. If it werent offensive, why would they take that part out? I heard Bachmann even lied and said it wasnt there when she signed it? Is this true? If so, you defenders really are idiots.

Maybe she had to sign it before she could find out what was in it.


>>>>

 

[rightwinger]

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.

and so what? Oh wait the left never ever pursues "agendas" thx capt. obvious...

To open up with a nonsense statement that black families were better off under white masters than they are under Obama tipped off the true purpose of the pledge. Bachmann and Santorum were stupid enough to jump into it

ok thx for playing , you didn't even read the effing thing...goodbye.

Yes I did read it...enough to find it offensive to real American families

The pledge was offensive to blacks, gays, muslims and anyone who does not fit into the Iowa version of a "real" American family

 

[Dot Com]

NOW she's worried about deficit spending?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfJepxPPBok]‪Michele Bachmann: You take my breath away, Mr. President!‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]​