Bachmann signs The Family Lead pledge

[Stephanie]

They are not trying to Legislate this stuff. And don't pretend they are..
How is you think ABORTION and Homosexual marriage is the business of the Government?

It's the business of government to insure all people have rights.

That's the very foundation of what government does.

Protect and defend our rights.

Stephanie...come on. Really?

Zona, where we going?

 

[Zona]

Let's get down to brass tacks.

Conservatives supported slavery at the time..Liberals did not.

You're always the liar Shallow, always the liar.

Lincoln was the Republican, no matter how badly you want to rewrite history to serve your sleazy and shameful party.

And Regan WAS a democrat once. Things change. Everything changed since then an you know it.

 

[Sallow]

really?

Yep.

Despite the fact you conservatives are trying to tear that down.

So you're saying that I don't have to allow the Fire Dept or Health Dept inspect my place of business? I have a right to privacy about that?

I don't have to submit to TSA security at the airport? That REALLY violates my privacy you know.

I don't have to open my briefcase for inspection at the courthouse any more? It lets those people see into private areas.

I don't have to prove my identity when I vote any more? I can be incognito?

And the school isn't allowed to question bruises on my neighbor's kid anymore? It's a private matter isn't it?

Abortion certainly is a matter of privacy in the first trimester. If we go by the strict language of Roe v Wade, however, the state has an interest in the welfare of the fetus by the second trimester and an intense interest in the welfare of the fetus by the third trimester when viability has been established. And the state's interest in the fetus would be dismissed by those who insist that the fetus is not a human being and should be disposable at the whims of the mother for any reason. And others should provide funding, medical facilities, and surgical removal on demand to protect her privacy?

You don't see a disconnect in that somewhere?

Yeah..in that you believe there is a right to privacy for terrorists to bring weapons into public spaces.

I see a big disconnect.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yep.

Despite the fact you conservatives are trying to tear that down.

So you're saying that I don't have to allow the Fire Dept or Health Dept inspect my place of business? I have a right to privacy about that?

I don't have to submit to TSA security at the airport? That REALLY violates my privacy you know.

I don't have to open my briefcase for inspection at the courthouse any more? It lets those people see into private areas.

I don't have to prove my identity when I vote any more? I can be incognito?

And the school isn't allowed to question bruises on my neighbor's kid anymore? It's a private matter isn't it?

Abortion certainly is a matter of privacy in the first trimester. If we go by the strict language of Roe v Wade, however, the state has an interest in the welfare of the fetus by the second trimester and an intense interest in the welfare of the fetus by the third trimester when viability has been established. And the state's interest in the fetus would be dismissed by those who insist that the fetus is not a human being and should be disposable at the whims of the mother for any reason. And others should provide funding, medical facilities, and surgical removal on demand to protect her privacy?

You don't see a disconnect in that somewhere?

Yeah..in that you believe there is a right to privacy for terrorists to bring weapons into public spaces.

I see a big disconnect.

Well you're the one saying I have a 'right to privacy'. I am not a terrorist and there is zero chance that I would be carrying a weapon with intention to use in a public place.

Or perhaps you will concede that the 'right to privacy' can be qualified when it comes to the greater public concern?

 

[rightwinger]

You are taking a North/South political position and converting it to a Democrat/Republican political position

Southern Republicans opposed integration and Civil Rights. You could not get elected dog catcher in the South if you supported Civil Rights

You're full of it. There weren't enough Southern Republicans at the time of slavery to elect a dog catcher. There certainly weren't enough to compile any statistics that anybody could post. But keep posting that nonsense anyway. There are people ignorant enough to believe it and thank you, maybe even pos rep you for it. You might as well be a hero to somebody. And it was NOT the Southern Republicans who were opposing integration and civil rights. Sure you can find somebody among any group to hold up as an example, but without those Southern Republicans supporting it, integration and civil rights would not have happened when it did.

As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes. Republicans and Civil Rights

You do realize that Southern Democrats were generally CONSERVATIVES, right?

Don't confuse them.....they can't conceive of the idea of a Conservative Democrat or GOD FORBID a liberal Republican

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thats strange

Democrats in the North supported abolition and Civil Rights
While Republicans in the South opposed both abolition and Civil Rights

It's bad enough to have to watch you distort and mischaracterize and misrepresent the Pledge and Michelle Bachmann's involvement with that. Must we also endure the rewriting of history to suit your partisan prejudices?

The Republican Party was formed in 1854 and was made up of mostly anti-slavery Whigs and previously anti-slavery Free Soil Democrats. There was almost no GOP presence in the South at the time as that was the bastion of the pro-slavery Democrats. Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, by his election, pretty much ended an alliance between pro-slavery southern democrats and the northern democrats who didn't own slaves but tolerated the concepts. Those northern democrats had to choose between the north and south a year or so later and most chose the north.

If it was not for the Republicans, slavery would not have ended when it did. If it was not for the support of the minority Republicans, segregation would not have ended when it did.

None of that has anything to do with the situation black kids endure today, but we can at least keep the history honest maybe?

Let's get down to brass tacks.

Conservatives supported slavery at the time..Liberals did not.

It's as simple as that.

And being this is generally considered a settled issue..and generally considered a bitter and terrible chapter in American history.

The very fact, that conservatives keep bringing it up over and over again..to make some really BAD points..is disgusting.

No kid in 1860..that was black (or white for that matter)..had it better in this country then they do now.

Many people who would consider themselves conservative if they were alive today opposed slavery. Don't let facts disrupt your worldview though, or your definitions of words.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

WTF do you mean, who cares?

How is any of this the business of the government?

They are not trying to Legislate this stuff. And don't pretend they are..
How is you think ABORTION and Homosexual marriage is the business of the Government?

It's the business of government to insure all people have rights.

That's the very foundation of what government does.

Protect and defend our rights.

The last thing the government wants to do is protect people's rights. Anyone that does not understand this fundamental truth does not understand how human beings think.

The only way we can keep our rights is if we constantly guard against the government's attempts to take them away. Anyone that does not understand this is part of the problem.

 

[rightwinger]

As I said, rave on. Some numbnuts will applaud you for your prejudice no matter how wrong you are.

Every Southern Republican voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

all ten of them.

southern democrats: 87/94 voted against it.

If Republicans so steadfastly supported Civil Rights, why didn't any Southern Republicans support Civil Rights???

 

[Foxfyre]

It's bad enough to have to watch you distort and mischaracterize and misrepresent the Pledge and Michelle Bachmann's involvement with that. Must we also endure the rewriting of history to suit your partisan prejudices?

The Republican Party was formed in 1854 and was made up of mostly anti-slavery Whigs and previously anti-slavery Free Soil Democrats. There was almost no GOP presence in the South at the time as that was the bastion of the pro-slavery Democrats. Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, by his election, pretty much ended an alliance between pro-slavery southern democrats and the northern democrats who didn't own slaves but tolerated the concepts. Those northern democrats had to choose between the north and south a year or so later and most chose the north.

If it was not for the Republicans, slavery would not have ended when it did. If it was not for the support of the minority Republicans, segregation would not have ended when it did.

None of that has anything to do with the situation black kids endure today, but we can at least keep the history honest maybe?

Let's get down to brass tacks.

Conservatives supported slavery at the time..Liberals did not.

It's as simple as that.

And being this is generally considered a settled issue..and generally considered a bitter and terrible chapter in American history.

The very fact, that conservatives keep bringing it up over and over again..to make some really BAD points..is disgusting.

No kid in 1860..that was black (or white for that matter)..had it better in this country then they do now.

Many people who would consider themselves conservative if they were alive today opposed slavery. Don't let facts disrupt your worldview though, or your definitions of words.

Well it's pretty funny actually. He started out saying that southern Republicans supported slavery. So I disputed that as there essentially were no southern Republicans at the time of slavery and the Republican party was formed out of mostly anti-slavery groups.

So his next formal pronouncement was that Southern Republicans opposed desegregation and civil rights. I posted the statistics to dispute that.

So now his tactic is that okay, so it was Democrats who were terrible to the blacks, but it was because THEY were conservative and the Republicans were liberal.

You can't make this stuff up. It gets so stupid sometimes I have to laugh to keep from crying.

 

[bodecea]

Every Southern Republican voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

all ten of them.

southern democrats: 87/94 voted against it.

If Republicans so steadfastly supported Civil Rights, why didn't any Southern Republicans support Civil Rights???

When the Civil Rights Act passed in 1965, I would not have wanted to stand in the door to the local Republican registration office, I would have been run down by all those so-called stanch Democrats who dumped their party faster than you can say "Jim Crow".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are taking a North/South political position and converting it to a Democrat/Republican political position

Southern Republicans opposed integration and Civil Rights. You could not get elected dog catcher in the South if you supported Civil Rights

Actually, you are the one doing it, I am simply asking why two people who both believe that Democrats are the people who support civil rights say Democrats were the true liberals and the true conservatives. It seems a bit farfetched that they could be both at the same time.

Another common misperception on this board. The idea that Republicans were always all Conservative and Democrats were always all liberal. Up until 20 years ago you had Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats

And now we have idiotic Democrats and moronic Republicans, yet you, for some reason, think that is an improvement.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you're saying that I don't have to allow the Fire Dept or Health Dept inspect my place of business? I have a right to privacy about that?

I don't have to submit to TSA security at the airport? That REALLY violates my privacy you know.

I don't have to open my briefcase for inspection at the courthouse any more? It lets those people see into private areas.

I don't have to prove my identity when I vote any more? I can be incognito?

And the school isn't allowed to question bruises on my neighbor's kid anymore? It's a private matter isn't it?

Abortion certainly is a matter of privacy in the first trimester. If we go by the strict language of Roe v Wade, however, the state has an interest in the welfare of the fetus by the second trimester and an intense interest in the welfare of the fetus by the third trimester when viability has been established. And the state's interest in the fetus would be dismissed by those who insist that the fetus is not a human being and should be disposable at the whims of the mother for any reason. And others should provide funding, medical facilities, and surgical removal on demand to protect her privacy?

You don't see a disconnect in that somewhere?

Yeah..in that you believe there is a right to privacy for terrorists to bring weapons into public spaces.

I see a big disconnect.

Well you're the one saying I have a 'right to privacy'. I am not a terrorist and there is zero chance that I would be carrying a weapon with intention to use in a public place.

Or perhaps you will concede that the 'right to privacy' can be qualified when it comes to the greater public concern?

Your right to privacy is absolute.

Unless the government decides that something else is more important. which is why only cretins trust the government to protect their rights.

 

[rightwinger]

all ten of them.

southern democrats: 87/94 voted against it.

If Republicans so steadfastly supported Civil Rights, why didn't any Southern Republicans support Civil Rights???

When the Civil Rights Act passed in 1965, I would not have wanted to stand in the door to the local Republican registration office, I would have been run down by all those so-called stanch Democrats who dumped their party faster than you can say "Jim Crow".

You mean when southern Democrat LBJ sold them out and pushed through the Civil Rights bill?

 

[grasslands]

My friend watched 37 porn videos/movies in a single day. I have seen my friend suffer everyday from porn and prostitution for 25 years. Today my friend is nobody and he is thousands of miles away from me.

My friend respects me because I am strong and I would always telling him to stay away from useless activities. My friend would get changed completely and speak like a gentleman when he was confronted by me and my Mother. No bad language. My friend is very intelligent but .......

World leaders are responsible for my friend's suffering for 25 years.

When men become weak and useless then women takeover. There was a powerful mughal king. When enemy attacked his kingdom, the men were scared and they were hiding and not fighting. Then the Muslim women started beating their men and forced them to fight the enemy.

When American men went to fight in World War 1 and 2 then American women took controls of USA. Today American women must start beating their men and force them to destroy pornography and Obama madness because American men are the weakest in the world and they are getting useless.

British women and World women must also start beating their men who are getting weak and useless.

 

[grasslands]

My assumption is that, one of the reasons terrorists attack USA and Europe, is the spread of pornography and nudity worldwide by USA and Europe. Usually terrorists are religious Muslims who are very protective of their women and their family. Everybody knows what kind of clothes majority of Muslims wear. They are covered from head to toe. Even millions of Hindus in India do not support and hate nudity and less clothes from western culture. Even respected Western people or English people are well dressed and covered from shoulders to toe. Conservative and religious people is USA and Europe also do not support nudity and they hate porn and prostitution (this applies worldwide).

The problem lies with so called "brainless modern people" who think nudity and less clothes in "next generation and they are modern". These people include English, Muslims, Hindus and all countries.

If my assumption is true then many thousands of innocent people are getting killed by terrorists because of useless people who spread porn and prostitution.

 

[Sallow]

It's bad enough to have to watch you distort and mischaracterize and misrepresent the Pledge and Michelle Bachmann's involvement with that. Must we also endure the rewriting of history to suit your partisan prejudices?

The Republican Party was formed in 1854 and was made up of mostly anti-slavery Whigs and previously anti-slavery Free Soil Democrats. There was almost no GOP presence in the South at the time as that was the bastion of the pro-slavery Democrats. Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, by his election, pretty much ended an alliance between pro-slavery southern democrats and the northern democrats who didn't own slaves but tolerated the concepts. Those northern democrats had to choose between the north and south a year or so later and most chose the north.

If it was not for the Republicans, slavery would not have ended when it did. If it was not for the support of the minority Republicans, segregation would not have ended when it did.

None of that has anything to do with the situation black kids endure today, but we can at least keep the history honest maybe?

Let's get down to brass tacks.

Conservatives supported slavery at the time..Liberals did not.

It's as simple as that.

And being this is generally considered a settled issue..and generally considered a bitter and terrible chapter in American history.

The very fact, that conservatives keep bringing it up over and over again..to make some really BAD points..is disgusting.

No kid in 1860..that was black (or white for that matter)..had it better in this country then they do now.

Many people who would consider themselves conservative if they were alive today opposed slavery. Don't let facts disrupt your worldview though, or your definitions of words.

They absolutely would not.

 

[Seawytch]

Oh, you don't like that one. OK. Here, try another. I have plenty more, so we'll just go all night.

Everything else being equal, two married parents of the opposite sex are better for the child. I know you don't want to hear that, but that is a fact.

Another false comparison. Failed again. Gotta go back to work...in the meantime, check out what the APA has to say on the issue.

Well, you are stupid, so I can see why you are so confused.

"Most researchers now agree that together these studies support the notion that, on average, children do best when raised by their two married, biological parents"

The nature of the beast does not allow for direct comparisons. The fact that has to be pointed out to you is amazing.

Now, put your head back in the sand.

And, I don't do other's research work. You have a reference supporting any claim you make, you present it.

The study you provided says:

children raised by same-sex parents are no more likely to exhibit poor outcomes than children raised by divorced heterosexual parents.

Of course, the study even used the false premise that these children are being raised in same-sex households as a result of heterosexual divorce. We're having our own babies these days, you know.

I would also point out that your linked study doesn't include any references that aren't over TEN years old.

So, the APA says...

Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents.

Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children

Also from the APA which stated:

The results ... are quite clear ... Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. ... Lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual couples ... This was attributed to greater parenting awareness among lesbian nonbiological mothers than among heterosexual fathers.

Lesbian and Gay Parenting

and then we have...

Same-Sex Parents Raise Well-Adjusted Kids

Oh, and a Brigham Young University study concluded that:

"adolescents raised by gay and lesbian parents typically behave more like youth in two parent biological families, providing little support for gendered-deficit theories."

Adolescent Outcomes in Single Parent, Heterosexual Couple, and Homosexual Couple Families: Findings from a National Survey

You'd like more you say? Okay...how about the American Academy of Pediatrics? This is what they have to say:

Studies have shown that children with gay and/or lesbian parents are ultimately just as happy with themselves and their own gender as are their friends with heterosexual parents. Children whose parents are homosexual show no difference in their choice of friends, activities, or interests compared to children whose parents are heterosexual. As adults, their career choices and lifestyles are similar to those of children raised by heterosexual parents.

Gay and Lesbian Parents

The AAP also supports legal marriage equality:

Children deserve to know that their relationships with both of their parents are stable and legally recognized. This applies to all children, whether their parents are of the same or opposite sex. The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual.1–9 When 2 adults participate in parenting a child, they and the child deserve the serenity that comes with legal recognition.

Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents

 

[Si modo]

Another false comparison. Failed again. Gotta go back to work...in the meantime, check out what the APA has to say on the issue.

Well, you are stupid, so I can see why you are so confused.

"Most researchers now agree that together these studies support the notion that, on average, children do best when raised by their two married, biological parents"

The nature of the beast does not allow for direct comparisons. The fact that has to be pointed out to you is amazing.

Now, put your head back in the sand.

And, I don't do other's research work. You have a reference supporting any claim you make, you present it.

The study you provided says:

children raised by same-sex parents are no more likely to exhibit poor outcomes than children raised by divorced heterosexual parents.

Of course, the study even used the false premise that these children are being raised in same-sex households as a result of heterosexual divorce. We're having our own babies these days, you know.

I would also point out that your linked study doesn't include any references that aren't over TEN years old.

So, the APA says...

Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents.

Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children

Also from the APA which stated:

The results ... are quite clear ... Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. ... Lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual couples ... This was attributed to greater parenting awareness among lesbian nonbiological mothers than among heterosexual fathers.

Lesbian and Gay Parenting

and then we have...

Same-Sex Parents Raise Well-Adjusted Kids

Oh, and a Brigham Young University study concluded that:

"adolescents raised by gay and lesbian parents typically behave more like youth in two parent biological families, providing little support for gendered-deficit theories."

Adolescent Outcomes in Single Parent, Heterosexual Couple, and Homosexual Couple Families: Findings from a National Survey

You'd like more you say? Okay...how about the American Academy of Pediatrics? This is what they have to say:

Studies have shown that children with gay and/or lesbian parents are ultimately just as happy with themselves and their own gender as are their friends with heterosexual parents. Children whose parents are homosexual show no difference in their choice of friends, activities, or interests compared to children whose parents are heterosexual. As adults, their career choices and lifestyles are similar to those of children raised by heterosexual parents.

Gay and Lesbian Parents

The AAP also supports legal marriage equality:

Children deserve to know that their relationships with both of their parents are stable and legally recognized. This applies to all children, whether their parents are of the same or opposite sex. The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual.1–9 When 2 adults participate in parenting a child, they and the child deserve the serenity that comes with legal recognition.

Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents

"Most researchers now agree that together these studies support the notion that, on average, children do best when raised by their two married, biological parents"

 

[rightwinger]

Well, you are stupid, so I can see why you are so confused.

"Most researchers now agree that together these studies support the notion that, on average, children do best when raised by their two married, biological parents"

The nature of the beast does not allow for direct comparisons. The fact that has to be pointed out to you is amazing.

Now, put your head back in the sand.

And, I don't do other's research work. You have a reference supporting any claim you make, you present it.

The study you provided says:

children raised by same-sex parents are no more likely to exhibit poor outcomes than children raised by divorced heterosexual parents.

Of course, the study even used the false premise that these children are being raised in same-sex households as a result of heterosexual divorce. We're having our own babies these days, you know.

I would also point out that your linked study doesn't include any references that aren't over TEN years old.

So, the APA says...

Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents.

Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children

Also from the APA which stated:

The results ... are quite clear ... Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. ... Lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual couples ... This was attributed to greater parenting awareness among lesbian nonbiological mothers than among heterosexual fathers.

Lesbian and Gay Parenting

and then we have...

Same-Sex Parents Raise Well-Adjusted Kids

Oh, and a Brigham Young University study concluded that:

"adolescents raised by gay and lesbian parents typically behave more like youth in two parent biological families, providing little support for gendered-deficit theories."

Adolescent Outcomes in Single Parent, Heterosexual Couple, and Homosexual Couple Families: Findings from a National Survey

You'd like more you say? Okay...how about the American Academy of Pediatrics? This is what they have to say:

Studies have shown that children with gay and/or lesbian parents are ultimately just as happy with themselves and their own gender as are their friends with heterosexual parents. Children whose parents are homosexual show no difference in their choice of friends, activities, or interests compared to children whose parents are heterosexual. As adults, their career choices and lifestyles are similar to those of children raised by heterosexual parents.

Gay and Lesbian Parents

The AAP also supports legal marriage equality:

Children deserve to know that their relationships with both of their parents are stable and legally recognized. This applies to all children, whether their parents are of the same or opposite sex. The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual.1–9 When 2 adults participate in parenting a child, they and the child deserve the serenity that comes with legal recognition.

Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents

"Most researchers now agree that together these studies support the notion that, on average, children do best when raised by their two married, biological parents"

Children do best when they are raised by parents who love them and love eachother

 

[Seawytch]

"Most researchers now agree that together these studies support the notion that, on average, children do best when raised by their two married, biological parents"

Brilliant job of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la, la, la".