Bachmann signs The Family Lead pledge

[elvis]

Seriously, though, if this is the kind of propaganda this source spews, why not use the onion next time?

 

[Si modo]

This thread is just another price check on your parroting.

Irony.

btw, personal pledge?

Sorry, you can't read. It was a personal pledge.

I mean, if you think that applies to one's personal opinions expressed in a personal, then that's good to know. Apparently, some folks have the idea of the First is that everyone must think as they do.

It doesn't work that way, no matter how bitter the dyke is.

What irony? You also hallucinate.

Where is there any mention of a ban?

God, I cannot believe you even graduated junior high school.

 

[Modbert]

What irony? You also hallucinate.

Where is there any mention of a ban?

God, I cannot believe you even graduated junior high school.

Quick to respond considering I was editing my post as you posted this. Again, the vow says acting in a elected or appointed capacity. Is that a personal pledge? I don't think it's no longer a personal pledge when you say acting in a elected capacity. As in, if she were elected President.

 

[elvis]

This thread is just another price check on your parroting.

Irony.

Sorry, you can't read. It was a personal pledge.

I mean, if you think that applies to one's personal opinions expressed in a personal, then that's good to know. Apparently, some folks have the idea of the First is that everyone must think as they do.

It doesn't work that way, no matter how bitter the dyke is.

What irony? You also hallucinate.

Where is there any mention of a ban?

God, I cannot believe you even graduated junior high school.

that's not the issue. the issue is he succumbed to the power of suggestion. Headlines can be powerful.

 

[Trajan]

does humane protection equal banning?

Do the words acting in any elected or appointed capacity mean anything to you? Or do you think they don't have any intention of wanting to see abortion banned?

you know, this is beyond silly, you saw a headline, you went to the 'site', didn't read the actual source but bought the red meat, posted it and now, you are engaged in a thought experiment by proxy.

You are now engaged wholly in mitigation, as the verbiage does not back you up....it is hardly a secret she is pro life, as to what she would do as a president? who knows, she would have to sign LEGISLATION created BY CONGRESS if it didn't usurp ROE......see how far down the rabbit hole this has gone now?

give it up Modbert....just read the source next time.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bachmann signs pledge that calls for banning all forms of Pornography

I agree with Michele on most issues, but this is not the Governments place.

Either is Prositution, Smoking Bans, Helmet and Seat Laws, etc.

I want Freedom now!!!!

Another idiot that does not bother to do any research before he forms an opinion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't think these candidates should be signing these vows or these petitions, but after reading the thing, it's clear the OP was meant to mislead us on it's intent.

Oh? And just what IS the intent of "the Pledge" in your estimation?

I see a lot of homophobia in it...not surprising that Bachmman, whose husband is gay as a three dollar bill, would sign it. Michelle Bachmman must live in constant fear of that phone call...


"ma'am, we've arrested your husband in a public restroom"

What homophobia? Can you point to anything that is actually in the pledge that is a lie? Sexual orientation is not genetic or environmentally controlled, and we are not machines, so it has to be a choice, even if we do not remember making that choice. Active participation in a homosexual lifestyle is something that any doctor will tell can adversely affect your health, just like eating to much food can. That does not make it wrong to eat to much, or eve3n engage in unprotected homosexual activity with multiple partners. But if you do either of those you should be aware of the risks involved.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Whats banning porn going to do? anyone with a video camera or cell phone can make their own porn, all it will do is drive this industry right into the arms of the underworld, very stupid ******* decision. If you don't like porn, don't watch it, its simple.

It doesn't call for a ban on porn.

My advice to you is to never form an opinion based on a Modbert post, or a Think Progress story. If you combine the two in one you can be pretty sure that jumping to the opposite conclusion is safe.

 

[Si modo]

Irony.

What irony? You also hallucinate.

Where is there any mention of a ban?

God, I cannot believe you even graduated junior high school.

that's not the issue. the issue is he succumbed to the power of suggestion. Headlines can be powerful.

Absolutely. He is a good parrot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

and this is the work of thinkprogess. they are there to SMEAR, makeup, twist stupid shit like this. they have no honor. they were discredited years ago. yet here they are.

They were discredited...really? When did this happen? I understand that you conservatives don't like ThinkProgress...after all, they practice that forgotten art of journalism that Fox never even knew existed. Like Media Matters, they actually source their material and provide links to the original.

The wording of this nasty, homophobic, islamaphobic pledge is a bit hinky, but one can certainly come to the conclusion that they want to ban pornography.

What does the following statement mean to you?

I vow to do so through my:

[...]Protection of women[...]from [...]all forms of pornography.

How do you "protect women from pornography"?

If the story at TP was journalism then News of the World deserves a Pulitzer for hacking into people's cell phones.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

BREAKING: Bachmann pledges to ban pornography | ThinkProgress

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

"Small government Conservatism" at it's finest.

Whinging again?

Funny thing. I read the pledge she supposedly signed, it does not say anything about homosexuality that is not absolutely true. It points out that not a single peer reviewed study has ever proven that homosexuality is not a choice, or that it cannot be resisted.

As for banning pornography, it doesn't say that either. What it calls for is humanely protecting children, and women, from sexual slavery, human trafficking, being seduced into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution. I don't agree with all of that, but the last time I looked all of that was already illegal. Do you have an objection to eliminating child pornography and prostitution for some reason?

As for the Sharia law thing, what that calls for, and I quote, is "Rejection of Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human rights forms of totalitarian control."

I really do not understand why people who claim they support women's rights support Sharia Islam in the first place, but you are certainly proving how stupid it is to do so. Maybe if you actually read the stuff the trash you do read talks about you would learn that the stuff you trad is trash.

Do you understand demoagoguery?

Does Modbert?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

It doesn't mention banning anything, which is the point that everyone is trying to make here. Thanks for missing the obvious though.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the vow in the link you perused and posted was written as such, becasue it is an advocacy site, there is no call for banning "porn"....

No. Take a look at the original vow, which is what I did before posting this. It says the word women and all forms of pornography in the same sentence. That's the confusing part now if they only mean child pornography. Why put the word women and all forms of pornography in the same sentence if you only mean child porn?

But it does not say banning. Why is it our fault you read extra words into a sentence simply because you are a partisan hack?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I posted the vow, its right there in a thumbnail from the pledge site pdf....here.

Yes, I also read the original vow. Are you ignoring what I said on purpose?

....

That is either bullshit or you are even more dishonest than this thread originally makes you appear.

It might not be his fault, public schools today suck at teaching critical thinking.

 

[uscitizen]

does humane protection equal banning?

I dunno you might want to apply that analysis to welfare, CHIPS and such as well.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bachmann never said anything about the porn ban thing.
But what is great is this further isolates her with the religous right.
And sends tens of thousands more conservative Republicans away from that.
Good news every time she does something or opens her mouth. More and more conservatives see first hand how she wants religion dictating to government.

yeah sure.

You do not know that she panders to the religous right and this was Exhibit A of that?
You do not know that the anti gay marriage wagon has always been pulled and loaded with the religous right?
And that the fight against bans on gay marriage now are being LED BY CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS?
My bad. I never knew you were that uninformed.

If she wants to pander to the far right let her. I don't understand why anyone is upset about her making that choice, I did not even understand why people were upset with Obama pandering to the far left when he was running in 2007. If she actually gets elected and starts trying to enforce a religious state by decree I will speak up and yell, probably louder and more emphatically than you.

Until that happens, who gives a ****?

 

[uscitizen]

who gives a ****?

Is that some porn to ban?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Don't listen to these partisan fuckwits. You didn't interpret anything incorrectly. Child porn is already illegal and no politicians anywhere are advocating for legalization. There'd be no need for any pledge about that whatsoever. That part of the pledge is definitely about supporting legislation that greatly restricts, if not outright bans "all forms of pornography" which as elvis pointed out, they didn't bother to define.

Believe it or not, pornography is already illegal in every state, and is also illegal under federal law. Since the pledge doesn't actually call for a ban on anything, it calls for protecting women and children, but not men, from it. I think that, if they really wanted to be honest, they should protect men from it also.

Then again, I really don't see why anyone needs to protect people from pornography in the first place, but that is me.

 

[manifold]

Believe it or not, pornography is already illegal in every state, and is also illegal under federal law.

Not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

confusion? oh hell no, red meat ? oh hell yeah. think progress is an advocacy site pure and simple, there are same- right left center......he took their headlines snippets and went with it, reading it the actual pledge becomes a simple lesson in comprehension, even when you hit the links, you get sent to think progress LBGT which mischaracterizes the vow, and the simple Iowa caucus's site that says she signed it.

so when you read books, you always read the footnotes?

I do. I also read them when I am signing something.