Michele Bachmann is first GOP presidential candidate to sign pledge banning gay marriage, porn.

[Larry]

Hey, folks, wait a minute, I've just noticed something here.

She swears to protect women from porn.

We're all safe.

[Burgold]

That's cause ya don't speak/read religious fundamentalist well.

I'm always available for translating though :pfft:

Well, that's probably true enough

---------- Post added July-10th-2011 at 11:15 AM ----------

Hey, folks, wait a minute, I've just noticed something here.

She swears to protect women from porn.

We're all safe.

Except she wants to protect women from engaging in it. She's okay with nudey magazines and flcks as long as it only has guys and no women. So, if you prefer looking at male anatomy vote GOP. Because under the GOP only men on men porn will be allowed and the only nude magazine on the stands will be Playgirl.

[Bang]

Except she wants to protect women from engaging in it. She's okay with nudey magazines and flcks as long as it only has guys and no women. So, if you prefer looking at male anatomy vote GOP. Because under the GOP only men on men porn will be allowed and the only nude magazine on the stands will be Playgirl.

As long as they can't get married, I'm OK with that.

~Bang

[Madison Redskin]

As twa pointed out, Bachmann did not pledge to seek the prohibition of all forms of pornography. I've got to be fair, even with respect to the idiot crazies.

[Burgold]

As twa pointed out, Bachmann did not pledge to seek the prohibition of all forms of pornography. I've got to be fair, even with respect to the idiot crazies.

Being fair to crazies often results in getting burned. Besides, read 10 again. It says that it wants to protect women and children from exposure to and participation in every kind of pornography. Maybe that's not what they meant, but it is what they said. More, given that this is a religious based pledge, I suspect it's exactly what they meant. Heck, if my Rabbi or your Priest lectured against pornography and argued that it be totally removed from society none of us would bat an eye. That's a reasonable religious/moral position. Is it a good secular/political position?

[@DCGoldPants]

Why is this non issue of a thread still going on? She is going to be a nice VP candidate.

Hairy palms due to Faptastic experiences with porn has been going on since the Fred Flintstone days and will continue.

Liberals were not gong to vote her anyway and most Conservatives both social and fiscal will vote for anybody but Obama.

You are kidding yourselves if you think the majority of population in the USA is going to disqualify someone because they are not onboard with embracing an activity still seen as perverted, deviant activity. She will rise or fall on issues far more important than that.

The left's best hope is for 95% of Blacks, 60% of Hablas, and nearly half of the uninformed youngins and moderates who do not keep up with current events to blindly vote for more of the same destructive policies of the first 3 years of B.H.O. But what economic successes can he brag about?

Exactly. She's going to be an excellent flamethrower for the GOP Prez candidate. Not only that, when she's the VP, she will be used to smoke out those in the Govt with Anti-American tendencies which are running rampant in the minority sectors.

[techboy]

A completely valid point.

Thanks.

I did read the article. However, my question is this. Do you really think that sexual repression won't manifest itself in other ways (sometimes very negative ways) when it is essentially forced on a society based on cultural or societal pressures?

What I really think is that if you're going to try to make that argument, you're going to need a different study.

I've read three pages and three quotes from people quoting my: Who are these 11%.

But I haven't seen a "Yeah! no marriage for you nasty people" cracking these 3 pages for any but the super religous?

for those that just like to drive by comment, you have anything better?

I can't figure out what you're saying, here.

I can't decipher Tbears last post either....usually they make sense to me

Excuse me, miss... I speak Thiebear.

Please allow me to translate:

"I made the point early on that a very small percentage, perhaps 11%, of Republicans actually really care about things like banning pornography. Despite the fact that 3 separate people replied to this post, denying its accuracy, the course of this thread has borne my position out as correct. Few, if any, of the GOP members here agree with the position stated in the pledge. Do any of the people disagreeing with me have anything more substantial, because I'm clearly right."

It makes perfect sense if you say that Washington or government is the problem then saying vote for me and send me to ashington puts you at odds with you position.

That's ludicrous.

In other words, you're suggesting that if I want to cut the size of the military, rather than voting for a President that vows to cut the size of the military, I should instead not vote, implicitly allowing a President who won't cut the size of the military to be elected?

The only people capable of reducing the size of government are government officials. Not voting is giving up.

As I said, you're trying too hard.

[DRSmith]

That's ludicrous.

In other words, you're suggesting that if I want to cut the size of the military, rather than voting for a President that vows to cut the size of the military, I should instead not vote, implicitly allowing a President who won't cut the size of the military to be elected?

The only people capable of reducing the size of government are government officials. Not voting is giving up.

As I said, you're trying too hard.

Then you do not run around demonizing government/washington overall you just focus on ideas

But it may be a good idea to fix broken ideas inside the party first

[Larry]

As twa pointed out, Bachmann did not pledge to seek the prohibition of all forms of pornography. I've got to be fair, even with respect to the idiot crazies.

Yeah, the words "all forms of pornography" obviously don't mean "all forms of pornography".

[techboy]

Then you do not run around demonizing government/washington overall you just focus on ideas

And if you want the size of government slashed, because you think it's demonic, you vote for the guy that demonizes the government, and hope he actually does what he says he'll do.

I'm sure your rebuttal will now involve something about only wanting smaller government in some areas, but that's not the point you made initially, and will not save your initial comment now.

[DRSmith]

And if you want the size of government slashed, because you think it's demonic, you vote for the guy that demonizes the government, and hope he actually does what he says he'll do.

I'm sure your rebuttal will now involve something about only wanting smaller government in some areas, but that's not the point you made initially, and will not save your initial comment now.

No if you believe government is the problem you do not contribute to the problem

It would be like me saying medicine is the problem and finding a new doctor

[techboy]

No if you believe government is the problem you do not contribute to the problem

The only people that have the power to reduce the size of government are the people actually in the government, so the only recourse for a person that wishes such is to vote for people that also feel this way. I'm not sure why this concept is so difficult for you to understand.

[DRSmith]

The only people that have the power to reduce the size of government are the people actually in the government, so the only recourse for a person that wishes such is to vote for people that also feel this way. I'm not sure why this concept is so difficult for you to understand.

No not voting for people period prevents people from being eleccted and reduces the size of governmen

Iwouls have more respect for people if they said the problem was waste inefficiencies but to say that is is the problem and people can do better without it but then ask to run it is speaking out both sides of your mouth

[Thiebear]

Excuse me, miss... I speak Thiebear.

Please allow me to translate:

"I made the point early on that a very small percentage, perhaps 11%, of Republicans actually really care about things like banning pornography. Despite the fact that 3 separate people replied to this post, denying its accuracy, the course of this thread has borne my position out as correct. Few, if any, of the GOP members here agree with the position stated in the pledge. Do any of the people disagreeing with me have anything more substantial, because I'm clearly right."

Wow, thats exactly right and some. Though i don't use the word "clearly" for obvious reasons.

[techboy]

No not voting for people period prevents people from being eleccted and reduces the size of governmen

Seriously?

[Larry]

No not voting for people period prevents people from being eleccted and reduces the size of governmen

You do realize that this argument was getting slapped silly even before you made this comment?

Suggestion: Stop digging.

[Prosperity]

The only people that have the power to reduce the size of government are the people actually in the government, so the only recourse for a person that wishes such is to vote for people that also feel this way. I'm not sure why this concept is so difficult for you to understand.

there's always terrorism

[twa]

Being fair to crazies often results in getting burned. Besides, read 10 again. It says that it wants to protect women and children from exposure to and participation in every kind of pornography. ?

How long have you endorsed kid's exposure to and participation in porn then?

.......you clearly don't object;)

:pfft:

thanks for the translation techboy

---------- Post added July-10th-2011 at 12:39 PM ----------

there's always terrorism

that seems to only make it grow

[Baculus]

Probably one of the worst parts about this "pledge" is the part which claims that black families were somehow better off under slavery with more two-parent families than under the Obama adminsitration, which is complete idiocy for several reasons:

1. Families were usually torn apart by slavery. Read Frederick Douglass' autobiography for his painful account of this experience.

2. The study cited for this claim was completed in 2005, under Bush. So what do they do? Blame Pres. Obama.

3. The study cited only went back as far as 1880, so it doesn't even apply to slavery since it had ended two decades earlier. And no, in spite of Bachmann's claim, the Founding Fathers did not work "tirelessly" to end slavery, and no, John Quincy Adams is not a Founding Father, either.

More on this:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/michele-bachmann-signed-pledge-says-black-children-worse-off-under-obama-than-during-slavery/

I have said this before, but with the emergence of Bachmann as a "serious" candidate, bolstered by high GOP, I believe that political party has gone bananas. As a note, this is a the same Michele Bachmann that was hiding in the bushes, spying on a LBGT rally at the Minnesota state capital. Let me repeat that again -- Bachmann was hiding behind bushes and spying on people, which is pretty darn creepy behavior, if you ask me (though I am sure her defenders will find some way to extol it).

Here are pictures of that:

http://i.imgur.com/vIIax.jpg

Then we he have to remember Bachmann's ties to a person who believes the U.S. should be a theorcracy and who has spoken at white supremacist events.

So we have Michele Bachmann, an anti-gay, anti-Muslim theocrat who spies on people and who believes that black families were somehow better off under slavery, which she further believes was ended by the Founding Fathers. Not to mention her hypocrisy when it comes to federal spending, seeing how her family has personally benefited from accepting hundreds of thousands of federal subsidized dollars for her family farm and business practice (in violation of federal law, since those dollars cannot be used for faith-based practices, which her husbands "gay deprogramming" program is based upon).

This the person that some conservatives deem fit for the presidency? And they called Obama the "radical"?!

Jiminy Cricket.

---------- Post added July-10th-2011 at 07:03 PM ----------

The only people that have the power to reduce the size of government are the people actually in the government, so the only recourse for a person that wishes such is to vote for people that also feel this way. I'm not sure why this concept is so difficult for you to understand.

Except when they rant and rail against benefits which they also have, e.g, government subsidized health care, managed through the FEHB. I know I am jumping into the middle of a conversation with this remark, but I think it's a valid point.

"Government health care is a power grabbing takeover! It's socialism!" Then why the heck are you on it, Mr. Random GOP Member of Congress?

It's hypocritical rubbish, and their supporters don't even care. It's as if they made this an issue because, I dunno, Obama was in office? Similar to the federal deficit -- not a word about the debt under Bush (except for Ron Paul), but now it's considered to be "generational theft" once that black liberal took office.

[LadySkinsFan]

Probably one of the worst parts about this "pledge" is the part which claims that black families were somehow better off under slavery with more two-parent families than under the Obama adminsitration, which is complete idiocy for several reasons:

1. Families were usually torn apart by slavery. Read Frederick Douglass' autobiography for his painful account of this experience.

2. The study cited for this claim was completed in 2005, under Bush. So what do they do? Blame Pres. Obama.

3. The study cited only went back as far as 1880, so it doesn't even apply to slavery since it had ended two decades earlier. And no, in spite of Bachmann's claim, the Founding Fathers did not work "tirelessly" to end slavery, and no, John Quincy Adams is not a Founding Father, either.

More on this:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/michele-bachmann-signed-pledge-says-black-children-worse-off-under-obama-than-during-slavery/

I have said this before, but with the emergence of Bachmann as a "serious" candidate, bolstered by high GOP, I believe that political party has gone bananas. As a note, this is a the same Michele Bachmann that was hiding in the bushes, spying on a LBGT rally at the Minnesota state capital. Let me repeat that again -- Bachmann was hiding behind bushes and spying on people, which is pretty darn creepy behavior, if you ask me (though I am sure her defenders will find some way to extol it).

Here are pictures of that:

http://i.imgur.com/vIIax.jpg

Then we he have to remember Bachmann's ties to a person who believes the U.S. should be a theorcracy and who has spoken at white supremacist events.

So we have Michele Bachmann, an anti-gay, anti-Muslim theocrat who spies on people and who believes that black families were somehow better off under slavery, which she further believes was ended by the Founding Fathers. Not to mention her hypocrisy when it comes federal spending, seeing how her family has personally benefited from accepting hundreds of thousands of federal subsidized dollars for her family farm and business practice (which violated federal law, since those dollars cannot be used for faith-based practices, which her husbands "gay deprogramming" program is based upon).

This the person that some conservatives deem fit for the presidency? And they called Obama the "radical"?!

Jiminy Cricket.

I'm quoting your entire post because you laid out very explicitly who Bachmann really is and believes. Except that she believes that God spoke to her and told her to run for president. Otherwise, good summation.

I say again, Michele, if you think you are all your husband thinks about when he thinks things sexual, you are dead wrong. All the time I was trying to be a good heterosexual by having sex with men, all I thought about was being with a woman.

[Baculus]

I'm quoting your entire post because you laid out very explicitly who Bachmann really is and believes. Except that she believes that God spoke to her and told her to run for president.

Good point, which is pretty darn ego-driven and the antithesis of a humble, poor Jesus Christ, if you ask me.

[LadySkinsFan]

An ex's sister also thinks that God talks to her, but she's been diagnosed as schizophrenic and has been heavily medicated since she was 18 and she's 72 now.

[techboy]

I know I am jumping into the middle of a conversation with this remark

Yes, you are.

, but I think it's a valid point.

Not in this line of discussion.

Of course, I don't mind people using my comments as a springboard to go off in some other direction (boy, would that be hypocrisy ), but don't expect me to join you on the ride.

[twa]

We obviously need Palin to run to save the country from this woman.....and Perry

[@DCGoldPants]

We obviously need Palin to run to save the country from this woman.....and Perry

Ding Ding Ding.

"We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot.

Epic quote.

RUN RICK RUN!