Bachmann signs pledge implying blacks would be better off as slaves

[Keystone Phil]

The Rickster signed it too.

Congrats, Phil.

Yes. As usual, the language was taken totally out of context.

[Keystone Phil]

The Rickster signed it too.

Congrats, Phil.

Yes. As usual, the language was taken totally out of context.

Apparently everything Rick does is 'out of context'; which means either he's a bad spinner or an even worse communicator.

Actually, I was commenting here because the story was just covered on Hardball and they showed the slavery quote. So much of the focus has been on Bachmann signing it (BECUZ SANTORUM IS SO OBVIOUSLY IRRELEVANT!!!) so I was going to defend her. Chris Matthews went on to mention that Santorum also signed it and I then noticed Texasgurl's quote.

No need to get snippy, afleitch. I know times are tough for you around these parts but barking at the "irrelevant" Santorum is just so beneath you.

[Keystone Phil]

The comment about blacks was easy to misinterpret at first, but hey, it's not like a President Bachmann or a President Santorum would actually have to carefully read and comprehend the full implications of stuff before they sign their name to it.

Why should they back down from signing it when others misinterpreted the comment?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is where they ought to be called out for not carefully reading the pledge. Despite their socially correct stances, I doubt that either actually believe in banning porn.

[Keystone Phil]

The comment about blacks was easy to misinterpret at first, but hey, it's not like a President Bachmann or a President Santorum would actually have to carefully read and comprehend the full implications of stuff before they sign their name to it.

Why should they back down from signing it when others misinterpreted the comment?

The same reason the Family Leader eventually retracted that section of the pledge, perhaps?

Yes, they retracted it because it was misinterpreted. They understand why people could be confused with the wording as can I. That doesn't mean people that correctly understood this aspect of the pledge should back down.

[Keystone Phil]

The comment about blacks was easy to misinterpret at first, but hey, it's not like a President Bachmann or a President Santorum would actually have to carefully read and comprehend the full implications of stuff before they sign their name to it.

Why should they back down from signing it when others misinterpreted the comment?

The same reason the Family Leader eventually retracted that section of the pledge, perhaps?

Yes, they retracted it because it was misinterpreted. They understand why people could be confused with the wording as can I. That doesn't mean people that correctly understood this aspect of the pledge should back down.

Oh yes misrepresented.   No, it was clear as day.

Hateful people put hateful language in it, and other hateful people signed it

Smash, are you stupid enough to believe that the hateful people to which you are eluding really support slavery? Now I know you are boneheaded but are you that boneheaded?

The wording wasn't "clear as day." People took it to mean that slavery was a positive because at least slaves had a family unit. That wasn't the point at all. Reasonable people here have accepted that but believe the wording could have been better. People like yourself - idiotic hacks - like to convince yourself that its intention was evil.