Talk Elections

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/conservative-marriage-pledge-group-apologizes-for-slavery-reference/2011/07/09/gIQANT3C6H_story.html

I have a feeling she didn't read the thing before signing.

I'm starting to wonder if Democratic operatives are going to her rallies with these strange pledges and asking for her autograph while she moves through the crowd.

You know, I read this the other day, and thought the same thing...

This is the same pledge in which she promised to ban pornography. The pledge also contains language attacking divorce.

That I can live with, but slavery....

What exactly did this language contain?  As far as I'm concerned, divorce is generally a bad thing (Obviously it's necessary for some couples, but that doesn't mean it isn't a bad circumstance).  She won't get anywhere with a ban on pornography, so that idea is nonsense to me, much like her candidacy.

Only a fool signs anything before reading something non-routine. President Barack Obama has a degree from an honest-to- Oliver Wendell Holmes law school, and he would never make that mistake.

I assumed this topic title was hyperbolic - but the pledge she signed actually said this. She will not last long at the rate of several gaffes per week.

The Rickster signed it too.

If Ron Paul ends up being the only conservative without egg on his face from constant stupidity, he might actually have a shot at Iowa.

I guarantee that Romney would much rather go up against Bachmann, Cain, Palin, Perry, or Santorum (lol Santorum) than Paul. Paul would force the debate to be mainly about economics, fiscal issues, and the size of government with the exception of one issue: abortion. Romney would get killed in the 'who is more pro-life' question. He wouldn't fair any better with the other issues.

On the other hand, if Pawlenty actually cripples Romney, I think Paul would have a tough time with Pawlenty. Pawlenty can out so-con Paul without sounding crazy. Although no candidate can out fi-con Paul.

Now, the main feature: There are too many so-cons in the race for Bachmann to make too many errors. She will continue to make these gaffes, which may draw Perry or Palin into the race. That would likely kill her chances. Pawlenty is attacking her record, too. If it weren't for him and Paul, she likely would not even be a Congresswoman right now. Her 'pastor' is another problem. So is her own husband. I'm all for too many so-cons and moderates jumping into the race.

I just can't get my mind around the concept of Pawlenty "crippling" Mittens myself. He just doesn't have it.

Yeah, I don't think so either, but if someone from the future told us two in 2006 that Bush was going to hand the Crats the White House on a silver platter and Clinton was running, we would assume it was going to her.

"Slavery ensured that blacks would be economically secure and morally civilized" - George Fitzhugh.

Take it from somebody whose parents had an awful marriage and then divorced. Divorce is a wonderful thing. A blissful, delicious, sacred thing. There is nothing in the world worse than two people who can't stand each other living in the same house year after agonizing year. It's not good for the kids. It's not good for anybody.

memphis is absolutely correct.  As long as neither parent abandons the child, a divorced family works out wonderfully.

How does that imply that slavery was better?  It doesn't.  It's an insensitive thing to say, sure, but that's different from saying that slavery was better.

To infer that anything for blacks was better under slavery; the worst form of bondage you can imagine is a serious issue.

To me this is just another glimpse into the minds of the far-right social crowd... why the hell do you even have to include such a creepy passage?  What point are you trying to make?

....actually scratch that, I know what they are trying to say but the fact that one little proofread of this "marriage pledge" doesn't raise white flags to these people is what worries me. 

The family ties which were a source of strength and resistance too slavery, that probably helped African Americans endure the brutality of slavery and then segregation have been considerably weakened in the last 40 years. Regardless of what politically incorrect context the issue is placed in, the issue still remains. And to ignore it out of political correctness is a far worse injustice to the community, then trying to address it in some manner and draw attention to it.

I am pretty sure civil rights leaders didn't have as their first concern the issue of whether equating the injustices of segregation to those of slavery would be "inappropriate". I don't see how we serve the interests of African Americans or the legacy of the civil rights movement by freezing up the discussion so much regarding issues in the community, that people ignore them and their issues out of fear of what is appropriate.

It's a dumb pledge signed by a dumb candidate. But let's not become so sweeping in grand pronouncements that nothing can be done to advance the AA community's interests at all. That is the end of result of such a statement. I highly doubt anyone sane thinks slavery was good by any measure or comparison and thus I think to focus on those quacks who think otherwise, is a diservice to blacks.

It being a serious issue does not magically make the subject line of this thread factually correct.

This pledge strikes at the root of my values.

That statement was placed in the pledged to make a negative comparison to the Obama administration, therefore it made a clear implication about slavery. Really, what was the point in even bringing slavery up?


If you choose to read the statement one way that suits your views, that's fine, but don't accuse anyone of not being factually correct. Thank you very much.

First of all, that passage in the pledge is total nonsense.  People brought from Africa to this continent during slavery were very often separated from their families in the process in the first place.  And, when slaves did marry, their wedding vows often read "till either death or distance do we part," making room for the possibility that one of the two might be resold.  Of course, lots of marriages ended in death during enslavement, as many slaves died at quite young ages from any number of terrible diseases the resulted from very unsanitary living quarters.  Even if one wants to say that being a married slave was better than being an unmarried slave, or having a mother and father as the child of slaves was better than not having both there, that in no way implies, as this pledge literally says, that babies under slavery were better off in their "household" (a one-room shack for slaves was their "household"???-really???) than black children born to a single parent now.  To suggest that marital conditions or the lives of children under slavery were superior to the circumstances of, presumably, single black parents and their children now is an outrageous fantasy.  And that fantasy is being overtly used in this document to criticize the social conditions of African Americans by implying that these are somehow the fault of the first black president.  Signing a document that contains this kind of stuff is disgraceful.

On top of being ragingly stupid and historically inaccurate, it plays into the ignorance of too many conservatives that somehow African-Americans (and other minorities) are unaware of or blase towards the problem of single family households in their own communities. Jesse Jackson has railed against "babies making babies" in speeches to blacks for over 30 years now. Cornell West correctly pointed out that the collapse of the industrial economy during the last few decades hit black families particularly hard as the loss of such relatively low skilled lower middle class to middle class jobs made many black men essentially unmarriagable as they couldn't support a family. Curing this true underlying problem wouldn't exactly be aided by tea party economic policies though, would it?

Of course that goes against the conservative orthodoxy that single mother homes among the poor were directly caused by Great Society programs and the Sexual Revolution immorality of the 60's, and hardly existed at all before then. ::)

A slave childhood was itself abuse -- even if the parents did nothing to contribute to the abuse.

When it comes to white people discussing black-white race relations, there are three obvious categories.

The first is white people who have black people in their families, perhaps even as children. They know the realities as no other white people can.

The second are white people who usually pretend no expertise on the subject, either going mute or resorting to bland or second-hand generalities intended to avoid offense. They recognize their own ignorance.

The third are white people who, although they know little, pretend to great wisdom that usually contradicts the knowledge of the subject that black people know. They are the sorts who believe that being brought up by a single mother is even worse than being brought up to be a slave.

Abraham Lincoln must be turning over in his grave. 

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.

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.

No, more important to me is that this pledge also (clearly) calls for the total ban of pornography.  To which I say, "Shove it."  But I know that these two small government conservatives are simply trying to protect and defend my own moral values in case I stray from the Golden Path, so for that I guess I should be grateful.

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


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.

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


I disagree, as I prefer not to underestimate the insanity of Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum.  :)

The idea that family ties were better during a time where masters forcibly separated families than today is ludicrous.

Sounds like she's got the spirit of John Wayne! (http://www.emanuellevy.com/comment/john-wayne-and-the-african-american-community-3/)

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.

Well, while we're already giving Bachmann and Santorum far too much benefit of the doubt, it turns out the version of the pledge Bachmann signed didn't mention anything about slavery (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/michele-bachmann-i-just-want-to-make-it-absolutely-clear-i-abhor-slavery/).  How peculiar!

And while speaking on Hannity's show, she also took the opportunity to announce a couple of new bumper sticker slogans for her campaign, such as "It’s good that we no longer have slavery" and "I just want to make it absolutely clear: I abhor slavery."

Go Michele!

You are a Left-Wing Communist hack.

OK.

O RLY (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/17/obama-official-claims-som_n_879280.html).

Ah, I see the Winfield legacy lives on..........and on..........and on..........and on..........and on..........

I think you're misreading the article. It seems obvious that Obama read and filled out the questionnaire and that he (at least at that point in time) approved of gay marriage.
Flipflopping =/= Carelessness

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

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

If being laughed at by everybody is how you want your 'legacy' to endure, then feel free.  At least mypalfish admitted that his equally legendary post was also shamefully ridiculous.  And for that I congratulate Phil on all his hard work.

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.

They don't have to support slavery for this pledge to make them hateful.

()

Oh Joe, Joe, Joe, bitterness, personal insults, and disseminating falsehoods are so unbecoming.

You know, there is an old saying, that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, in which case, I have been overly flatered on this fourm.  Really, I am undeserving of all this flattery.

Stop picking on Winfield, Joe. It's just about as mean as picking on Gporter.

Kalwejt, thanks for the ludicrous comment, however, I can fight my own battles.

Aw, that's cute.  Whatever hides your tears of embarrassment, I suppose.

In this case, go get 'em, tiger.

I was about to say something about how much of a "d word" Joe was being towards Winfield but considering that he and his mod clique run this entire forum and would probably throw yet another maximum infraction my way for "vulgar language" I will refrain.

Joe is just trying very hard to join the cool kids club by picking at vulnerable individuals like Winfield. Words can't describe my outrage to his unbecoming actions.

Regardless of what Winfield said, we must protect people like him from internet bullies, like Joe.

Congratulations, Mechaman, on your principled stance (and yes, Winfield legacy live on).

Well thanks Kalwejt.
As much as I love your enthusiasm it's very hard to protect people from those with all the power.  Sure it would be one thing if this were some random Hamilton troll, but this is Joe Republic we're talking about here.  A guy who has held the power to hand out infraction points like a police man hands out billy club whacks to the head.  Nothing you can say or do will impact him in anyway or in the slightest move forward any possible means to punish him.  You wanna know why?
Because on this forum he is the law.  What he says goes.  If he doesn't like you he can do more than just ignore you or (if they're a coward) report you, he can throw ten point infractions on your ass.  If you prove to be too uppity he'll maybe even call for back up and have them shoot you with even more infractions until your ass is banned.
What's even worse is that people applaud these people who have been given such powers for acting in such a way that would get most of us infracted.  Oh yeah sure you may say, "but they infract Sam Spade for saying "f*g!""  But that is just merely a distraction, a pure smoke and mirrors tactic to drive away criticism that the little mod boys club they have is an internet version of a corrupt police department: they may make the rules but they don't have to follow them.
Now I'm not saying that all moderators are this horrible.  Hell, I think TrueFederalist is an outstanding individual and as much crap as I give Inks he's a pretty good guy.  However, there are still a few, like little Joey here, who likes to use his position in power like an oinker in a black and white car with flashy lights likes to use his authority to harass old ladies and minorities.

Indeed, I veritably blush with embarrassment as so many forum members have paid me the honor of participating in perpetuating the Winfield legacy on this forum, and, I must confess, all this recognition, of which I am truly undeserving, at times brings tears of gratitude to my eyes.

Joe's just a bitter, jealous, petty individual, who didn't make his own legacy. So, he's viciously attacking your established legacy to make himself feel better.

While we're talking about recognition and gratitude, I should thank Mechaman for writing an entire essay about me.  Although I couldn't bring myself to actually read his Wall O' Text, I did notice my name popping up in it more than a few times.

Thank you, Mech!  And congratulations, Phil!

Your behavior is improving.

What's this legendary Winfield post??????

He created a thread congratulating Keystone Phil for Pat Toomey's election to the Senate.  It became a latter day 'I will now accept my accolades' (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=12005) in terms of unintentional comedy, and Winfield consequently decided to take on a weird sense of overblown pride in it as a way of saving face.  Which makes it even funnier, o/c.

The best part was when Winfield withdraw his congratulations to Phil and adressed it directly to Toomey.

You're welcome Joe.

By the way, I have some people here who would like to congratulate you on your success:

()
Such a great role model you are!

Joe Gestapo deserved an Iron Cross, didn't he?

Ah, and still, after all this controversy, the Winfield legacy lives on.....and on.....and on.....and on.....

I am truly humbled.  I am speechless.  I am overwhelmed.  I am overcome with emotion.  I do not know what to say.

Please, please, I really must protest.  You are spreading faleshoods, you are defaming my good name, you are maligning my sterling reputation.  It was Toomey AND Corbett. 

Ah yes, how could I forget Corbett?

My deepest apologies possible.