Bachmann signs pledge implying blacks would be better off as slaves

[DrScholl]

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Yelnoc]

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

[King]

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.

[Simfan34]

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...

[Stranger in a strange land]

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.

[Simfan34]

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....

[Cincinnatus]

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.

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.

[pbrower2a]

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

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.

[specific_name]

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 Dowager Mod]

The Rickster signed it too.

[Zarn]

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.

[Torie]

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

[Zarn]

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.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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

[memphis]

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.

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.

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.

[King]

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

[Mr. Morden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[afleitch]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

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. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

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.

[Mr. Morden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

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

[Lief 🗽]

This is the same pledge in which she promised to ban pornography.

This pledge strikes at the root of my values.

[DrScholl]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

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?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[anvi]

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.

[Badger]

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.