Michelle Bachmann R-Wingnuttia :"Don't Let Them Palinize Me!"

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Last but not least,looking out for black children by claiming they were better off being born into slavery

[b]This is the statement I assume you are referencing (which, incidentally, was not her claim to begin with), and it says absolutely zero about a child being "better off" being born into slavery.
If you can't make your point without lying, then you have no point to begin with.

"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an AfricanAmerican baby born after the election of the USA‟s first African-American President."

Who's lying? I interpret her remarks as someone who is claiming that AA babies were better off during slavery because there were 2 parents around. Of course the imbecile never mentions the many.many families that were broken up when members of those families were sold or traded

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Who's lying? I interpret her remarks as someone who is claiming that AA babies were better off during slavery because there were 2 parents around. Of course the imbecile never mentions the many.many families that were broken up when members of those families were sold or traded

Quote :

Who's lying?
You, I guess.

Quote :

Firstly, the remarks are not hers.

They were contained in that insane marriage vow pledge she willingly signed. Rational people don't sign pledges they don't agree with.
And secondly, the remarks include absolutely nothing to the effect that being born into slavery was better than not being born into slavery.
Nothing whatsoever.

It clearly pointed out what idiots like Bachmann see,as an advantage or a positive aspect of slavery.

happy jack wrote:

And secondly, the remarks include absolutely nothing to the effect that being born into slavery was better than not being born into slavery.
Nothing whatsoever.

Looks like you're dead wrong once again. Even the kook that inserted that garbage into his "pledge" is now running away from it as fast as he can.
Social Conservative Cuts Bit About Slavery From Pledge Against Gay Marriage
Iowa conservative Bob Vander Plaats and his advocacy group, The Family Leader, removed a reference to slavery from their anti-gay-marriage pledge.

The pledge, part of a trend to pin down politicians on a variety of issues, has the backing of two Republican presidential candidates.

A version of the document posted on the group’s website Saturday, dropped this line from its forward: “Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”

In an email to Washington Wire, a spokeswoman for The Family Leader apologized “for any negative feelings this has caused,” and also said: “We agree that the statement referencing children born into slavery can be misconstrued, and such misconstruction can detract from the core message of the Marriage Vow: that ALL of us must work to strengthen and support families and marriages between one woman and one man.”

happy jack wrote:

It was a simple statement of statistical fact.

Very much like this was.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

It clearly pointed out what idiots like Bachmann see,as an advantage or a positive aspect of slavery.

[b]It said absolutely nothing to the effect that there was anything at all advantageous or positive about slavery. It was a simple statement of statistical fact. Only a complete liar and/or a total idiot could interpret it otherwise.

I hate to break it to you but,"a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an AfricanAmerican baby born after the election of the USA‟s first African-American President." is a positive statement.

You claim it's a statistical fact. Can you point me to any studies that could confirm that?

[quote="happy jack"]

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

I hate to break it to you but,"a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an AfricanAmerican baby born after the election of the USA‟s first African-American President." is a positive statement.

You claim it's a statistical fact. Can you point me to any studies that could confirm that?

No, I can’t.
What I should have said (and the omission was my mistake) is that it was a simple statement of what the author claimed was statistical fact.
What it most assuredly does not say, however, in any way, shape, or form, is that children were better off under the conditions of slavery. And, as I said earlier, only a complete liar and/or a total idiot could interpret it to mean that.

Would you agree that a child is better off raised by a mother and father in a two-parent household. Yes or No?

[quote="Artie60438"]

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

No, I can’t.
What I should have said (and the omission was my mistake) is that it was a simple statement of what the author claimed was statistical fact.
What it most assuredly does not say, however, in any way, shape, or form, is that children were better off under the conditions of slavery. And, as I said earlier, only a complete liar and/or a total idiot could interpret it to mean that.

Would you agree that a child is better off raised by a mother and father in a two-parent household. Yes or No?

I believe that a child is much better off being raised in a two-parent family, as long as that two-parent family is not living under the conditions of slavery.

[quote="happy jack"]

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Would you agree that a child is better off raised by a mother and father in a two-parent household. Yes or No?

[b]I believe that a child is much better off being raised in a two-parent family, as long as that two-parent family is not living under the conditions of slavery.

This wasn't an essay question. I asked for a yes or a no. Can you do that or you going to try and weasel out like you just did.

[quote="Artie60438"]

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

I believe that a child is much better off being raised in a two-parent family, as long as that two-parent family is not living under the conditions of slavery.

This wasn't an essay question. I asked for a yes or a no. Can you do that or you going to try and weasel out like you just did.

I weaseled out of nothing. I responded to your question truthfully and legitimately. If you have some sort of issue with my answer, then that is clearly your problem, not mine.

happy jack wrote:

I weaseled out of nothing. I responded to your question truthfully and legitimately. If you have some sort of issue with my answer, then that is clearly your problem, not mine. [/b][/quote]
Let's try this again.......

Quote :

Would you agree that a child is better off raised by a mother and father in a two-parent household. Yes or No?

I asked for a simple yes or no. It's not a difficult question that needs an explanation. Can you do that? Yes or no???

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

I weaseled out of nothing. I responded to your question truthfully and legitimately. If you have some sort of issue with my answer, then that is clearly your problem, not mine. [/b]

Let's try this again.......

Quote :

Would you agree that a child is better off raised by a mother and father in a two-parent household. Yes or No?

I asked for a simple yes or no. It's not a difficult question that needs an explanation. Can you do that? Yes or no???[/quote]

I’ve seen this movie before, Artie.
I will say, “Yes”.
Then you will say, “Aha!!! So what you are saying is that children are better off living under slavery!!!”
Then I will become bored playing your ridiculous little girl game.
Then I will stop playing.
Then, hopefully, you will prance away, pigtails swaying as you go.

[quote="happy jack"]

Artie60438 wrote:

I asked for a simple yes or no. It's not a difficult question that needs an explanation. Can you do that? Yes or no???

Quote :

I’ve seen this movie before, Artie.

Yes you have,many,many times.

Quote :

I will say, “Yes”.

Go on...

Quote :

Then you will say, “Aha!!! So what you are saying is that children are better off living under slavery!!!”

No,It would just prove my point that Bachmann and certain wingnuts like her either think that or think it's going to score points with her loony tunes followers..

Then,as reality sets in and you realize I'm going to check-mate you, you will start with your usual nonsense:

Quote :

Then I will become bored playing your ridiculous little girl game.
Then I will stop playing.

Finally you resort to the only tactic you have left.......name calling and insults

Quote :

Then, hopefully, you will prance away, pigtails swaying as you go.

How sad.

back

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

No,It would just prove my point that Bachmann and certain wingnuts like her either think that or think it's going to score points with her loony tunes followers..

The only 'wingnuts' (on this board, at least) who believe that that statement is meant to imply that black children were better off during the time of slavery are you and sparks.
Think about that.

Then why was it removed from that idiotic "pledge"? Wingnuts aren't usually known for backing down from their crazy rants. Btw,"wingnut" is a term used to identify loony Republicans. Sparks and me are Democrats. HTH

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Then why was it removed from that idiotic "pledge"?

[b]It was removed from that pledge because it was being intentionally misrepresented by full-blown lying idiots.
HTH.

Right Do "full blown lying idiots" include the Wash Post,www.telegraph.co.uk,and OMG FOX NEWS??? Iowa-based conservative group has removed a passage in a marriage pact signed by two GOP presidential candidates that suggested black families were in better shape during slavery.

Watching you continuing to defend this is hilarious. Keep up the good work!

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

I interpret her remarks as someone who is claiming that AA babies were better off during slavery because there were 2 parents around.

QED

Actually, if you look at TRUE stories back in the day, even when some white folks didn't treat Blacks differently, and even movies based on real facts during the MLK era...the Black family was very close. The father played an important role in the family. After MLK's assasination, they took the freedom to an extreme where you couldn't pay me to re-visit downtown Chicago. (Any color mobs).

Sorry, truth hurts. Even in white families the same can be said.

When they stop paying you to have more babies, they will liberate themselves.

Ever watch "Fried Green Tomatos"? That's how I grew up, but respecting the only Black family that I knew, lived in a French/German town. I went to school with his niece, Brenda. We didn't know anything about different bathrooms or faucets. Ole' Charlie her Uncle, an ICON), kept the church and school grounds clean and watched over us until every last kid got picked up or made it home walking.

That's to say, no such thing today. I saw a real life movie and the fact-based, non-fiction book based on the movie, about and a half/white & black man that successfully hid the "Negro" in him, became a lawyer.

While he hid his black wife and lght-skinned children, eventually he was exposed and fired. For appearing white, hiding the "black". It opened my eyes. It showed me how this family was so close, the father was a professional while all odds were against him, and at the end, everyone accepted him. It's been so long, I can't remember the name of the book or the movie.

I admit I've watched old movie centered around Black families, especially, the "Color of Purple". I found those true stories (I hate fiction in movies and books), really had an impact on me. Those families were not much different back then than my own, yet they were disallowed the freedom.

I just find it ironic that MLK's dream has now turned into a sick, twisted and weird dream. He didn't envision that the opportunities he died for, the rights he died for would lead to Black kids - any kids - killing each other instead of making something of themseves.

Who's responsible for carrying his torch?

It's a baby-mill with a gov't rewards program now You are told to tell Public Aid you don't know who the father is, and if you do, you won't get a penny for revealing it.


It isn't limited to any one, particular color or nationality, country of origin. All are welcomed.

You get rewarded for lying. That's why we are in the position of fighting thugs and gun shootings.Once the money stops flowing in from the gov't, the kids are left loose, cuz, "Mama can't afford ya no more!"

Mary Mitchell is a fine example of a dysfumctional family and supporting those like her.

Keys are sticking...thank my son, not the weather. Excuse typos.

Where's Bill Crosby??????

(When ya need him?)

Artie60438 wrote:

Do "full blown lying idiots" include the Wash Post,www.telegraph.co.uk,and OMG [url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/09/bachmann-stands-by-marriage-pledge-that-links-slavery-to-black-family-values/]FOX NEWS???

Watching you continuing to defend this is hilarious. Keep up the good work!

If the Washington Post, www.telegraph.co.uk, and Fox News seriously maintain that the statement condones slavery, then yes, I include them among the full-blown lying idiots, right along with those on this forum who choose to place themselves in that category.
And I'm not defending anything, because there is nothing to defend. My only purpose for even continuing this thread is to provide a pulpit for certain bottom-feeding posters to demonstrate how disingenuous and disgustingly sleazy they can be in their attempts to falsely smear a political opponent.
And those posters have not disappointed me yet.