Posted on 07/09/2011 10:06:40 AM PDT by ejdrapes
Bachmann Stands By Marriage Pact That Links Slavery to Black Family Values Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann is standing firm behind a pledge she signed Thursday that promotes marriage and social conservative values, but includes a passage that suggests black families were in better shape during slavery. The Family Leader, an Iowa-based conservative group led by Bob Vander Plaats, issued the pledge formally called, "The Marriage Vow – A Declaration of Dependence Upon Marriage and Family." The two page document condemns gay marriage, abortion, pornography and infidelity. But perhaps the most controversial part is found in the preamble where the state of the black family in the slave era is compared to today. "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," the document reads. Click here to read the document.
By Stephen Clark
Published July 09, 2011
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“I was simply continuing your logic, which is if she didn’t then somehow that was lesser.”
Continue this. YOU are a jerk. No exaggeration. None.
I have a strong feeling that all of the hoohaw we're seeing about Michele Bachmann is being manufactured, for the most part. Members of the House just do not get the sort of traction in a presidential election that is being claimed for Bachmann.
You would almost think that someone is hard at work trying to discourage that other conservative patriot woman from entering the race. If she can be dissuaded, then Romney can shoot to the top, and all of the gas being pumped into the Bachmann balloon will be allowed to escape.
I'm sorry, but even if Bachmann had major legislative accomplishments under her belt (which she doesn't), and was in a leadership position in the House (which she's not), the odds of her being elected president would still be daunting.
I don't dislike her, but I just do not see her winning the nomination, or going on to defeat Obama in the general. Bet the libs would love for Bambi to run against her, though. I'm sure they perceive her to be as weak as a lot of conservatives do.
Exactly.
Well done— and a very good reply.Too many Americans would deny there ever were free blacks who owned African slaves.And too many ignore those who did return to Liberia-—and look how we have stood by them ever since—NOT too well I’d say since the bloody freakin’Muslim began trying to make that African State shariah compliant.
Not really. It is speculation without facts. Just because two people keep their family intact, doesnt mean their parents did (or were able to). If you want to do the speculation game, you could also say that because the black families were broken up so often and the children didnt get to grow up with their families, that they decided to make sure they didnt do that to their kids when they became free.
Since no one has posted any stats on the children growing up with 2 parents under slavery, it is stupid to suggest that there are more single parent black children now than during slavery. That isnt the point that Walter Williams made, and that isnt the point that was used from Gutman’s book.
As to the political side, Bachmann did not have to sign the pledge. She did not have to use John Wayne to prop up her candidacy. And she did not need to use the American Revolution to prove she is conservative. But she messed up in each of those. It shows me that she lacks the intelligence to avoid traps and that she either goes with unverified data or just lacks the historical knowledge in general. She is destroying her own candidacy.
If the point was that current welfare destroys families, then why not compare the current situation to the 20’s, where there is data? There is data to show that black families had 2 parents at a higher rate than today, it just doesnt exist during the slavery time frame. So if that is the point she was trying to make, she could have done it without signing something that has no factual basis.
People who have never lived with the concept of a stable family home would not move to that situation so completely immediately upon being free to do so.
That slaves could be treated like cattle does not mean that every or even most slaves were. It also does not mean slavery made blacks morally inferior, as you insinuate. All evidence is to the contrary. Yet you choose to believe the opposite. Why?
When did I make this a he said she said? You seem to be very interested in me, but not as interested in that fact that there are no facts to support the claim made.
So please, show data that slave families had two parents at a higher rate than today.
Also, when did I insinuate that slavery made blacks morally inferior? You keep making stuff up, it only makes your position look weak.
“You’re running off in a wild direction here.”
No I’m not. That’s exactly what your reasoning leads to. It’t not a wild direction. Its the exact consequence of doing things your way.
“I don’t have any particular dislike of Michele Bachmann, but she’s demonstrated a marked propensity for political cluelessness recently.”
That’s one interpretation. But honestly, I think its kind of a clumsy interpretation of the facts. Maybe she chose to make a statement. Maybe the statement she’s choosing to make is that she is going to march to a different drummer than naysayers like you march to. And again, if the conventional wisdom was going to work, then why isn’t it working?
Bush, McCain, George Will, etc. all followed the politically orthodox rules that you are espousing. That way has failed. And you have mistaken a decisive stance and approach for being a political idiot.
I think its you that’s missed the point.
“I swear, they must not teach reading comprehension in the New York City public schools. I know for a fact that I wrote the exact opposite of what you’re wailing about.”
Yes, it is a fact that you **wrote** that you are against the exact opposite of what you are espousing.
I swear, they must not teach logic in whatever school you went to.
I wrapped my head around the totality of your failed approach about five posts ago.
And I wrapped my head around people taking your failed approach years ago.
Actually I am a jerk. At times I can be a real extreme jerk. This is one of those times.
But you calling me a jerk (while correct) is an attempt to distract from the fact that you are wrong and petty in your criticism.
Let’s review how you are wrong and petty. Here is what you wrote:
“To: Friendofgeorge
Stop it. She did NOT rear 28 children. She provided a time limited home for foster children, all teenage girls, for which the bachmanns were paid by the day with funds from the state. Most only stayed a couple of months. You are hysterical.”
There is no other conclusion to draw from this post than you somehow think that what Bachmann did is not worthy of the praise that she is somehow getting, i.e. that what she actually did is somehow lesser than the “credit” she is getting. Somehow you feel that this “credit” is undeserved, or exaggerated, or excessive.
Let’s examine the points you gave for how Michelle Bachmann is undeserving of praise, or the amount of praise she is getting, in your own words:
“She provided a time limited home for foster children”
Apparently, because it was a “time limited” home, you feel this is less worthy of praise than if she provided a home that was not limited by time. Apparently you feel she should have provided the children a home until they were legal adults, or perhaps you think she should have provided a home for the rest of their lives? At what age would you approve of them leaving her home? 24? 26? Maybe 27 to be congruent with Obamacare?
“all teenage girls”
I’m not sure why you included this is your post. I can only guess that you feel she should have provided a home for both boys and girls. Maybe you can enlighten us on how Michelle Bachmann was lacking in her character for providing a home for all teenage girls.
“for which the bachmanns were paid by the day with funds from the state”
Apparently you object to the state compensating persons who choose to be foster parents. If this is the case, you should start a crusade to end this practice. If there is waste or abuse, or maybe states just don’t have the money, I would be on your side of that argument. However, I’m quite sure that Michelle Bachmann was not the only foster parent in her state to receive compensation for keeping foster children. Perhaps you would like for her to have done this on a pro bono basis? Maybe then she would have met your approval? Perhaps.
“Most only stayed a couple of months.”
So therefore, only allowing a child to stay in your home a couple of months is less worth of praise than, for example allowing them to stay a couple of years.
I think there are quite a few children in the system right now who would appreciate staying in a home a couple of months.
So to conclude, I guess you’re right. I am a jerk. But your criticisms are petty and wrong.
To you that article is proof that you are right.
To me that article is proof of the problem. If the statement is correct why should we feel the need to backtrack?
We need to stop shrinking from the opportunity to express objective truth. Just because it skirts ethnic sensitivities does not make it untrue.
The Right needs to grow a pair.
Heavens to Murgatroid! I wasn’t saying anything about bachmann one way or the other...just trying to ‘splain to FoG why she wasn’t putting 28 kids through college. Simple explanation, no more, no less. I got scared for him and thought he went ‘round the proverbial bend. Loo at it as CPR.
I don’t slam on anybody for helping troubled kids. Kids are my weakness. This whole ridiculous argument is in YOUR mind, not mine.
And yep. You are a jerk, but then again, some of my best friends are jerks. At least we agree on something. It’s a start. That makes me feel ever so much better.
Gives me hope that somewhere behind the fog machine is a real somebody with a sense of humor...or femur. Take your pick. Either one is better than the jawbone of an ass.
When you claim that black people who were slaves did not have nuclear families. Typically harsh situations promote morality, not undermine it. It is prosperity that tends to corrupt.
You keep making stuff up, it only makes your position look weak.
I am not the one claiming that slaves did not have nuclear families. You are making these claims from a postmodern framework: You are rejecting clear evidence that former slaves did have nuclear families in 1880 (indicating that was the norm for them during slavery) so that you can score points against Bachman. Why are you so fixated against her? Does she scare you? From the arguments you make, it is pretty clear she is a threat to your philosophical agenda.
No I’m not. That’s exactly what your reasoning leads to.
Aye, aye, aye.... You started this by dubbing in something that I never said or insinuated. But you're so determined that I own your version of what I "said", that you refuse to hear me when I say, I DIDN'T SAY WHAT YOU THINK I SAID.
Now hear this, if you can: I'm done with this noise.
“I DIDN’T SAY WHAT YOU THINK I SAID” = B.S.
I’m ok with you ending the conversation. You can back out of what you said. No problem.
No fog machine. You spoke in a way that was petty and wrong. Simple as that.
Have a nice day.
Fog machine...hiding the nice guy you really are...or maybe not. Does nuance send you into madness? Remove you out of the realm of actual context? Give you heartburn? What?
First, I never made any judgements on the morality of people, and frankly I dont buy your premise that a people’s morality is based on whether or not that have 2 parents. And I never claimed that slaves didnt have nuclear families, only that there was no data to prove it, so making a claim on that is not intellectually sound. All you can come up with are suggestions that it might have been true, but no facts.
Second, of all the points Ive made and the statements I have asked you to back up with data, the fact that you try to make this argument about my “agenda,” which you know nothing about, suggests that you cant back up your own argument and thus resort to name calling. You need to grow thicker skin and not take it personal when someone points out that your candidate did something stupid.
So I will ask you again:
When did I make this a he said she said? (and in what way)
Where are your statistics about salve families vs today’s black families?
Who cares.
You were petty.
Case closed.
Have a nice day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.