GOP Candidates Back Off From Signing Pledge that Praises Slavery

[04SCTLS]

GOP Candidates Back Off From Signing Pledge that Praises Slavery


http://www.theroot.com/buzz/gop-candidates-back-signing-pledge-praises-slavery

Fresh from our "Are you kidding us" file, News One is reporting that two of the top Republican presidential contenders have backtracked from signing a pledge against gay marriage that also suggested Black families were stronger under slavery.
First Leader, an Iowa Christian conservative group, released a pledge called “The Marriage Vow” which equates homosexuality with polygamy and adultery, and calls for the banning of all porn.
The most shocking part of the document is when the group says that Black children were better off under slavery because there were more two parent households.
“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,” reads pledge.
The group has since removed that passage from the document and apologized for it. Bachmann said she is against the slavery passage in the document, and Santorum claims he was taken aback by it. Really.
This from the woman who thinks the founding fathers ended slavery.
It simply amazes us when racist zealots pretend to care about black folks, usually when trying to oppress another group. During slavery, slave owners didn't give a damn about black families, breaking them up at will for the purposes of punishment, labor distribution and financial gain. We find it infuriating that not only would this group lie about 'the black family' under the oppressive system of slavery, but they would use this lie to support another lie -- that gay couples should not be married because it goes against the Bible.
If we're all God's children, then how exactly is that?
Further, the fact that Santorum and Bachmann, two people who think they are worthy of running the country, would agree to signing such a document without fully reading it first is ridiculous. The slavery passage repulses them? Their failed attempt at decency and continuous quest to oppress others through their proposed legislation and zealous behavior repulses us. Is this really the best that the GOP has to offer?

Happiness in Slavery

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/07/11/happiness_in_slavery.html


Among the many, many problems with the Iowa FAMiLY Leader pledge that Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum rushed to sign was this line in the preamble.

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 FAMiLY Leader is now pulling those words from the pledge (the original version of the pledge survives), limiting the damage. And my policy, generally, is that no one wins when we freak out about meaningless verbiage in a pledge. I'm not a fan of point-and-sputter criticism. It's just that this sentence is so revealingly stupid, so ideological and cartoonish, that you have to wonder about someone who reads it and says "yes, great point." Slavery was relatively good for nuclear families? Let's look at the Moynihan report, which traced the problems of African-American families to the distorting effect of slavery. Let's take a cursory look at 19th American history.

Because of the high premium placed on male labor, throughout every period of American slavery, black men were the most likely to be parted from their families. For slave owners, who considered the basic family unit to be comprised of mother and child, husbands and fathers could be, and were, easily replaced. Many a slave woman was assigned a new husband by her master. Male children were also frequently taken from slave mothers. The bond between an enslaved mother and daughter was the least likely to be disturbed through sale. Yet this tie was also fragile. Owners could reap large returns by selling pretty girls, especially light-skinned ones, into prostitution or concubinage.
​

The possibility of separation was an ever-present threat to every member of a slave family. When a master died, his slaves might be indiscriminately distributed among his heirs or sold off to multiple buyers. When a planter's child was born or married, he or she might receive the gift of a black attendant. Mothers were taken from their own children to nurse the offspring of their masters. And slave children were torn from mothers and brought into the house to be raised alongside the master's sons and daughters.
​

We have better statistics on modern black family formation than our statistics on slave transactions, but we can agree on this -- black children are someone less likely to be ripped away from their mothers and raised by slave owners these days. Both Bachmann and Santorum had it in their power to scan this and say something like, "hey, if you take out this historical gibberish, I can sign the pledge, but not before." They didn't do that. Meanwhile, Gary Johnson, who isn't competing for any of the FAMiLY Leader's base, comes out against the whole pledge.

This "pledge" is nothing short of a promise to discriminate against everyone who makes a personal choice that doesn’t fit into a particular definition of "virtue."
​

While the Family Leader pledge covers just about every other so-called virtue they can think of, the one that is conspicuously missing is tolerance. In one concise document, they manage to condemn gays, single parents, single individuals, divorcees, Muslims, gays in the military, unmarried couples, women who choose to have abortions, and everyone else who doesn’t fit in a Norman Rockwell painting.
​

________________________________________________________

Another Freudian slip?

What can we say about Michelle Bachman that she hasn't said about herself

She's certainly distinguishing her "MarieAnne" from Palin's "Ginger"(the movie star LOL!) on the Republican Gilligan's Island show.

Maybe she can say that she checked with her husband as a good evangelical and as a joke God told him and her to sign this pledge without properly reading it.
Sounded good at the time.
Looks like a dum@ss(it's pronounced dumas!) contest between these two...

 

[Calabrio]

YAWN.
The only thing this story demonstrates is why it is pointless for candidates to sign these ridiculous "pledges," and counter productive for these activist groups to thrust them upon candidates.

Looks like a dum@ss(it's pronounced dumas!) contest between these two..

I know, when pressed, you'll argue that these stupid comments from you are really intended to provoke activity on the message board because you're bored. I don't particularly care.

If you really want to stimulate activity, post something intelligent and honest. A thoughtful dialog is much more interesting and sustained than this kind of ignorant, provocative nonsense.

YouTube - ‪Monty Python - Argument Clinic‬‏

 

[04SCTLS]

You're the boring one

What's dishonest about this?
The candidates are showing us their stupidity.
All these people do is show that they are unfit to be POTUS of a complex diverse country.
Emboldened evangelicals is one of the symptoms of the dumbing down of America that accelerated under Bush.
Now the evangelicals have added their seal of approval to that dumbing down so candidates can say stupid stuff and get away with it.
I didn't post this for you Cal as your opinion is pretty easy to guess.You'll defend these greatly flawed nut jobs with whacky balance sheets as a conservative apologist.

You hardly ever post anything particularly thoughtful or provocative any more and recently have only responded to my posts.
I find it sad, distressful and embarassing for the country that the quality of the Republican candidates has fallen to the cartoon level and they have been propping themselves up to make up for their dim brains by references to God.

 

[ford nut]

I find it sad, distressful and embarassing for the country that the quality of the Republican candidates has fallen to the cartoon level and they have been propping themselves up to make up for their dim brains by references to God.

Your not alone.
Pray for gays...that will fix them.

No porn....what a laugh.


Blacks were better off....... please.

Whats next? Prohibition of alcohol?

 

[Calabrio]

And this is why you're not worth the time to discuss these things.
You're not provactive because you want to stimulate conversation, that's merely your fall back position to redirect criticism.

We could have a discussion about the historic place of "emboldened" religious people in this country, but sadly, you're really too ignorant to partake in it, so doing so just wastes everyone time. You're hostility toward religion and your intellectual laziness means nothing productive or interesting can take place. As you always do, you'll just spew vitriol while ignoring everything associated with history and philosophy.

You've demonstrated that here. Your intention isn't to discuss the the black culture in America, the nature of these pledges, or even if it was appropriate to reference the offending comment as racist. Instead, you tried to inartful use the story as a way to attack Christianity. At this point, this is to be expected of you.

What this story does is demonstrate why it's ridiculous for any of these candidates to sign these "pledges." Any group that has some interest in writing wordy preambles to their pointless pledges need to understand they are doing considerably more harm than good. My understanding of the story is that the offending material was actually in the preamble and not the actual pledge it's self.

If you only looked at the specifics of the pledge, and not the entire four page statement, you'd have missed the completely inappropriate juxtaposition with slavery.

These candidates are at fault for pandering while reaching for the low hanging fruit. I personally think it's good for journalist to scrutinize this kind of pandering, however, I think it's problematic when it's done so selectively. When you scrutinize ONE candidate for perceived gaffes, while giving the other one a free pass, that's more damaging and a greater example of journalistic malpractice than had they scrutinized neither candidate in that fashion.


Bachman and Santorum are outside of the Republican and media establishment. The more prominent they are, you'll see increased energy from BOTH sides to attack these individuals.

There's another element at play here too-
once the media, lead by the "think tanks" affiliated with the Center for American Progress and Media Matters, establish the meme, they rely on a fairly insidious kind of group psychology to perpetuate the attack and destroy the political opposition.

People, like you for example, love to think they are smarter than other people. Even though a person hostile to someone like Bachman may not know the difference between John Adams and John Quincy Adams, they can join the collective and embrace the narrative to mock Bachman for a perceived gaffe. It's simple and the collective mob can embrace it. You can also link this with Alinsky's Rules 5,6, and 13.

 

[Calabrio]

Whats next? Prohibition of alcohol?

That was advanced by Progressive Democrats during the Woodrow Wilson administration.

And if you get beyond the media narrative, you'll find that both of those candidates support nothing of the kind. They believe in limited government, constitutional government, examples like prohibition show the abuse of centralized federal power embraced by those of either party with a progressive philosophy.

Being 'evangelical' doesn't mean you think the federal government should dictate behavior through regulation.

To go back to an earlier point about where these stories are generated then picked up by the MSM, the origin of this story appears to be from the website "Think Progress."

This is what the "pledge" says about "BANNING" pornography:
Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy — our next generation of American children — from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence.

It makes no such promise to ban pornography. That's simply the media template being used to attack the woman in soundbite form.

Such scrutiny of candidates and their appeals to various voting blocks would be healthy if were applied uniformly. But to do it selectively amounts to little more than advocacy for other candidates.

 

[04SCTLS]

And this is why you're not worth the time to discuss these things.
You're not provactive because you want to stimulate conversation, that's merely your fall back position to redirect criticism.

We could have a discussion about the historic place of "emboldened" religious people in this country, but sadly, you're really too ignorant to partake in it, so doing so just wastes everyone time. You're hostility toward religion and your intellectual laziness means nothing productive or interesting can take place. As you always do, you'll just spew vitriol while ignoring everything associated with history and philosophy.

You've demonstrated that here. You're intention isn't to discuss the the black culture in America, the nature of these pledges, or even if it was appropriate to reference the offending comment as racist. Instead, you tried to inartful use the story as a way to attack Christianity.

What this story does is demonstrate why it's ridiculous for any of these candidates to sign these "pledges." Any group that has some interest in writing wordy preambles to their pointless pledges need to understand they are doing considerably more harm than good. My understanding of the story is that the offending material was actually in the preamble and not the actual pledge it's self.

If you only looked at the specifics of the pledge, and not the entire four page statement, you'd have missed the completely inappropriate juxtaposition with slavery.

These candidates are at fault for pandering while reaching for the low hanging fruit. I personally think it's good for journalist to scrutinize this kind of pandering, however, I think it's problematic when it's done so selectively. When you scrutinize ONE candidate for perceived gaffes, while giving the other one a free pass, that's more damaging and a greater example of journalistic malpractice than had they scrutinized neither candidate in that fashion.


Bachman and Santorum are outside of the Republican and media establishment. The more prominent they are, you'll see increased energy from BOTH sides to attack these individuals.

There's another element at play here too-
once the media, lead by the "think tanks" affiliated with the Center for American Progress and Media Matters, establish the meme, they rely on a fairly insidious kind of group psychology to perpetuate the attack and destroy the political opposition.

People, like you for example, love to think they are smarter than other people. Even though a person hostile to someone like Bachman may not know the difference between John Adams and John Quincy Adams, but they can join in the collective and embrace the narrative to mock Bachman for a perceived gaffe. It's simple and the collective mob can embrace it. You can link this with Alinsky's Rules 5,6, and 13.

To you all of Bachman's whacky comments and verbal blunders are only perceived because the media is attacking her.
She gave the media the weapons to attack her with.
I don't have a problem with Christianity only with religion trying to muscle it's way into civic power.
In a truimphant hypocracy evangelical women reasoned when confronted with the contradiction of Sarah Palin and her obeying her husband under evangelical rules while possibly running for POTUS that the rules are different in the civil world so they would not make an issiue of it.

These candidates are at fault for pandering while reaching for the low hanging fruit. I personally think it's good for journalist to scrutinize this kind of pandering, however, I think it's problematic when it's done so selectively. When you scrutinize ONE candidate for perceived gaffes,

Well at least you agree with me that they haven't been very smart here.
They're just not very swift period.
Her gaffes have been more whacky and frequent than the other candidates.

 

[ford nut]

Being 'evangelical' doesn't mean you think the federal government should dictate behavior through regulation.

That is too funny!

She gave the media the weapons to attack her with.

She makes Joe Biden look smart.

 

[fossten]

Her gaffes have been more whacky and frequent than the other candidates.

False. Especially if you include Obama in that group.

 

[fossten]

That is too funny!



She makes Joe Biden look smart.

Hardly. At least she never publicly told a cripple in a wheelchair to stand up.

 

[Calabrio]

To you all of Bachman's whacky comments and verbal blunders are only perceived because the media is attacking her.
She gave the media the weapons to attack her with.

To continue with your logic, noting that no one is perfect and that an hostile media can always take things out of context and misrepresent things, the only way she, or whoever is the the crosshairs of the "press" next, can avoid such attacks is to avoid making comments in public.

And in doing so, they have silenced the political opposition- accomplishing the goal. Your logic rewards those who seek to silence dissenting opinions through intimidation and mockery.

I don't have a problem with Christianity only with religion trying to muscle it's way into civic power.

Provide a contemporary example of this so it can be discussed.
I'm not aware of Bachman doing this.

In a truimphant hypocracy evangelical women reasoned when confronted with the contradiction of Sarah Palin and her obeying her husband under evangelical rules while possibly running for POTUS that the rules are different in the civil world so they would not make an issiue of it.

There is no "evangelical" position about "obeying" or being subservient to men.
To the best of my knowledge, it's framed as a partnership of equals.

Well at least you agree with me that they haven't been very smart here.

No, I'm not agreeing with you, but I think these 'pledges' are political liabilities.
They can be misinterpreted like this one has been, or you can get into trouble for not signing them as well.
Considering the atmosphere in politics and media, it's better to simply not sign any of these pledges, unless you wrote it yourself and it's very specific.

They're just not very swift period. Her gaffes have been more whacky and frequent than the other candidates.

I know you consider your self a historical scholar through nothing but your own intuition, but what "wacky" gaffes are you talking about? Considering J.Q.A a founding father? Or that many of the founders were abolitionists?

Is that wacky or just a distinction you think isn't necessarily appropriate? It's more fun for stupid people, who do genuinely don't know the difference between the two, to just pile on, pretend they do, and attempt to mock her.

Next time you hear someone make a Palin comment or Bachman comment, probe past the "Daily Show" punchline level of analysis from the critic. It breaks down immediately, they don't know anything about the subject. People love to feel like they are part of group, and they love to think they look smarter than someone they disagree with.

Here's the startling reality- this is basic psychological manipulation. This techniques are used over and over. And they began to be understood around the turn of the 20th century and have simply been refined since.

These concepts haven't been embraced by the "right" so much because of the philosophical difference. You can't manipulate a group of individuals as you can masses. And the philosophy of the left is collective, where as the philosophy associated with the right is supposed to be of individuals.

 

[Calabrio]

That is too funny!

Elaborate on that point.
What's funny about that?

Why does being religious mean that you think the federal government should impose behavior?

I'm not asking if there are evangelicals who have sought to do this, because that certainly exists. This is no different than atheists and secular types who seek to use the power of the federal government to impose their choices on people.

The use of the government power isn't a religious distinction, but a philosophical distinction associated with what a person thinks the role of government should be. There are both religious and secular people who have sought to centralize power.

There are religious and secular libertarians. There are religious and secular collectivists.

So your template that defines all religious people as seeking to take power to modify your behavior is simply inaccurate. If anything, it demonstrates a kind of projection, the person making that charge often thinks that the federal government should impose THEIR view of the world instead and assumes the religious person would do the same if given the power to do so. That's not the case.

What's important isn't whether the person is religious, but how they view the role of government and the constitution.

 

[ford nut]

Hardly. At least she never publicly told a cripple in a wheelchair to stand up.

She has been known for hiding in the bushes spying on a pro-gay-rights rally.
Her step-sister eats at the " Y " ya know.

She also prayed over Scott Dibble desk,a gay Democratic state senator.
Because hes gay.....It’s part of Satan ya know.

I know well of Michele Bachmann.

If that is the best the "GOP" has, be ready for four more years of Obama.

 

[04SCTLS]

Elaborate on that point.
What's funny about that?

Why does being religious mean that you think the federal government should impose behavior?

I'm not asking if there are evangelicals who have sought to do this, because that certainly exists. This is no different than atheists and secular types who seek to use the power of the federal government to impose their choices on people.

The use of the government power isn't a religious distinction, but a philosophical distinction associated with what a person thinks the role of government should be. There are both religious and secular people who have sought to centralize power.

There are religious and secular libertarians. There are religious and secular collectivists.

So your template that defines all religious people as seeking to take power to modify your behavior is simply inaccurate. If anything, it demonstrates a kind of projection, the person making that charge often thinks that the federal government should impose THEIR view of the world instead and assumes the religious person would do the same if given the power to do so. That's not the case.

What's important isn't whether the person is religious, but how they view the role of government and the constitution.

To religous people their loyalty is to God first and religion is above the civil service.

 

[04SCTLS]

10 Of The Craziest Things Michele Bachmann Has Ever Said


http://www.alternet.org/newsandview...aziest_things_michele_bachmann_has_ever_said/

This week, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) announced she had filed the papers to run for President. It’s not a frivolous pursuit: She is extremely well liked by the Republican base and is an unusually effective fundraiser, taking in more dollars in the last election cycle she than any of her Congressional colleagues.
Still, Bachmann’s candidacy is not without potential landmines. Over the last decade, she has taken positions that are dangerous, stemming from her radical ideology. To Bachmann’s credit, she is aware of this, lamenting to Glenn Beck, “I have experienced that throughout my political career, being labeled a kook.”
ThinkProgress has assembled 10 of the nuttiest things Bachmann has ever said:

(1) BACHMANN WARNED ‘THE LION KING’ WAS GAY PROPAGANDA: At the November 2004 EdWatch National Education Conference, Bachmann said the “normalization” of homosexuality would lead to “desensitization”: “Very effective way to do this with a bunch of second graders, is take a picture of ‘The Lion King’ for instance, and a teacher might say, ‘Do you know that the music for this movie was written by a gay man?’ The message is: I’m better at what I do, because I’m gay.”
(2) BACHMANN CLAIMED ABOLISHING THE MINIMUM WAGE WOULD CREATE JOBS: While testifying in front of the Minnesota Senate in 2005, Bachmann said, “Literally, if we took away the minimum wage — if conceivably it was gone — we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level.” This isn’t remotely true. Even simply reducing the minimum wage would, as Paul Krugman noted, “ at best do nothing for employment; more likely it would actually be contractionary.”
(3) BACHMANN CLAIMED THAT SCIENTISTS ARE SUPPORTERS OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN: During a 2006 debate, Bachmann said,“There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design.” This was, and is, not true.
(4) BACHMANN CLAIMED TERRI SCHIAVO WAS ‘HEALTHY’: Not long after Terri Schiavo died, Bachmann said she would have voted for the Palm Sunday Compromise because Schiavo “was healthy. She had brain damage — there was brain damage, there was no question. But from a health point of view, she was not terminally ill.” An autopsy found that Schiavo had suffered irreversible brain damage and her brain, said the medical examiner, was “profoundly atrophied.”
(5) BACHMANN LIKENED VISITING IRAQ TO VISITING MALL OF AMERICA: In 2007, Bachmann returned from a junket to Iraq and told her colleagues, “[T]here’s a commonality with the Mall of America, in that it’s on that proportion. There’s marble everywhere. The other thing I remarked about was there is water everywhere.” As ThinkProgress documented at the time, the comparison was preposterous.
(6) BACHMANN CLAIMED THAT CARBON DIOXIDE IS ‘HARMLESS’: In 2008, a Stanford scientist revealed “direct links” between increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and “increases in human mortality” — globally, he found that as many as “20,000 air-pollution-related deaths per year per degree Celsius may be due to this greenhouse gas.” The next year, Bachmann, who is not a scientist, said that “carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.”
(7) BACHMANN CALLED FOR A CONGRESSIONAL WITCH HUNT: Pivoting off the news of Barack Obama’s alleged relationship to former Weather Underground member William Ayers, and his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bachmann accused the candidate of having “anti-American views.” She then suggested that Congressional liberals — including Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid — ought to be subject to “an exposé” by the media because of their views. “I think people would love to see like that,” she told a stunned Chris Matthews.
(8) BACHMANN SUGGESTED GAY SINGER SHOULD REPENT AFTER GETTING CANCER:Bachmann saw Melissa Etheridge’s cancer as a teachable moment: “Unfortunately she is now suffering from breast cancer, so keep her in your prayers,” she said in November 2004. “This may be an opportunity for her now to be open to some spiritual things, now that she is suffering with that physical disease. She is a lesbian.”
(9) BACHMANN BOASTED ABOUT BREAKING THE LAW: In advance of the 2010 national Census, Bachmann told The Washington Times that she would break the law by not completing the forms. “I know for my family, the only question we will be answering is how many people are in our home,” she said. “We won’t be answering any information beyond that, because the Constitution doesn’t require any information beyond that.”
(10) BACHMANN CLAIMED THAT GLENN BECK COULD SOLVE THE DEBT CRISIS: During a February trip to South Carolina, Bachmann told a South Carolina audience, “I think if we give Glenn Beck the numbers, he can solve this [the national debt].”

​

 

[Aquabrit]

If that is the best the "GOP" has, be ready for four more years of Obama.

With the exception of Cain, I don't like any of the current GOP crop. However, I'd vote for ANYBODY over Obama.

 

[fossten]

She also prayed over Scott Dibble desk,a gay Democratic state senator.
Because hes gay.....It’s part of Satan ya know.

Gosh, praying for somebody.

She's a WITCH! BURN HER!

 

[fossten]

10 Of The Craziest Things Michele Bachmann Has Ever Said

Posting a bunch of crap distorted by ThinkProgress isn't adding to your credibility. Never mind that all the 'debunking' in your post comes from editorial comments made by lefty hacks (like Krugman). You clearly don't think for yourself.

You're a one trick pony. Do you have any other thoughts besides how horrible those meanie Christianists are?

Edit:

Never mind. Your only goal is to get people stirred up, not to have a meaningful discussion.

I won't be satisfying your silly desire for attention again.

 

[Calabrio]

To religous people their loyalty is to God first and religion is above the civil service.

And, for the sake of discussion, let's just accept your simplistic deceleration as true. How are you applying this to current events?

If a person feels they have a relationship with God, why does that then necessarily mean that they should use the power of the federal government to impose their religion and behavior upon everyone else? This theory of yours simply isn't consistent with Judeo-Christian principles and the concepts of free-will.

As I said before, there are religious people who do think such use of government is appropriate, but those people are no different than secular individuals who seek to use the government to impose their will.

That is a conflict over the role of government NOT one of religion.

 

[04SCTLS]

And, for the sake of discussion, let's just accept your simplistic deceleration as true. How are you applying this to current events?

If a person feels they have a relationship with God, why does that then necessarily mean that they should use the power of the federal government to impose their religion and behavior upon everyone else? This theory of yours simply isn't consistent with Judeo-Christian principles and the concepts of free-will.

As I said before, there are religious people who do think such use of government is appropriate, but those people are no different than secular individuals who seek to use the government to impose their will.

That is a conflict over the role of government NOT one of religion.

So to you secularism is a religion and that makes religous people running government ok because they're just a different creed.

 

[04SCTLS]

Posting a bunch of crap distorted by ThinkProgress isn't adding to your credibility. Never mind that all the 'debunking' in your post comes from editorial comments made by lefty hacks (like Krugman). You clearly don't think for yourself.

You're a one trick pony. Do you have any other thoughts besides how horrible those meanie Christianists are?

Edit:

Never mind. Your only goal is to get people stirred up, not to have a meaningful discussion.

I won't be satisfying your silly desire for attention again.

I didn't say they are horrible people, just deluded and divissive and IMO not in the best interests of the country to have them in charge.

Even the intellectual evangelical Huckabee decided to bow out in the face of such a circus of demagaugery.

 

[ford nut]

The only GOP candidate I like at the moment is Herman Cain. What's your take on him?

Not up to speed with Herman Cain.
I do like Tim Pawlenty.

 

[ford nut]

Elaborate on that point.
What's funny about that?

Why does being religious mean that you think the federal government should impose behavior?

She is going to try to advance "her" social issues by any means she can.

 

[04SCTLS]

Never mind. Your only goal is to get people stirred up, not to have a meaningful discussion.

We all have that balance sheet of plusses and minuses the sum of which determines how much of a contradiction we are personally.
Our political leaders and those who aspire to be are no different.

Obviously you place a great value on her plus side that which I consider to be in equal proportion on her minus side.
This allows you to overlook what cal even admitted was less than smart behavior and rally to her defence because she's "nasha"(masculine nash- a term that means she's one of us) when she gets attacked by the media.
At least she seems to try to roll with the media punches instead of taking unbrage like Palin does.
She mostly replies to pointed questions with smooth change the subject talk the future non sequeters that usually don't get challenged much and then moves on.
But like that comedian Obama impersonator that the Republicans hired said just before he got yanked off the floor when his act started criticizing Bachmann(such thin skin) "Now Michele Bachmann, what can I say about her that she hasn't said about herself"

 

[Calabrio]

So to you secularism is a religion and that makes religous people running government ok because they're just a different creed.

I neither stated nor did I imply any of those things in my post.

I said religion was NOT the distinguishing characteristic, what was important was the philosophy of government. I supported this with the observation that there are religious and secular collectivist supporting strong centralized government as well as religious and secular libertarians. Secular collectivism is no better or worse than the same thing done under the guise or authority of religion, they are essentially the same.