GOP Candidates Back Off From Signing Pledge that Praises Slavery

[fossten]

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.

Doesn't Obama claim to be a Christian?

Did you vote for him, and would you do so again?

 

[04SCTLS]

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.

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.

Well that's a lot of dancing clarification but based on this sentence I presumed you were making an equating argument saying that the religous people were no different from the secularists
because the secularists have beliefs they base their facts on just like the religous people.
I think this is a false comparison.
Religion is based on faith and the fear of death.
Secularism is more pragmatically grounded in observation of life here on Earth now.

 

[04SCTLS]

Doesn't Obama claim to be a Christian?

Did you vote for him, and would you do so again?

He says he's a Christian but he doesn't say he's an evangelical nor does he bring up his religion more than he has to as part of being POTUS.
He's more concerned with what's here down on Earth and dealing with that.

Obama carried New York 63/37 and I couldn't bring myself to vote for Palin in some kind of futile wasted jesture.

Then after the election as a demonstration and confirmation of her witless cluelessness she infamously chose to pardon a turkey at a turkey slaughterhouse where turkeys were being cheerfully killed before our eyes.
It was unintentionally funnier than a Monty Python skit or anything SNL could come up with.

It remains to be seen who will get my vote in 2012.

 

[04SCTLS]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/gary-johnson-marriage-vow_n_894929.html


That "Family Leader" pledge may have won the enthusiastic endorsement of Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, but former New Mexico Governor and long-shot presidential hopeful Gary Johnson is having an equally enthusiastic reaction in the opposite direction. On the Johnson campaign's "Truth For Change" blog, Johnson calls the pledge "offensive and unrepublican," an "attempt to prevent and eliminate personal freedom," and finally, the "type of rhetoric" that "gives Republicans a bad name":

Government should not be involved in the bedrooms of consenting adults. I have always been a strong advocate of liberty and freedom from unnecessary government intervention into our lives. The freedoms that our forefathers fought for in this country are sacred and must be preserved. The Republican Party cannot be sidetracked into discussing these morally judgmental issues — such a discussion is simply wrongheaded. We need to maintain our position as the party of efficient government management and the watchdogs of the “public’s pocket book.”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."
​

Johnson goes even further, making a web video with a piano, gently weeping about how "un-American" the pledge is:

YouTube - ‪Gary Johnson 2012: "Tolerance is American"‬‏

 

[foxpaws]

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.

What would you say that signing this piece of garbage has to say about the common sense - or at least reading comprehension of Bachmann? Anyone with a modicum of common sense would have stated that they don't sign 'vows' for any special interest group. However, grasping for votes in any way possible, she signed this, and now is stating 'I didn't catch the 'slavery' part when I signed it...'

Pandering is putting it nicely, licking Bob Vander Plaats' (the head of The Family Leader - originator of this 'pledge') goose stepping boots is more like it...

 

[shagdrum]

What's wrong with pointing out clear, unquestionable truth?

Illegitimacy rates in the black community were roughly on par with the white community from the turn of the century until the 1960's (the "legacy of slavery is, by and large, a myth). After the 1960's illegitimacy rates skyrocketed to the roughly 70-80% they have stayed every since.

Not to mince words but, LBJ's war on poverty destroyed the black family unit.

What is "dumb" about it? The fact that it challenges fragile politically correct sensibilities?

Anything that challenges the cancer of political correctness can't be all bad...

 

[shagdrum]

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

That doesn't mean that people of faith will look to impose their morals on society. There is quite a lot you are assuming there without any logical proof; almost like a dogma.

One of the most famous Christian thinkers of the 20th Century said:

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
-C.S. Lewis​

As to the "10 dumbest things Bachmann said", it is easy to cherry gaffes public figures have said and done to make them look like a fool.

Since you love "appeal to authority" arguments so much, have you look at her academic credentials? If we go with the same logic that concluded that Obama is a "genius" we would have to conclude that compared to Bachmann, all of us on this forum are troglodytes by comparison...

 

[foxpaws]

What's wrong with pointing out clear, unquestionable truth?

Illegitimacy rates in the black community were roughly on par with the white community from the turn of the century until the 1960's after that decade they skyrocketed to the roughly 70-80% they have stayed every since.

Not to mince words but, the war on poverty destroyed the black family unit.

What is dumb about it? The fact that it challenges fragile politically correct sensibilities?

Anything that challenges the cancer of political correctness can't be all bad...

So, shag - you agree that it would be better for a black child to be a slave than to be raised single parent - right?

Isn't that what this statement is implying...

"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."

So - it certainly gives an idea that slavery was bad - but at least black children had 2 parents. Today, after the election of Obama - it has to be worse for those little black children - being raised by just a single mom or dad.

And you do realize that many slave owners didn't allow their slaves to be married - making it easier to break up 'family units' and sell the children of slaves to other owners. The whole idea that there were stable black family units in the south during the time of American slavery is ridiculous. Most black children during the time of slavery were illegitimate by today's standard, and were often split from their 'family' before they hit their teens.

But, you know - it really was a better time... for those little black slave children.

 

[shagdrum]

So, shag - you agree that it would be better for a black child to be a slave than to be raised single parent - right?

Are you calling me a racist, or are you just implying it?

There is power in the accusation of racism against conservatives, one that liberals understand well. In an April 2008 post on Journolist, a private online community for liberal journalists, academics and activists, one writer proposed a way to distract conservatives from the campaign controversy surrounding the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's pastor. "If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us," Spencer Ackerman wrote. "Instead, take one of them -- Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares -- and call them racists." ​

 

[foxpaws]

Are you calling me a racist, or are you justimplying it?

Nope shag - as you know, nothing of the sort -

Just answer a simple question with a simple answer -

Do you agree that it would be better for a black child to be a slave than to be raised by a single parent?

Yes or no...

Your reply early appeared to be standing up for the statement in the 'pledge'... I was just stating it in very plain english -

Yes or no shag...

 

[shagdrum]

Just answer a simple question with a simple answer -

Your "simple question" is a loaded question with false premises and implications that do not, in any way, logically follow from what I said.

"The real action is in the enemy's reaction. The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength. Tactics, like life, require that you move with the action."
-Saul Alinsky​

I think you are trying to hard, your tactics are becoming transparent.

 

[foxpaws]

So shag - why can't you answer?

It has nothing to do with the loaded question - because the question isn't loaded - either you agree with the statement that the Family Leader's pledge contained - that having a 2 parent family and being a slave is better than being free, but only having one parent - is something you agree with - or something you disagree with.

I can answer it - it is better for the child to be free, even if it is a one parent household. The statement, and implication, by The Family Leader is ludicrous.

So - how about you shag - quid pro quo?

 

[shagdrum]

So shag - why can't you answer?

It has nothing to do with the loaded question - because the question isn't loaded - either you agree with the statement that the Family Leader's pledge contained - that having a 2 parent family and being a slave is better than being free, but only having one parent - is something you agree with - or something you disagree with.

I can answer it - it is better for the child to be free, even if it is a one parent household. The statement, and implication, by The Family Leader is ludicrous.

So - how about you shag - quid pro quo?

So you are doubling down with a gross distortion of the statement in the pledge now, I see.

• Alinsky Rule #8: Keep the pressure on
• Alinsky Rule #13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize, and polarize it.

Do you have anything to say about the tragic destruction of the black family unit by LBJ's War On Poverty (and similar policies), or is that forbidden to discuss? That was the greater point that the pledge was akwardly pointing to. Can you confront that fact or only distract from it?

 

[shagdrum]

I assume Walter E. Williams is racist in your view as well...

"The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery could not have done, the harshest Jim Crow laws and racism could not have done; namely, break up the black family...Today, just over 30% of black kids live in two parent families. Historically, from about the 1870's on up to around 1940's, depending on the city, 75-90% of black kids lived in two parent families."
-Walter E. Williams

YouTube - ‪The State Against Blacks PART 1‬‏

 

[shagdrum]

What about Thomas Sowell?

By cheering on counterproductive attitudes, making excuses for self-defeating behavior, and promoting the belief that 'racism' accounts for most of blacks' problems, white intellectuals serve their own psychic, ideological, and political interests. They are the kinds of friends who can do more harm than enemies.​

 

[shagdrum]

Whats next? Prohibition of alcohol?

IIRC, that was actually a Progressive agenda.

 

[shagdrum]

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.

I will say that the wisest people I have known are also the most devout Christians. Also, the most foolish people I have personally known are devout Atheists (some even well credentialed). I do not view this as a coincidence.

 

[fossten]

So, shag - you agree that it would be better for a black child to be a slave than to be raised single parent - right?

Isn't that what this statement is implying...

"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."

So - it certainly gives an idea that slavery was bad - but at least black children had 2 parents. Today, after the election of Obama - it has to be worse for those little black children - being raised by just a single mom or dad.

And you do realize that many slave owners didn't allow their slaves to be married - making it easier to break up 'family units' and sell the children of slaves to other owners. The whole idea that there were stable black family units in the south during the time of American slavery is ridiculous. Most black children during the time of slavery were illegitimate by today's standard, and were often split from their 'family' before they hit their teens.

But, you know - it really was a better time... for those little black slave children.

Sure can dish it out, can't ya...

But when it comes time for you to take it...

You run off whining.

Originally Posted by shagdrum

You seem extremely interested in branding the Framers and the Constitution as "racist". Interesting that the real issue of this thread, nullification, is simply given a throw away argument...

This stops here shag- you can play your name calling games with someone else - but it doesn't work with me.

have fun with the rest of the argument...

 

[fossten]

He says he's a Christian but he doesn't say he's an evangelical nor does he bring up his religion more than he has to as part of being POTUS.

Show me the difference between a Christian and an evangelical, and show me where Bachmann brings up her religion as part of being POTUS.

 

[04SCTLS]

I will say that the wisest people I have known are also the most devout Christians. Also, the most foolish people I have personally known are devout Atheists (some even well credentialed). I do not view this as a coincidence.

Well I don't think I'd put Palin and Bachmann in your wisest people's list
Huckabee maybe.
Due to loyalty to conservatism you are loathe to criticise any of the religous candidates in any way as not having the right stuff beyond their faith.(nash!)

 

[04SCTLS]

Show me the difference between a Christian and an evangelical, and show me where Bachmann brings up her religion as part of being POTUS.

Evangelicals believe in a strict interpretation of the bible including the earth being only 6-10,000 years old despite the speed of light paradox and the fossil record which we discussed in a previous thread.

She has said God made all the important decisions for her like becoming a tax attorney and now running for POTUS.

She's pandering to her base to elect her because she's a Christian and not because of her qualifications or political experience or achievements which Pawlenty called nonexhistent.

YouTube - ‪Bachmann: "God called me to run for Congress".‬‏

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/08/michele-bachmann-congressional-prayer-caucus_n_793147.html

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and her colleagues on the Congressional Prayer Caucus penned a letter to President Obama Monday, attacking him for his alleged failure to the use the word "God" and "Creator" more in his public speeches, especially abroad.
The complaint came in the context of an address given by Obama on November 10th at the University of Indonesia in Jakarta, in which he remarked that the American "motto is E pluribus unum -- out of many, one."
The Congressional Prayer Caucus finds a factual inaccuracy with this statement, and believes that it could be a sign of a more telling problem.
"E pluribus unum is not our national motto. In 1956, Congress passed and President Eisenhower approved the law establishing 'In God We Trust' as the official national motto of the United States," the letter reads. "You mentioned being unified under one flag. The Pledge of Allegiance to our flag says that we are 'one nation under God.'"
In neglecting to use the word "God," they say Obama is "casting aside an integral part of American society."
It's worth mentioning that the Caucus is legally correct in their contention about the national motto, though E pluribus unum had stood as the nation's de facto motto for nearly two centuries before the law officially selecting "In God We Trust" as the nation's motto was passed by Congress. It's also still printed on coins.
The charges of the Congressional Prayer Caucus reach far beyond this simple technicality, however. In their letter, the members accuse Obama of failing to mention that the source of "inalienable rights" given in the Declaration of Independence is a "Creator." "Omitting the word 'Creator' once was a mistake; but twice establishes a pattern," they claim.

_______________________________________________________________

This is her religous activism coming to the forefront and shows the importance to her of such divisive trivialities when there's real problems to be worked on.

 

[foxpaws]

Sure can dish it out, can't ya...

But when it comes time for you to take it...

You run off whining.

You are referring to a thread where I stated that some of the founding fathers were slave owners. Shag took that to mean that I was labeling them racists - I over and over again stated it wasn't about racism - but that it was a fact - some founding fathers owned slaves - it was a reflection of the times,

I can only bang my head against the wall of shag's 'racism labeling' misdirection so many times... If he wants to play the school yard game of 'say something bad and then stick your fingers in your ears and go lalalalalalala whenever anyone else says something' that is fine - I get tired of it, and I opt'd out.

 

[Calabrio]

The original statement regarding slavery that was in the preamble to the pledge (and has since been removed) addressed something that contained a truth, but it addressed it a format that was woefully insufficient to address the issue. Noting that this was a political campaign document, the idea of juxtaposing slavery and social welfare with so little exposition was ignorant. Again, this demonstrates the problem with all of these pandering pledges, and why politicians should just stop signing them, particularly if they are that long.

The point it was trying to make about how social welfare has destroyed the family is valid and has been beautifully articulated by Thomas Sowell on many, many occasions, and it applies to both black and white communities that have become dependent on the government. Ever see the DANCING OUTLAW?

But it's interesting how you've decided to frame Vander Plaats as "Goose steeping" in one post and then you deliberately misrepresent the intention of the statement as though it's supporting slavery and tried to attribute such sentiment to Shagdrum. Is that necessary?

First, why did you imply that bob Vander Plaats was a Nazi?
Does he support national socialism? Does he embrace central planning? Eugenics? Any of those things? We've been through this before, but your philosophy of government is more more closely aligned to German national socialism than someone like Vander Plaats.

And, while it was not framed properly, it's pretty obvious what the slavery comment in the preamble was trying to communicate and Shagdrum was absolutely crystal clear in his response, why is it necessary to try to reframe the debate and try to make Shagdrum defend himself from the outrageous, reprehensible false charge that he's "pro-slavery?"


The Dancing Outlaw

 

[foxpaws]

The original statement regarding slavery that was in the preamble to the pledge (and has since been removed) addressed something that contained a truth, but it addressed it a format that was woefully insufficient to address the issue. Noting that this was a political campaign document, the idea of juxtaposing slavery and social welfare with so little exposition was ignorant. Again, this demonstrates the problem with all of these pandering pledges, and why politicians should just stop signing them, particularly if they are that long.

The point it was trying to make about how social welfare has destroyed the family is valid and has been beautifully articulated by Thomas Sowell on many, many occasions, and it applies to both black and white communities that have become dependent on the government. Ever see the DANCING OUTLAW?

I wasn't stating that shag was incorrect with his presentation regarding the current state of black families and black communities. But, by not stating the obvious 'that juxtaposing slavery and this issue is stupid' and just moving on to the second part of the issue - creates a void. If shag doesn't get the obvious out of the way - then it colors the rest of his argument.

Shag - you need to state that the original The Family Leader statement erred with regards to the implied tie-in of slavery and social welfare, but that there is merit regarding the state of black families and communities in America today. Unless, of course, you agree that the implication that blacks were better off under slavery then they are now. Because, as it stands - it looks like you are agreeing with that statement - and are placing the statements you have quoted into the argument that you are supporting that supposition. You haven't removed the 'bad' part before going on to support the 'good' part.

But it's interesting how you've decided to frame Vander Plaats as "Goose steeping" in one post and then you deliberately misrepresent the intention of the statement as though it's supporting slavery and tried to attribute such sentiment to Shagdrum. Is that necessary?

First, why did you imply that bob Vander Plaats was a Nazi?
Does he support national socialism? Does he embrace central planning? Eugenics? Any of those things? We've been through this before, but your philosophy of government is more more closely aligned to German national socialism than someone like Vander Plaats.

I equated Vander Plaats to nazis because of the nature of his 'forcing' candidates to sign some sort of pledge to garner votes among his followers - that sort of manipulation is worthy of the tie-in to national socialism. It is a statement regarding the method of his madness...

And, while it was not framed properly, it's pretty obvious what the slavery comment in the preamble was trying to communicate and Shagdrum was absolutely crystal clear in his response, why is it necessary to try to reframe the debate and try to make Shagdrum defend himself from the outrageous, reprehensible false charge that he's "pro-slavery?"

Because, once again, if you don't remove yourself initially from the 'outrageous' part of the statement, yet go on to defend another 'defensible' part of the statement - it appears you have no problem with the entirety of the statement.

I was pushing the yes/no question so shag could see that he needed to remove part of the argument up front - to gain credibility in discussing the remaining part.

 

[ford nut]

She has said God made all the important decisions for her like becoming a tax attorney and now running for POTUS.

She's pandering to her base to elect her because she's a Christian and not because of her qualifications or political experience or achievements which Pawlenty called nonexhistent.

It is insane, don't forget God gave her a vision on who she should marry!
I think she has read too many romance novels.

I was pushing the yes/no question so shag could see that he needed to remove part of the argument up front - to gain credibility in discussing the remaining part.

Complete waste of time.
He will not answer it.