Bachmann: Slavery's Pro-Family, Make All Porn Illegal

[Visionoyahweh]

If I wanted to give the fundies their dream candidate AND discredit female politicians all in one fell swoop I'd run someone like Michelle Bachmann.

Link:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/07/07/263476/breaking-bachmann-pledges-to-ban-pornography/

The pledge she signed is a really creepy fundie manifesto:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/The-Family-Leader-Presidential-Pledge.pdf

[anniebgood]

I can hear all those little feet getting ready to trample the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, which Ms Bachmann as an IRS employee pledged to defend and protect when she took her oath. Funny how little things like that get forgotten.

Useless Bitch.

[Witsec2]

Bachmann stands no chance of winning any kind of Republican majority. Santorum is more likely to win the candidacy, and that's not saying much (meaning... he's SOL just like Bachmann).

Romney is the obvious front-runner; Neo-cons and lazy Republicans love him. The dark horse is Ron Paul.

[JenniferJuniper]

Speaking of the Bachmanns, if one has so much as a molecule of functioning gaydar this compare and contrast should set it a'twitterin'.

Mr. "God hates fags" Michelle Bachmann vs. the fabulous Corky St. Clair:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/07/separated-at-birth.html

[demgirl]

Oy. Ron Paul. In some ways he's as bad as Bachmann. He's on record as saying that there is a War on Christmas (he's another who is in total denial about the FOunding Father's deism), he's anti-"anchor babies", anti-hate crime legislation, wants to abolish all income tax (how will we run the country? Who knows? Maybe we can be the new Monaco! Wait, the only have how many citizens? 7,000? Never mind.), voted to maintain free trade with the Sudan while the government there was systematically committing acts of genocide, believes that the government shouldn't restrict prayer in schools, wants to eliminate the Department of Energy and the Department of Education, he's pro-life and believes the Supreme Court has no authority to supercede state wishes on issues like abortion and birth control and homosexuality (Whee! Sodomy can be illegal again and Texas can start rounding up those damn gays and throwing them in jail where they belong! No, seriously. He's a vocal critic of the decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which basically ordered the government out of people's bedrooms, yet he's totally libertarian, ya'll!), he supported the Defense of Marriage Act, he's wildly pro-gun (he doesn't even support bans on things like automatic assault weapons or bans on concealed weapons), he's apparently opposed to the First Amendment as he believes states should have the right to criminalize defacing the flag, he believes federal courts like the Supreme Court shouldn't be able to restrict state's establishment of religion, he wants to get rid of FEMA, he wants to end the federal mandate that emergency rooms must give illegal aliens emergency care ("Eh.. no papers. Let him die."), he says climate change is not a "major problem threatening civilization", he's opposed to all limits on campaign finances, whether from individuals or corporations, and OH WAIT, let's not forget this is the man who opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

To me it's like everyone is so busy pointing out the batshit crazy that is Michele Bachmann, they forget about the batshit crazy that is Ron Paul. If either of them end up in the White House, America should just put up a "Closed for Business" sign.

[JesusFightClub]

he's apparently opposed to the First Amendment as he believes states should have the right to criminalize defacing the flag,

All of the stuff you stated about Ron Paul sounded fucking creepy as shit. Some of the issues don't arise where I'm from. But all of it is weird and wrong IMO.

Not an American so maybe I shouldn't address the politics too much, but it is very interesting about defacing the flag. I believe when the flag takes on that level of symbolism it becomes a marker for a dangerous way of life. Having been present at flag burnings for political reasons, it means two things. Sometimes "I think the constituent parts of our nation should separate" and sometimes "I don't have any respect for this flag, supposed to bring us together, when there is such injustice." Those are both completely valid and involve free speech.

Flag burning is supposed to evoke strong reactions. Why criminalise a form of speech guaranteed to provoke thought from the audience? It suggests wanting a level of control that is unnerving IMO.

[Avalondaughter]

LIbertarians love Ron Paul and I don't get it. I think a lot of people who call themselves Libertarians simply don't want to the label associated with "Republican" or "Conservative" because they feel it makes them sounds cooler ("I'm above partisan politics - I'm a libertarian") or because they cling tightly to a single issue that they feel the government shouldn't be involved in. As I like to say, "Republicans who want to do drugs and shoot guns." The only thing that really separates Ron Paul from other Republicans is just a handful of issues.

[sparrow]

If the fundies' plan is to take dominion over America by outbreeding the rest of us, how worried do you think we should be? Some friends of mine still feel like it's a far-fetched thing, but I'm not so sure. I have a bad feeling that there will be some pretty powerful collisions of belief during our lifetime. Much more so than exists now.

Think about it. As the fundies' breed more and more generations educated around the dining room table -- entire families committed to taking over their parents' war with added zeal, while the rest of us grow more aware of the heaving strain on the planet, and depend on and value rational, educated, socially and environmentally-conscious thought in order to meet the challenges... it just seems like a recipe for disaster. I mean, we can't even *talk* to most of them...

[debrand]

If the fundies' plan is to take dominion over America by outbreeding the rest of us, how worried do you think we should be? Some friends of mine still feel like it's a far-fetched thing, but I'm not so sure. I have a bad feeling that there will be some pretty powerful collisions of belief during our lifetime. Much more so than exists now.

Think about it. As the fundies' breed more and more generations educated around the dining room table -- entire families committed to taking over their parents' war with added zeal, while the rest of us grow more aware of the heaving strain on the planet, and depend on and value rational, educated, socially and environmentally-conscious thought in order to meet the challenges... it just seems like a recipe for disaster. I mean, we can't even *talk* to most of them...

SOmetimes I worry about America fracturing. No, the fundie kids won't be able to compete in the job market but a mass of poor, uneducated young people who believe that they have been blessed by god doesn't sound good for our country.

[mirele]

he believes federal courts like the Supreme Court shouldn't be able to restrict state's establishment of religion

Another person who needs to spend a year or two in Provo, Utah. Now, before people jump on me here, let me explain: when you have an overwhelming religious presence in one place, it's going to influence everything, for good or for ill. Paul seems to assume that everyone is "his brand of Christian" and that if that pesky Supreme Court wasn't allowed to enforce the First Amendment, we'd all be Baptists. Uh no. That's why the "sentence" to Provo. He'd be in America, but in an environment where religion trumps everything else, yet it's not his religion. He'd be hating life.

That said, Paul wants to go back on the gold standard, which would pretty much be the death knell for the US economy, as lousy as it is right now.

ObMichele Bachmann: It turns out that her husband's counseling operation also tries to make the gays straight (aka "reparative therapy"):

(News story)

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/07/0 ... y-therapy/

and the original account:

http://www.truthwinsout.org/pressreleas ... /07/17519/ (I Received ‘Ex-Gay’ Therapy at Marcus Bachmann’s Clinic)

[Austin]

Oy. Ron Paul. In some ways he's as bad as Bachmann. He's on record as saying that there is a War on Christmas (he's another who is in total denial about the FOunding Father's deism), he's anti-"anchor babies", anti-hate crime legislation, wants to abolish all income tax (how will we run the country? Who knows? Maybe we can be the new Monaco! Wait, the only have how many citizens? 7,000? Never mind.), voted to maintain free trade with the Sudan while the government there was systematically committing acts of genocide, believes that the government shouldn't restrict prayer in schools, wants to eliminate the Department of Energy and the Department of Education, he's pro-life and believes the Supreme Court has no authority to supercede state wishes on issues like abortion and birth control and homosexuality (Whee! Sodomy can be illegal again and Texas can start rounding up those damn gays and throwing them in jail where they belong! No, seriously. He's a vocal critic of the decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which basically ordered the government out of people's bedrooms, yet he's totally libertarian, ya'll!), he supported the Defense of Marriage Act, he's wildly pro-gun (he doesn't even support bans on things like automatic assault weapons or bans on concealed weapons), he's apparently opposed to the First Amendment as he believes states should have the right to criminalize defacing the flag, he believes federal courts like the Supreme Court shouldn't be able to restrict state's establishment of religion, he wants to get rid of FEMA, he wants to end the federal mandate that emergency rooms must give illegal aliens emergency care ("Eh.. no papers. Let him die."), he says climate change is not a "major problem threatening civilization", he's opposed to all limits on campaign finances, whether from individuals or corporations, and OH WAIT, let's not forget this is the man who opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

To me it's like everyone is so busy pointing out the batshit crazy that is Michele Bachmann, they forget about the batshit crazy that is Ron Paul. If either of them end up in the White House, America should just put up a "Closed for Business" sign.

Ron Paul is one of the scariest people out there, along with his son. Yes, libertarians think it sounds great to just leave everything up to the states (we don't need no steenkin' feds!) but the federal government is the presence that preserves and to the extent possible, guarantees our liberty in many areas of the country. So liberty and freedom would all come down to where one lives.

If you lived in the northeast or on the west coast, you might be okay under a Paul presidency. People in the south and midwest, particularly women and minorities, would suffer. A woman might still be able to maintain choice in New York or California, but almost certainly would not in Arkansas or Ohio. The only thing keeping these tenuous rights in place presently is the federal courts. In many states, the citizenry would find it quite acceptable for business owners to post signs and refuse to serve certain groups (Jim Crow, anyone?) all in the name of the Pauls' warped view of what freedom really is.

[lilah]

Guys it's not just anti gay and anti porn, it's also racist manifesto

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.

There is many things wrong with this statement I don't know where to start. I wonder if Bachmann will deign to tell Obama he would have been better off being born into slavery.

As for Ron and Rand Paul I've never been able to get my head around the hypocrisy of stating the goverment should butt out of people's private lives unless they are gay. I know that some libertairans have no problem with gay rights but they never seen to get any political traction. I suppose that it's close to impossible to get Tea party/republican votes without pandering to homophobes and fundies.

[Witsec2]

From what I can see from these comments and public/media opinion at large, most people don't like (or are afraid) of Ron Paul because he's very much against Big Government.

I don't mean Big Government like Big Brother-- I simply mean a more involved, legalistic government where states are basically just geographical markers and government regulation is everywhere. There's nothing wrong with believing this, but if you do, I can easily see why Ron Paul would be abhorred or feared. He is completely against this system, which makes him a radical, and it makes me a radical for supporting him. Unfortunately, because of these radical beliefs, the government is afraid of us, and thus the media ostracizes us and the public is deaf to whatever value these beliefs might have.

As for the comments posted here, I only wish to argue against the belief that Ron Paul is an evil man. He's not. He doesn't hate gays and he doesn't believe his beliefs on abortion should be universal. He believes that citizens should be active in representing themselves and fighting for representation in government. Ron Paul isn't another Republican stooge; Republicans and Democrats both ABHOR Ron Paul, because he's against giving the government (and thus the political parties) the power they have.

Of course, like what everyone else says here, my argument is obviously biased. I urge everyone to do their own research and actually read something he's written-- anything other than the BS on the major news sites.

[countressrascal]

Waiting for them to find gay porn on Bachman's husband computer.

[JenniferJuniper]

Waiting for them to find gay porn on Bachman's husband computer.

I'm waiting for them to find a young man in his basement. Shackled and chained.

I swear the media is promoting Bachmann as a serious and viable contender simply so they'll have a chew toy to play with during the dead news cycle coming up in the dog days of August.

[daharyn]

I'm waiting for them to find a young man in his basement. Shackled and chained.

Well, he does have that pray-away-the-gay counseling practice, so I wouldn't be surprised to hear of either! :gay-rainbow:

[mirele]

As for Ron and Rand Paul I've never been able to get my head around the hypocrisy of stating the goverment should butt out of people's private lives unless they are gay. I know that some libertairans have no problem with gay rights but they never seen to get any political traction. I suppose that it's close to impossible to get Tea party/republican votes without pandering to homophobes and fundies.

Not just gays, these guys want to be all up in my vagina and uterus. No Thanks!

[demgirl]

Right. Ron Paul doesn't hate teh gayz but he wants to make it legal to arrest them for having consensual sex, if the state thinks that is the right thing to do. Our democracy was set up specifically so that branches like the Supreme Court could protect minority interests countrywide, even in the face of states that would deny those interests, crush their civil liberties and deny them full rights of citizenship. And Ron Paul wants to erase all of that. Sorry. You don't get a pass with me if you say, "Hey, I'm fine with gay people. It's just that I believe I should sit here and let them be arrested and denied basic human rights because states rights OMG!1!11".

Plus, under his system, your substantive rights as a human being are entirely contingent on what state you live in. So, while in New York, abortion may be legal, if you live in Pennsylvania, abortion may not only be illegal, it may also be illegal for you to cross state lines to get an abortion.

I have read what Ron Paul has to say. Everything I stated in my first post is based on speeches he gave or articles he wrote or positions he's taken or votes he made in Congress. I read it, I heard it, and I rejected it as lunacy. I mean, really. Really? Who is still freaking opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

[Childless]

Ron Paul is ridiculous. He shouldn't even be taken seriously. Anyone who thinks we should go back on the gold standard hasn't bothered to learn anything about economics.

If it's all about the states, then why bother being a nation? Just let each state be it's own country. We have to have a federal government with a good amount of power or we won't be a united nation. We'll look like the former Soviet Union after the fall of communism. And, as evidenced, a country like that will eventually dissolve into many much smaller independent nations.

[Witsec2]

Demgirl, you've pretty much just proven what I said: those who are against Ron Paul are afraid of him because he's anti-Big Government.

Most Democrats are anti-war and pro-civil liberties. Ron Paul is anti-war and pro-civil liberties. Our government right now, while there is a Democrat as president, is pro-war and anti-civil liberties. Right now, the President has the power to kill anyone he wants to at will if they are suspected to be a terrorist-- is that something you support? Especially considering a Republican might be in office in two years?

Ron Paul is against this kind of super-powerful government. He recognizes that the individual is forced to give up his rights in order to support the over-inflated, tyrannical government we have today. With small, state-based governments as the primary lawmakers for its citizens, each individual is more likely to be involved and represented than in a pool of 300 million other individuals.

Childless: "If it's all about the states, then why bother being a nation? Just let each state be it's own country. " What's the point of having one huge, over-inflated nation? The United States began as an alliance between the states-- the federal government acted as an agent of the states, not the other way around, as it is now.

"We'll look like the former Soviet Union after the fall of communism. And, as evidenced, a country like that will eventually dissolve into many much smaller independent nations." Don't you think the Soviet Union should've dissolved into many different nations? It was a corrupt, super-inflated government that took rights away from its citizens. Much like our own.

[Becca]

Demgirl, you've pretty much just proven what I said: those who are against Ron Paul are afraid of him because he's anti-Big Government.

Most Democrats are anti-war and pro-civil liberties. Ron Paul is anti-war and pro-civil liberties. Our government right now, while there is a Democrat as president, is pro-war and anti-civil liberties. Right now, the President has the power to kill anyone he wants to at will if they are suspected to be a terrorist-- is that something you support? Especially considering a Republican might be in office in two years?

Ron Paul is against this kind of super-powerful government. He recognizes that the individual is forced to give up his rights in order to support the over-inflated, tyrannical government we have today. With small, state-based governments as the primary lawmakers for its citizens, each individual is more likely to be involved and represented than in a pool of 300 million other individuals.

Childless: "If it's all about the states, then why bother being a nation? Just let each state be it's own country. " What's the point of having one huge, over-inflated nation? The United States began as an alliance between the states-- the federal government acted as an agent of the states, not the other way around, as it is now.

"We'll look like the former Soviet Union after the fall of communism. And, as evidenced, a country like that will eventually dissolve into many much smaller independent nations." Don't you think the Soviet Union should've dissolved into many different nations? It was a corrupt, super-inflated government that took rights away from its citizens. Much like our own.

I have read a lot of Ron Paul's books and speeches and totally agree that we have gone FAR from where our Founding Father's want us to be. The states USED to have much more power until a century ago...If you read the constitution, this is the way is was originally intended to be. I think it's hard to wrap our heads around these types of politics because it's actually constitutional, unlike things like income tax which is actually unconstitutional. We are totally on our way to dictatorship and tyranny and we're all just so eager to run down that road. We just vote for whoever the media tells us to and keep digging ourselves into a bigger hole.

[anniebgood]

I just found this on my Twitter feed:

Armistead Maupin :

I guess if I were a gay man desperate to remain celibate I'd marry Michele Bachmann too.

Armistead Maupin is a wonderful writer who's anthology " Tales of the City" was a well received PBS series in the 80's.

[Rosa]

Mmmkay, if Big Government would keep Ron Paul's hands off my privates, I'd be all for that.

Also the Paulites can't even run a parade. They had to ask the communists for help, here.

[gustava]

Some folks might want to do a brief review of the Articles of Confederation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

[Austin]

I have read a lot of Ron Paul's books and speeches and totally agree that we have gone FAR from where our Founding Father's want us to be. The states USED to have much more power until a century ago...If you read the constitution, this is the way is was originally intended to be. I think it's hard to wrap our heads around these types of politics because it's actually constitutional, unlike things like income tax which is actually unconstitutional. We are totally on our way to dictatorship and tyranny and we're all just so eager to run down that road. We just vote for whoever the media tells us to and keep digging ourselves into a bigger hole.

Yeah, a century ago, African Americans lived under vicious Jim Crow laws and women couldn't vote, let alone purchase birth control or have any sort of reproductive choice. So. . . uh, no thanks.

The Bill of Rights guarantees ALL Americans certain rights and freedoms. If left to their own devices, the states have demonstrated time and time again that they would not honor the Bill of Rights in terms of minorities. It would be fantastic if the states could be trusted to recognize and enforce those liberties, but history shows us that time and time again that that has not the case. Do you Paul supporters think that JFK sent the National Guard into Alabama for kicks?

Ron (and Rand Paul) supporters have drunk a very special sort of kool-aid in my opinion. I have HEARD with my own ears Paul declare his non-support of the Civil Rights Act. I have HEARD with my own ears his rabid views. I make political decisions based on what I read and hear directly from the candidates. It is condescending to suggest that anyone who isn't a Paul fan just can't make up their own minds.

And it has nothing to do with these men being evil, as individuals. I have no idea nor do I care. It's that they would be so bad for our country.

I realize it's in vogue to hate the government in some circles, but do Paul supporters really want to go backwards for a century or more?