Michelle Bachmann

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43733153/ns/politics/

Romney rejects gay marriage pledge


DES MOINES, Iowa — Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's campaign said Tuesday that he will not sign a conservative Iowa Christian group's far-reaching pledge opposing gay marriage, making him the first Republican presidential candidate to reject it.

Two of Romney's rivals for the Republican nomination, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, have signed the The Family Leader's 14-point pledge, which calls on the candidates to denounce same-sex marriage rights, pornography, same-sex military accommodations and forms of Islamic law.

I think this was a big mistake by Bachmann, but I guess she has to be consistent with her gay-bashing closet case husband. It's not nearly the wedge issue it once was and you kind of just look like an out-of-touch, crazy dickhead when you do what Bachmann/Santorum did. Romney did what was politically smart, it's not as if Mormons have been very gay-tolerant historically.

[dino]

Originally Posted by clyde

I may make Sara's Toga this year.




And ah don't like ya.

Big difference between not liking someone and insulting them for no reason. Mind your own business.

[Princess Doreen]

[dino]

Originally Posted by jms62

Dems got what they wanted in the White House and it isn't working. Repubs made the fuc<king mess yet insist that when they are in charge things will be better. Both Parties are RAPING you People but they have you where they want you fighting with each other...

Agreed. I'm a Republican but admit that Bush did a horrible job. O is even worse which is tough to do. Funny how libs refuse to admit what a horrible job he is doing. 2 years from now we'll have the worst president in my lifetime running against a bunch of bozo's. We all lose.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

I think this was a big mistake by Bachmann, but I guess she has to be consistent with her gay-bashing closet case husband. It's not nearly the wedge issue it once was and you kind of just look like an out-of-touch, crazy dickhead when you do what Bachmann/Santorum did. Romney did what was politically smart, it's not as if Mormons have been very gay-tolerant historically.

i think they offended several groups with that pledge. the far beyond the pale opening statement regarding black children, and trying to suggest they were 'better off' during slavery...that has got to be one of the single most ridiculous statementsever. but then to suggest a constitutional amendment for marriage-that document isn't supposed to be altered at every whim. the feds think that marriage should be handled on a state by state basis-there's something you don't see much anymore, states handling their own business.

i'm almost hoping palin enters the race, she and bachmann could split that vote, and leave the nomination to be won by someone with more sense.


i would love to be able to ask anyone signing that pledge how they feel that move squares with being the party of 'less government'. doesn't less govt mean staying out of peoples' personal lives?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i think they offended several groups with that pledge. the far beyond the pale opening statement regarding black children, and trying to suggest they were 'better off' during slavery...that has got to be one of the single most ridiculous statementsever. but then to suggest a constitutional amendment for marriage-that document isn't supposed to be altered at every whim. the feds think that marriage should be handled on a state by state basis-there's something you don't see much anymore, states handling their own business.

i'm almost hoping palin enters the race, she and bachmann could split that vote, and leave the nomination to be won by someone with more sense.


i would love to be able to ask anyone signing that pledge how they feel that move squares with being the party of 'less government'. doesn't less govt mean staying out of peoples' personal lives?

the feds need to get rid of DOMA. its not left up to the states when the states approve gay marriage, but those couples getting married are not offered the federal benefits. DOMA seems unconstitutional to me.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

the feds need to get rid of DOMA. its not left up to the states when the states approve gay marriage, but those couples getting married are not offered the federal benefits. DOMA seems unconstitutional to me.

and the truly amazing part is that clinton signed it into law. not a republican, a democrat. unbelievable. perhaps he thought the courts would sort that out. that's when you know pols are chicken-when they sign something to get some folks off their back, and let the court straighten it out.
just like 150 years ago, you have northern democrats and southern democrats. the southern dems are the ones who want to protect guns (good idea) but are strictly bible belt (a bad idea).
i thought we were not a theocracy??

i still want someone to give me a logical explanation of how granting rights to all takes something away from the some who already enjoy those rights? how does granting a right change anyone else's way of life? impinge on them in any way? make life more difficult for them?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i still want someone to give me a logical explanation of how granting rights to all takes something away from the some who already enjoy those rights? how does granting a right change anyone else's way of life? impinge on them in any way? make life more difficult for them?

There is none. And a vocal few with a questionable silent majority following are to blame. They're all dying off though and going to see their maker. He'll straighten them out if he's in. Nonetheless they'll be truly silent.

My neices' and nephews' generation will never stand for it. So it's just a matter of time before it's made right.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by dino

Big difference between not liking someone and insulting them for no reason. Mind your own business.

You insulted people for no reason first. Look at your posts. Not sure why an obviously joking comment about a circle jerk has you so mad, but whatever.

In case you haven't noticed, everything and I mean everything that goes on here is Clyde's business.

[Riot]

Here's something scary from those that want to control everyone else's lives:

"States more than double previous record for anti-abortion legislation in 2011"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...011?via=blog_1

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Here's something scary from those that want to control everyone else's lives:

"States more than double previous record for anti-abortion legislation in 2011"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...011?via=blog_1

Cutting public funding is far different than requiring counceling and or waiting periods or restricting private insurance providers.

A woman should have the absolute right to abort without any barriers. She does not have the right to expect anyone other than the father to pay.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Riot

Here's something scary from those that want to control everyone else's lives:

"States more than double previous record for anti-abortion legislation in 2011"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...011?via=blog_1

This will never end, while I'd rather see abortions become a thing of the past, forcing extremist views on the majority is not the answer. When both young men and women accept responsibility for their actions, the need for abortions will decrease but until that time, the religious right will continue their "holy war".

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Here's something scary from those that want to control everyone else's lives:

"States more than double previous record for anti-abortion legislation in 2011"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...011?via=blog_1

It wouldn't control people lives to end abortion. It would save lives. Abortion is among the most evil of acts in the world, particularly so since the government validates it with false legitimacy.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by joeydb

It wouldn't control people lives to end abortion. It would save lives. Abortion is among the most evil of acts in the world, particularly so since the government validates it with false legitimacy.

Here we go again. If a 13 year old girl gets raped, should she be allowed to get an abortion?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Here we go again. If a 13 year old girl gets raped, should she be allowed to get an abortion?

If she is one of the less than 1% of rape victims who gets pregnant, then yeah, provided that the rape has been documented as a crime by the authorities, not just alleged after the fact.

And I'd charge the apprehended rapist with a count of at least 2nd degree homicide - since the death came out of his violent act toward the female and her resulting pregnancy.

There is still a life being taken. The issue is who's responsible.

Now, you can clearly see that my attempt at a hypothetical solution to your hypothetical (but plausible) crime does not mean that we would extend permission to get an abortion to anyone who, after getting pregnant, just doesn't want to have a baby. 99% of all abortions would be eliminated.

[Antitrust32]

if abortions were ended the population would be even more out of control.

if you are going to limit abortion, than you will also need to limit how many children a woman can have. basically take away all rights to choose.

and how do you pay for all those unwanted children who will become wards of the state?

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by joeydb

If she is one of the less than 1% of rape victims who gets pregnant, then yeah, provided that the rape has been documented as a crime by the authorities, not just alleged after the fact.

And I'd charge the apprehended rapist with a count of at least 2nd degree homicide - since the death came out of his violent act toward the female and her resulting pregnancy.

There is still a life being taken. The issue is who's responsible.

Now, you can clearly see that my attempt at a hypothetical solution to your hypothetical (but plausible) crime does not mean that we would extend permission to get an abortion to anyone who, after getting pregnant, just doesn't want to have a baby. 99% of all abortions would be eliminated.

What about the cases where the 13 year old is raped by a family member? They don't report it because of fear, or embarrassment.

Obviously another hypothetical, but I'll never understand why men care so much about what women do with their bodies. Sure, when women use abortion as birth control it's a problem, but that's a very small % of the time. This is just more of the right wanting to control things.

We have enough kids running around with parents, who just aren't capable of, or just don't want to be parents.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

What about the cases where the 13 year old is raped by a family member? They don't report it because of fear, or embarrassment.

Obviously another hypothetical, but I'll never understand why men care so much about what women do with their bodies. Sure, when women use abortion as birth control it's a problem, but that's a very small % of the time. This is just more of the right wanting to control things.

We have enough kids running around with parents, who just aren't capable of, or just don't want to be parents.

In our hypothetical new rules, the crime would have to be reported. The family member would get locked up, same thing - charged with 2nd degree murder or maybe even 1st degree - with the basis being that the close and continuous contact as a family member was tantamount to premeditation.

And I personally don't view it as "the right wanting to control things." I'd be happy to see abortion go away as the issue would also go away. Yes, I am a political conservative but I'd rather discuss other topics along that line of thinking.

We would know what exactly the rules are - it would still be there for such extreme cases as these crimes we are talking about. But the days of the would-be mother, alone, making the decision to end a life that she did not create alone, would end.

When a life is taken by an arm of the government, whether through capital punishment or in an abortion clinic, there needs to be due process. Investigation, records and the like. It cannot be "hush hush" and then someone is dead.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

I think this was a big mistake by Bachmann, but I guess she has to be consistent with her gay-bashing closet case husband. It's not nearly the wedge issue it once was and you kind of just look like an out-of-touch, crazy dickhead when you do what Bachmann/Santorum did. Romney did what was politically smart, it's not as if Mormons have been very gay-tolerant historically.

Glad to see someone finally added this in here, thought I would have to. That guy is super gay, like Big Gay Al from South Park. He is "reconditioning" gays to get some alone time with them, on that I would wager.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

And I personally don't view it as "the right wanting to control things." I'd be happy to see abortion go away as the issue would also go away.

Or, "If everyone would have my beliefs, I wouldn't have to change laws to force you guys behave as I want you to!"

What bullshit. Get the hell out of other people's lives.