Michelle Bachmann signs pledge that alludes within it that perhaps black babies......

[Scarey]

were better off as slaves because they were more likely to grow up in two parent families.Okay, we all make mistakes.....we all misspeak.....we all sometimes say the wrong thing..at the wrong time.

HOWEVER, if said document i'm about to put my name to is only 4 pages long, two of those four pages being footnotes, and the offensive section is first in Bullet point of the preamble.I'd probably notice......at the very least i'd raise some questions with my staff.

I can only conclude.A).She never read it and signed her name blindly.B)She read it.Thought it made sense to her and signed it.Either way.WOW

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/poli...ol-over-slavery-reference-marriage-vow/39772/

P.S Rick Santorum noted on CNN he signed the document and had read it carefully.Again.WOW

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ge-that-links-slavery-to-black-family-values/

 

[fuji]

Bachmann is a complete idiot, and it astonishes me that anybody takes her seriously. That said, I do think that passage was simply poorly worded. When I read it I came away with a sense that it was amateurishly written, that perhaps its author hasn't actually graduated from highschool yet, but it did not seem to me that the author REALLY meant to imply that anyone was ever better off under slavery.

In short I'd file this one under "never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity."

 

[Scarey]

No, nor am I saying she believes that.I do question

A).Her staff's comprehension of what in most circles would be seen as a "surefire" landmine.

B).Her comprehension of what should be a landmine.She's aspiring to the highest office in the land where documents are much more complex ,with her decisions having more far reaching ramifications. A 4 page document is a 5 minute read carefully.

This was a "not ready for primetime" gaffe on her part and her campaign's.Having said that, I do believe that not everyone involved with this thought that it was a pooly worded statement at all.

 

[fuji]

Yeah, well... there is no doubt that she is not ready for prime time! I don't think she's even ready for a late night informercial slot.

 

[Hangman]

I think Bachman is a deep undercover Democrat plant. Its the only logical conclusion.

 

[Boss Nass]

Undeniable idiot.

 

[Aardvark154]

Oh for the love of God, you folks are getting all bent out of shape about this:

"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."

 

[danmand]

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.

perhaps we can get slavery back, counsel??

 

[Asterix]

Oh for the love of God, you folks are getting all bent out of shape about this:

I doubt even that. The few slaves who were allowed to marry with their masters consent, often changed their vows to "until death or seperation do us part". Of course the "marriage" had no legal binding, and families married or not were often split up or sold seperately to others as their owners saw fit.

 

[danmand]

I doubt even that. The few slaves who were allowed to marry with their masters consent, often changed their vows to "until death or seperation do us part". Of course the "marriage" had no legal binding, and families married or not were often split up or sold seperately to others as their owners saw fit.

Can't be true. In Bachman and Aardies mind these slaves were treated well by their white benefactors. They were wll looked after, actually it was a kind of early humanitarian intervention to save them from the deplorable conditions in Africa. They hardly had to work and lived in idyllic circumstances in the countryside in the south. They were much better off than after they became forced off the land by the looney liberal abolitionists.

 

[Boss Nass]

Can't be true. In Bachman and Aardies mind these slaves were treated well by their white benefactors. They were wll looked after, actually it was a kind of early humanitarian intervention to save them from the deplorable conditions in Africa. They hardly had to work and lived in idyllic cercumstances in the countryside in the south. They were much better off than after they became forced off the land by the looney liberal abolitionists.

Of course. They got free accommodations, free food, and guaranteed employment. All they had to do in return was work until they dropped, get whipped when they dropped, and get lynched if they looked at a white woman. Shit, you liberal elites just don't get it.

 

[Carling]

Can't be true. In Bachman and Aardies mind these slaves were treated well by their white benefactors. They were wll looked after, actually it was a kind of early humanitarian intervention to save them from the deplorable conditions in Africa. They hardly had to work and lived in idyllic cercumstances in the countryside in the south. They were much better off than after they became forced off the land by the looney liberal abolitionists.

cause being somebody's prpoerty is much better than being FREE....what are these GOP'ers on?

 

[Aardvark154]

The few slaves who were allowed to marry with their masters consent, often changed their vows to "until death or seperation do us part". Of course the "marriage" had no legal binding, and families married or not were often split up or sold seperately to others as their owners saw fit.

These are indeed valid points, however, they do not appear to be contradictory to the statement above.

Also note the presumably deliberate use of 1860.

 

[Aardvark154]

perhaps we can get slavery back, counsel??

Grasping at straws again? Some people will cast anything in the worst light possible if it allows them to shit on someone they hate.

 

[Carling]

Grasping at straws again? Some people will cast anything in the worst light possible if it allows them to shit on someone they hate.

kinda like the tea partiers and Obama's birth certificate?...guess you gotta fight fire with fire....

 

[canada-man]

These are indeed valid points, however, they do not appear to be contradictory to the statement above.

Also note the presumably deliberate use of 1860.

in 1860 natives, blacks, chinese, japanese, the irish, italian and women did not have any rights in north america

 

[Aardvark154]

in 1860 natives, blacks, chinese, japanese, the irish, italian and women did not have any rights in north america

That is only a partially correct statement.

 

[Asterix]

These are indeed valid points, however, they do not appear to be contradictory to the statement above.

Also note the presumably deliberate use of 1860.

I think it is contradictory. The preamble implies that black children born into slavery were in some ways in a better social family unit then black children today. 1860 would have been a horrendous year to be born black in America. You know the incredible toll the war took followed by the false promise of the Reconstruction as well as I. What she signed her name to has no historical fact to back it up.

 

[danmand]

Grasping at straws again? Some people will cast anything in the worst light possible if it allows them to shit on someone they hate.

Nah, I just enjoy you attempting to defend even the most idiotic statements of the far right follies.

 

[Asterix]

Nah, I just enjoy you attempting to defend even the most idiotic statements of the far right follies.

He can't help himself. He's a lawyer. He'll use whatever he can to defend his client no matter how far-fetched.