wow…..

Jesus Tommy, do you ever pull any muscles when making such big leaps?

Michele Bachmann is not at all deranged or grossly uninformed.

She’s the Queen of the House Tea Party Caucus, after all.

Yes the black children were very lucky to have been raised by both a mother and father, and a benevolent white master with Judeo-Christian values.

[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God…it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation…it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.” Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. 1,2

“There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral.” Rev. Alexander Campbel”

The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.” Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined.” United States Senator James Henry Hammond

timzank said:
Jesus Tommy, do you ever pull any muscles when making such big leaps?

Not that big a leap on this one. It says what it says.

I just hope that this brings an end to all of these stupid pledges candidates are now forced to sign. The whole idea is contrary to representative government. Elected officials represent all of their constituents and not just the ones with pledges. The worst of them is Grover Norquist, but this one is pretty bad.

To be fair to Bachmann, I suspect she read the main thrust of the organization on marriage and assumed that they had not tossed in stuff like this.

Any theories, Tommy, on why black couples stayed together even during the worst days of Jim Crow and segregation, and after the civil rights movement they now have the highest number of single parent households of any race?

Nature Freaky said:

So you’re using religiously based defenses of religion to portray Democrats as supporters of slavery and by extension racists, right? I mean, that’s what you’re trying to do.

Never mind the fact that the racial politics of the 1960s post Civil Rights Act redefined party dynamics in regards to minorities in America and conservative values, but do you wish at all to address the story at hand or would you just like to fan the flames of rabid partisanship?

You’re welcome to either, obviously.

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

As the Word of God, I always have wondered why the Old and New Testaments did not take a clear stance against Slavery. I am not bashing the entire Bible, but this is an inherent weakness in these holy writings.
I realize there are passages that seem to oppose slavery. There are passages that seem to promote Slavery. Slavery and the Bible was a major issue discussed openly in the years leading up to the American Civil War. Both sides used the Bible to support their views.

Again, why was the Bible so conflicted about the evils of Slavery and Bondage?

Not surprising… for my money, and equally damning point comes from this statement:
“Recognition that robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security.”

1: population is growing and is projected to continue robust growth well into the future.
2: the only ethnic group lagging when it comes to replacement rate are “non Hispanic Whites”, by the parlance of the statisticians.

For whom do they request “robust childbearing” and how is this related to demographic, economic, strategic, actuarial and security “benefit”? Do they expect that darker children are in the long term doomed without continued light skinned oversight?

blurgh. said:
So you’re using religiously based defenses of religion to portray Democrats as supporters of slavery and by extension racists, right? I mean, that’s what you’re trying to do.

Never mind the fact that the racial politics of the 1960s post Civil Rights Act redefined party dynamics in regards to minorities in America and conservative values, but do you wish at all to address the story at hand or would you just like to fan the flames of rabid partisanship?

You’re welcome to either, obviously.

Huh?

Perdido said:
Any theories, Tommy, on why black couples stayed together even during the worst days of Jim Crow and segregation, and after the civil rights movement they now have the highest number of single parent households of any race?

Ummm. I started to try to reply to this, but realized that it would be Quixotic at best.

Perdido said:
Any theories, Tommy, on why black couples stayed together even during the worst days of Jim Crow and segregation, and after the civil rights movement they now have the highest number of single parent households of any race?

Perdido said:
Any theories, Tommy, on why black couples stayed together even during the worst days of Jim Crow and segregation, and after the civil rights movement they now have the highest number of single parent households of any race?

It’s simple. Oppression by racist whites (Jim Crow laws) made black families cluster and form stronger bonds. There’s more independence now and freedom. This happens to any oppressed demographic. They become closer and establish deeper bonds.

Nature Freaky said:
Again, why was the Bible so conflicted about the evils of Slavery and Bondage?

Obviously you have avoided the Book of Exodus, which repeatedly makes the point that bondage and slavery are evil. Remember the whole Jews escaping Egyptian slavery? Not a lot of conflict there.

Besides, the Bible is not the guide to American law. Nor should it be.

Nature Freaky said:
Again, why was the Bible so conflicted about the evils of Slavery and Bondage?

Good question, but while some founding fathers were apparently conflicted about it, they cited economic self-interest as a greater priority than doing what was morally correct.

Gasket said:
There’s more independence now and freedom

Same reason divorce rates are so much higher now than in the past.

Keeva said:
Obviously you have avoided the Book of Exodus, which repeatedly makes the point that bondage and slavery are evil. Remember the whole Jews escaping Egyptian slavery? Not a lot of conflict there.

Besides, the Bible is not the guide to American law. Nor should it be.

I think his point was, there is no explicit repudiation of indentured servitude in that book. Mind you, this was a talking point that was widely used by the confederacy in justifying the continuation of slavery. A big majority of those people were highly religious Christian folks.

Gasket said:
It’s simple. Oppression by racist whites (Jim Crow laws) made black families cluster and form stronger bonds. There’s more independence now and freedom. This happens to any oppressed demographic. They become closer and establish deeper bonds.

I would respectfully submit that modern factors also include the elevated rates of incarceration and higher rates of poverty, which correlate to single parent households independent of race.

edit — I should have used the word slavery instead of “indentured servitude.” Not my intention to be euphemistic.

“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.”

That is a factually correct statement. The following 7 paragraphs in Tommys’ column are nothing more than inference, accusation and his (among other race baiters & Obama apologists) interpretations, which like most liberals can now find racism in black coffee.

You “journalists” are hilarious.

Greg said:
I would respectfully submit that modern factors also include the elevated rates of incarceration and higher rates of poverty, which correlate to single parent households independent of race.

That is absolutely correct. My response was not meant to exclude other factors. There are valid sociological reasons. These other guys (like the Family) are just using political demagoguery to smear Obama. Note, it’s the same specious argument they have used with abortion.

But have you raeched outto Holder about what and why he is covering up and obstructing justice, re fast and furious? Or will you just continue to ignore that story and instead make stuff up by digging and digging and reaching and reaching and going after Backmann ratherthan the sitting AG?

Oh never mind, I retract my question and my comment. You are too busy trying to read something from nothing;typical.

Gasket said:
Note, it’s the same specious argument they have used with abortion.

Nothing specious about his proclivity to cheer on the crushing of skulls of babies after they are born. He’s real clear about his support of snapping their little necks.

So Gasket, you’re saying that unless black couples are forced to stay together, they won’t do so?

timzank said:
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.

You really think there were two parent households? They had barracks they lived in, under whatever arrangement the white benevolent master desired.

In any case, it was inappropriate for them to make that comparison given the fact that the were forced to live together by law and by threat of violence.

Greg said:
Not surprising… for my money, and equally damning point comes from this statement:
“Recognition that robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security.”

1: population is growing and is projected to continue robust growth well into the future.
2: the only ethnic group lagging when it comes to replacement rate are “non Hispanic Whites”, by the parlance of the statisticians.

For whom do they request “robust childbearing” and how is this related to demographic, economic, strategic, actuarial and security “benefit”? Do they expect that darker children are in the long term doomed without continued light skinned oversight?

I wonder about this myself. For some, this is an issue. Demographics and controversy go hand in hand. This is a can of worms you are opening.

From the statistics I am looking at, the birth rate is declining among every racial and ethic group.
BTW The birth rate in Mexico is now around replacement levels.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/06/world/americas/immigration.html
I do not support Bachmann or the pledge she signed, but I do suspect the population projections for the US through 2050 are way too high. From an environmental prospective, this is a good thing (I am Nature Freak).
I am a zero population growth environmentalist, although I am happy with an overall growth rate of under 0.3% or 0.4%.
Very controversial subject. Others will have varying views.

timzank said:
“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.”

That is a factually correct statement. The following 7 paragraphs in Tommys’ column are nothing more than inference, accusation and his (among other race baiters & Obama apologists) interpretations, which like most liberals can now find racism in black coffee.

You “journalists” are hilarious.

A load of tripe from you. The only people race-baiting here are the people Tommy is RESPONDING to. They are the ones who brought up RACE…you know. You never look at society in a vacuum when analyzing individual parameters such as the structure of a family. Society never remains static, especially in this case where the time frame being looked at spreads over 100-150yrs. Dynamics change. The deduction is fatuous, obtained via myopic analysis. Nothing exactly surprising from a dogmatic organization whose main persuasive argument is via demagoguery. I hate repeating myself.

I couldve sworn BAGGERS were all about FREEDOM

GUESS NOT

So with more rights and freedom, 67% of young black men decided to celebrate by getting their girlfriends pregnant, then leaving them to fend for themselves. Seems like an odd way to celebrate.

Nature Freaky said:
From the statistics I am looking at, the birth rate is declining among every racial and ethic group.

While birth rate is declining, population itself is projected to grow… census projections sound an alarm at the high end but not the low end.
“Based on the middle-series projections, the Nation’s population is projected to increase to 392 million by 2050 — more than a 50 percent increase from the 1990 population size. During the 1990′s, the population is projected to grow by 27 million, a 10.8 percent increase. This assumes that fertility, mortality, and net immigration would continue to reflect recent trends. Only during the 1950′s were more people added to the Nation’s population than are projected to be added during the 1990′s. Using the lowest assumptions, the population would grow slowly, peak at 293 million by 2030, then gradually decline. Conversely, the highest series projects the population to increase quite steadily over the next several decades, more than doubling its 1990 size by the middle of the next century.”

Additionally…
“The race and Hispanic-origin2 distribution of the U.S. population is projected to become more diverse. As the Black; Asian and Pacific Islander; American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut; and Hispanic-origin populations increase their proportions of the total population, the non-Hispanic White population proportion would decrease. By the turn of the century, the non-Hispanic White proportion of the population is projected to decrease to less than 72 percent with about 13 percent Black; 11 percent Hispanic origin; 4 percent Asian and Pacific Islander; and less than 1 percent American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut. By 2050, the proportional shares shift quite dramatically. Less than 53 percent would be non-Hispanic White; 16 percent would be Black; 23 percent would be Hispanic origin; 10 percent would be Asian and Pacific Islander; and about 1 percent would be American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut.

Non-Hispanic Whites, the slowest growing group, are likely to contribute less and less to the total population growth in this country. Although non-Hispanic Whites make up almost 75 percent of the total population, they would contribute only 35 percent of the total population growth between 1990 and 2000. This percentage of growth would decrease to 23 percent between 2000 and 2010, and 14 percent from 2010 to 2030. The non-Hispanic White population would contribute nothing to population growth after 2030 because it would be declining in size.

According to the middle-series projection, the Black population would increase almost 5 million by 2000, almost 10 million by 2010, and over 20 million by 2030. The Black population would double its present size to 62 million by 2050.

The fastest growing race groups will continue to be the Asian and Pacific Islander population with annual growth rates that may exceed 4 percent during the 1990′s. By the turn of the century, the Asian and Pacific Islander population would expand to over 12 million, double its current size by 2010, triple by 2020, and increase to more than 5 times its current size, to 41 million by 2050.”

I bring this up because the best demographic data we have show the population growing but becoming more diverse. This is not only a racial issue, but a political issue as both Hispanics and African Americans have a high level of democratic party loyalty.

The fact that a largely white evangelical political movement is advocating “robust childbearing” is to me a clear sign of racial politics. I’m just putting it out there. I could be wrong. It might be as simple as promoting some, “go forth and populate all corners of the earth and have dominion” type biblical mandate without contemporary political implications… just seems to me that we live in a time when overlap is the rule.

I am a bit of a nature freak myself… too often closed in a large dense human zoo (Desmond Morris). Lets hope we keep the backcountry free and open.

Crap… Source!
http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/natproj.html

Wouldn’t this be more due to the side effects of the Sexual Revolution, rather than the act of any President, be they full of melanin or lacking thereof?

Yea it’s Obama…he’s worst than slavery of course.

Insane.

Nature Freaky said:
Again, why was the Bible so conflicted about the evils of Slavery and Bondage?

let me say that i respect every persons belief in whatever it is that gives them comfort and there are many, many people that i have great respect for that are devoutly religious. growing up protestant, in school i became agnostic but i didn’t feel comfortable only being in 50% on something that is supposed to mean so much. imho, the bible is a bunch of fables, probably based on actual stories, with most of its morals being something that should be inbred in any normal persons fabric of life. i think the stories relating to slavery were meant to control the majority of people who never had the opportunity to read. i think it is long past time for someone to do some editing.

Even blacks like Bill Cosby are not allowed to say young black men should start showing some personal responsibility with that horrendous 67% single parent rate. It is strictly taboo and very politically incorrect to even mention it.

BoomShakalaka said:
Yea it’s Obama…he’s worst than slavery of course.

Insane.

Oh yeah….you can give me thumbs down for that one freaks..I welcome them.

You’re still insane.

@greg
it seems to me that the largest growth in this country would be people of mixed race. is it possible that those stats might be larger because some people would consider themselves african/asian and choose to be considered in both groups?

Fokker News said:
Yes the black children were very lucky to have been raised by both a mother and father, and a benevolent white master with Judeo-Christian values.

very comforting to have your mom kiss you on the cheek while you dad puts the aloe on the lashes on your back.

And that’s why today, 67% of young black men leave their women holding the bag? Because they’re being lashed?

Gasket said:
It’s simple. Oppression by racist whites (Jim Crow laws) made black families cluster and form stronger bonds. There’s more independence now and freedom. This happens to any oppressed demographic. They become closer and establish deeper bonds.

i would imagine that the same might be able to be said about white settlers moving west in the late 17th, 18th centuries. it made sense for their own survival compared to now with not much of a chance for white people to be attacked by native americans or bears. (unless you’re one of those idiots at the zoo teasing them) (bears that is)

Perdido said:
Even blacks like Bill Cosby are not allowed to say young black men should start showing some personal responsibility with that horrendous 67% single parent rate. It is strictly taboo and very politically incorrect to even mention it.

So “not allowed” that when he came to Chicago African American young men from across the city were literally bused there to be in attendance.

Perdido said:
And that’s why today, 67% of young black men leave their women holding the bag? Because they’re being lashed?

i hope you’re not referring to my post because that would make you a idiot.

If being oppressed is what makes couples stay together, and lack of feeling oppressed splits them up, then those single parent household percentages aren’t adding up.

Perdido said:
And that’s why today, 67% of young black men leave their women holding the bag? Because they’re being lashed?

They know they don’t have an argument. Look at the fantastic results of all the liberal/dem “help” given to blacks. Everything libs have “fought” for has produced the same result for African-Americans, i.e. “lousy”.

What’s idiotic, Chili. In the past, black couples stayed together. Today they don’t. So although the slavery comparison was silly, the fact remains that today 67% of black households are single parent. So technically, Bachmann was right. The black community has been shooting itself in the foot with that 67% rate.

Perdido said:
If being oppressed is what makes couples stay together, and lack of feeling oppressed splits them up, then those single parent household percentages aren’t adding up.

So did you change your name writer?

By the way, more women are now in the workforce in the past. They are no longer dependent on a man for their economic survival. That has a lot to do with the new reality as well.

I still maintain there is a squirril named “Zippy,” living in Michele Bachmann’s head who’s kept very busy trying to keep the nuts out of the guano.

It’s the typical lib argument. Because of slavery, blacks can now never be held responsible for anything. If some young black guy gets his girlfriend pregnant, then leaves her, it’s the white man’s fault. Even native Americans have a much lower single parent percentage than blacks. I guess Chili would argue they’ve never been oppressed, and that’s the reason for the lower number.

Perdido said:
It’s the typical lib argument. Because of slavery, blacks can now never be held responsible for anything. If some young black guy gets his girlfriend pregnant, then leaves her, it’s the white man’s fault. Even native Americans have a much lower single parent percentage than blacks. I guess Chili would argue they’ve never been oppressed, and that’s the reason for the lower number.

Basically, yes. The lib mantra is that no one is reponsible, there is always someone else to blame, it is always someone elses fault. They believe it.

Fokker, Bill Cosby has said the same thing. Is he a racist?

Perdido said:
Fokker, Bill Cosby has said the same thing. Is he a racist?

So should we oppress women, deny them the right to participate in the workforce, so they will be more motivated to remain married?

No, Fokker, we shouldn’t oppress women. And isn’t it sort of oppressing them to get them pregnant, then tell them they’re on their own and walk out?

and i guess perdido would argue that it doesn’t matter what kind of crap you went through in your life, if we don’t like you because of your skin color, get over it.

it kinda sucks having people tell you how you will argue. if you had some sense of taking an absurd argument to make it seem ironic, you would have understood when fokker news said…
Fokker News said:
Yes the black children were very lucky to have been raised by both a mother and father, and a benevolent white master with Judeo-Christian values.

because of the absurdity of black people being lucky to be slaves, something even more outrageous would be…

ChiliPeppersFan said:
very comforting to have your mom kiss you on the cheek while you dad puts the aloe on the lashes on your back.

but then again, maybe you don’t see the absurdity in that and i feel sorry for you.

King Obama’s own history has never been revealed . There’s a book coming out in a few days about Barry, Sr.
The guy was far worse than even shown below from that disreputable source . Let’s see how
Tommy twists himself into a pretzel to blame Republicans .

“President Barack Obama’s father told federal immigration officials in 1961 that he planned to put his unborn son up for adoption, The Boston Globe reports.

Obama’s father, Barack H. Obama, declared his intention while studying at the University of Hawaii during an interview with an immigration officer who had become concerned with Obama’s “playboy ways”.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/barack-obama-adoption-father_n_892205.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl7%7Csec1_lnk2%7C76412

Okay, Chili. Explain it to me. An ancestor was a slave a hundred and fifty years ago. So today, you figure it’s okay to get your girlfriend pregnant, then leave her to raise the baby alone. I still can’t see the connection, so please explain how that works.

Maybe you should have a personal discussion with Levi Johnson about it, letting him know that he is contributing to women’s oppression.

The Lantern of Truth said:
King Obama’s own history has never been revealed . There’s a book coming out in a few days about Barry, Sr.The guy was far worse than even shown below from that disreputable source . Let’s see howTommy twists himself into a pretzel to blame Republicans . “President Barack Obama’s father told federal immigration officials in 1961 that he planned to put his unborn son up for adoption, The Boston Globe reports. Obama’s father, Barack H. Obama, declared his intention while studying at the University of Hawaii during an interview with an immigration officer who had become concerned with Obama’s “playboy ways”. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/barack-obama-adoption-father_n_892205.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl7%7Csec1_lnk2%7C76412

George Bush Sr.’s fault?

Fokker News said:
Maybe you should have a personal discussion with Levi Johnson about it, letting him know that he is contributing to women’s oppression.

You’re right about Levi, of course 67% of his race isn’t doing the same damn thing though are they?

Just read The Marriage Vow and I must say this article hear on Mediaite is an attempt to smear Michelle Bachman’s campaign. If I was to run for President I would sign it too. And I’m black! Go figure, huh!

timzank said:
You’re right about Levi, of course 67% of his race isn’t doing the same damn thing though are they?

My quess

timzank said:
You’re right about Levi, of course 67% of his race isn’t doing the same damn thing though are they?

And you can go talk to New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady.

Perdido said:
Okay, Chili. Explain it to me. An ancestor was a slave a hundred and fifty years ago. So today, you figure it’s okay to get your girlfriend pregnant, then leave her to raise the baby alone. I still can’t see the connection, so please explain how that works.

please show me where i said anything like that. i think to make the assertion that it is in anyway comparable to slavery says more about the person saying it and their true feelings of african-americans.
you guys make up your own realities and fill in the blanks. the cool song as a screen name doesn’t help at all.

Izzy Bozay said:
Just read The Marriage Vow and I must say this article hear on Mediaite is an attempt to smear Michelle Bachman’s campaign. If I was to run for President I would sign it too. And I’m black! Go figure, huh!

As you noticed, there is nothing racist, radical, or out of line with that pledge. These clowns would write 7 paragraphs of manufactured innuendo if they found a grocery list of Bachmanns.

Lyndon Johnson , for all his presumed good intentions , destroyed the black family with his Great Society programs .

I think the gist of the article was Bachmann saying that during the worst of times, black couples stayed together, and today they don’t. I agree that talking about slavery was going too far, but the fact remains. As times have gotten better for blacks, their number of single parent households has skyrocketed.

ChiliPeppersFan said:
please show me where i said anything like that. i think to make the assertion that it is in anyway comparable to slavery says more about the person saying it and their true feelings of african-americans.you guys make up your own realities and fill in the blanks. the cool song as a screen name doesn’t help at all.

All he pointed out was your willingness to give the african american community a blanket “pass” on their parental irresponsibility because of slavery, jim crow laws, etc. How long does their “slavery pass” last? You got a time frame on that for us?

Last comment. Why is that ad quoting Deuteronomy from the old testament? There is so much hatred in the old testament, that I thought evangelicals were trying to distance themselves from it.

The Lantern of Truth said:
Lyndon Johnson , for all his presumed good intentions , destroyed the black family with his Great Society programs .

I doubt Lyndon Johnson gave a flying fu*k about black people or civil rights, what he cared about (as do all democrats) is more Democrat voters.

Wow, TC is one pathetic dishonest writer. Worth remembering the next time I see a lede this absurd.

This article by Tommy Christopher is basically a lie.

They never said life was better under slavery, but that during that period there were fewer single parent families.

This whole aritcle is a lie and was lifted from Think Progress.

timzank said:
All he pointed out was your willingness to give the african american community a blanket “pass” on their parental irresponsibility because of slavery, jim crow laws, etc. How long does their “slavery pass” last? You got a time frame on that for us?

again, where did i say that? you guys keep making up sh*t and saying i said it. if you don’t understand or are confused by my posts, just ask me and i will tell you.
i don’t believe anybody deserves a pass. i believe some people need assistance because of troubles or problems not of their making. not black people. not brown people. not white people.
people in difficult positions not of their doing.
i think if someone wants to dig up statistics of married and unmarried people during slavery times and use those statistics to denigrate someone politically says more about the person doing it.
if that is how you judge how obama is doing that is very sad.

ChiliPeppersFan said:
i think if someone wants to dig up statistics of married and unmarried people during slavery times and use those statistics to denigrate someone politically says more about the person doing it.

Heh, That’s pretty much what Tommy did alright.

I mean, wow. What an ignorant, bigoted bitch. Conservatives should be ashamed that this woman has made it so far with their support.

lillyluminatus said:
I mean, wow. What an ignorant, bigoted bitch. Conservatives should be ashamed that this woman has made it so far with their support.

Why is she ignorant and bigoted? Please explain that a little further.

Because, despite a poor choice of words, Bachmann was drawing attention to the fact that today, 67% of black households are single parent. And with even the hint that personal responsiblity might be brought up, the messenger has to be shot.

timzank said:
Heh, That’s pretty much what Tommy did alright.

this is what tommy says…
To be fair, there’s a lot to hate in The Marriage Vow, but right at the top of page one is the paragraph that insists that black children born into slavery had a better shot at two-parent glory than those born under President Obama’s watch: (asterisk mine)

and this is what follows…

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.

are you just purposely playing an idiot or do you have some sort of learning disability that makes it hard for you to understand things?

In 1965, Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then assistant secretary of Labor, sounded an alarm about the rising rates of illegitimacy in the black community (about 24 percent at the time) in a report titled, The Negro Family: The Case For National Action (dubbed the Moynihan Report).

The collapse of the black family, he contended, would have devastating social consequences. Branded a racist for merely stating facts, Moynihan was drummed into silence.

As we all know, Moynihan was vindicated. Today, only a third of black children are born to married parents. Over 70 percent are born outside wedlock. Children born into illegitimacy face higher risks of all sorts of social pathologies, including delinquency, drug use, criminality, and unwed pregnancy.

Some assume racism and poverty cause illegitimacy. But do they? At the height of Jim Crow, poverty among blacks was 87 percent, and about 85 percent of black children were born to married parents. As poverty among blacks and government-mandated segregation fell, illegitimacy among blacks rose.

http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2010/05/11/moynihan-report-45-years-later/

Keep the focus on how Bachmann worded it. That way you can stay away from the subject of how the black community has been shooting itself in the foot. Only with blacks, if you get your woman pregnant and leave her, is it someone else’s fault.

Michele Bachmann is the gift that keeps on giving for the Democrats :-)

The question for Bachmann’s supporters is how long do they stay aboard her sinking ship?

Lets ignore the gun running story, DOJ cover-up, and all that stuff for some stretching of the truth and fact performed by well known liberal author here at mediaite, TC.

It’s just that simple. Anything but stories about hehimself and his AG Holder….go figure.

This Michelle story is much more important than the current cover up, yup, thats the ticket to a successful liberal web site – hide the truth, tell the lie.

namseer said:
Michele Bachmann is the gift that keeps on giving for the Democrats

Barack Obama is the gift that keeps on giving for the Republicans :-)

U.S. employment growth ground to a halt in June, with employers hiring the fewest number of workers in nine months, dousing hopes the economy would regain momentum in the second half of the year.

The unemployment rate climbed to a six-month high of 9.2 percent, even as jobseekers left the labor force in droves, from 9.1 percent in May.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43682730

I don’t know why a “tea” would believe there was slavery in 1860′s. Our founding fathers took care of that, long before then (according to Michele). Since she knows her history, I guess these slaves were never removed from their families.

Please, please never stop making comments and signing these zealot packs.

timzank said:
Why is she ignorant and bigoted? Please explain that a little further.

I think the ignorant part explains itself (I mean, really?! Kids were better off as slaves?!).

The bigoted part is the whole trying to accuse the nation’s first black President of essentially imposing worse than slavery on the nation’s black children–while citing data that comes from George W. Bush’s time in office! I’m not sure that race-baiting gets any more clear cut.

timzank said:
You’re right about Levi, of course 67% of his race isn’t doing the same damn thing though are they?

You know,you almost sound like you’re trying to say Black men are bad or scum or something…..

Is that what you’re implying here?

Cause that would be odd……..

lillyluminatus said:
I think the ignorant part explains itself (I mean, really?! Kids were better off as slaves?!). The bigoted part is the whole trying to accuse the nation’s first black President of essentially imposing worse than slavery on the nation’s black children–while citing data that comes from George W. Bush’s time in office! I’m not sure that race-baiting gets any more clear cut.

That’s merely your distorted interpretation. Example: If I say unemployment among blacks is higher than unemployment among whites, as a percentage, you will call me a racist. If you say it, it’s perfectly fine. Two different people saying the exact same thing but because I’m a conservative, it’s somehow racist for me to make that statement.

It’s patently unfair, but that’s ok with you because it serves your purpose. You people are brought up to be petty, smug, dishonest and you really love it, it shows.

Michele Bachmann-Signed Pledge Says Black Children Worse Off Under Obama Than During Slavery

Hey . We all are .

BoomShakalaka said:
You know,you almost sound like you’re trying to say Black men are bad or scum or something….. Is that what you’re implying here? Cause that would be odd……..

I’m saying it’s irrefutable that 67% of them don’t have an interest in being a married father, do they?

tommy made some good points in his article, about the dates and when the data was collected, then screwed it up with lying in his headline

timzank said:
Two different people saying the exact same thing but because I’m a conservative, it’s somehow racist for me to make that statement.

That’s racist.

AmericaSucks said:
That’s racist.

Kind of like Harry Reid pointing out that “negro dialect” of the President or Bill Clinton mentioning that just a few years ago Obama would have been serving them coffee.

You people are hilarious.

Do we need any more evidence that this hater Bachmann and the lunatic teabaggers are vile and despicable?

Wasn’t there an article on here the other day about the “I’m a racist” t-shirts; was there a link to where we could buy them?

Beyond absurd…everything is racist these days, even when it isn’t and is no where near it. Oh well….you gotta make stuff up in order to get a headline round these parts, because well….the REAL news, like gun running and stuff and Holder obstructing justice, doesn’t count as report worthy here.

this is where i believe it becomes a racial issue. tommy says this above…

For my money, this is where the story gets really disgusting. The study that they cite was published in 2005, which means that any comparison to slavery must be made, not with our first black president, but with our 43rd white one. Furthermore, the data in the study only dates back to 1880, which means they not only had to stretch their pretzel to include Barack Obama, but also to conflate the data with slavery. They appear to be basing their conclusion on these two points from the study:

this is the first point in the pledge, the third paragraph down…

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.

if you sign that pledge or repeat that knowing that the study was under bush and not obama and you keep repeating it then yes, you are a racist.
i’ll say it again because timzank and perdido don’t usually get things the first time.

if you lie and say a child is more likely to be raised by mother and father then a baby born after the first african-american president is elected, you are a racist.
here is the study and i believe it was published in 2005.
http://www.americanvalues.org/pdfs/consequences_of_marriage.pdf

The single most offensive thing pledged/agreed to (so far) by the teabagger party aka the new Confederacy.

timzank said:
Jesus Tommy, do you ever pull any muscles when making such big leaps?

Big leaps when these Conservatives put it in writing. Defend them or STFU.

kvon said:
Big leaps when these Conservatives put it in writing. Defend them or STFU.

defend what? the lying headline?

This was a ridiculous pledge to sign.
Even the Righty talking heads on cable news are distancing themselves from it.
Only the wingnut teabaggers will defend it.

To be fair to Bachmann, she is getting unfairly beat up for her supposed pleasure the jobless rate went up.
She clearly meant that if this trend continues she is glad to have the opportunity to correct it. Big difference.

But you would have to be an idiot to stick up for the slavery portion of this pledge.
We have a lot of idiots here.

Damn Bachmann stepped in it good.

timzank said:
I’m saying it’s irrefutable that 67% of them don’t have an interest in being a married father, do they?

Huh….So you’re 100% sure that those numbers are accurate yea?

Oh and much more importantly,you’re 100% sure these men are not with the mother of their child because they chose to?You’re that sure of all this huh?Black women never kick a guy out?…Ok…..
So you know all those people personally enough to judge their intimate life huh?
So what you’re telling me is that you’re 100% sure of your number,and that all those men are the ones responsible for the split up…..because they are Black men?
So the best thing for everyone is to go back to slavery?
Keep those Black men in line?

Could you possibly sound more racist dude?

I Don’t think so.

BFD said:
To be fair to Bachmann, she is getting unfairly beat up for her supposed pleasure the jobless rate went up.
She clearly meant that if this trend continues she is glad to have the opportunity to correct it. Big difference.

she is unfairly getting beaten up because it seemed she either didn’t understand what he was trying to say or she didn’t hear it. he was clearly trying to get her to say she wishes the economy tanks but she answered as if he asked if she could help create jobs.
she has a habit of totally ignoring questions and doing kind of a ‘hypnotic’ answer as chris mathews would say.
i think it will do her well because there are still people who claim sara palin won the vp debate.

timzank said:
That’s merely your distorted interpretation. Example: If I say unemployment among blacks is higher than unemployment among whites, as a percentage, you will call me a racist. If you say it, it’s perfectly fine. Two different people saying the exact same thing but because I’m a conservative, it’s somehow racist for me to make that statement. It’s patently unfair, but that’s ok with you because it serves your purpose. You people are brought up to be petty, smug, dishonest and you really love it, it shows.

They dont make em much dumber than you do they???….the only thing distorted is your ability to read….stop the denial of your racism….embrace it, be a proud crossburning asshole….you may as well face the facts dipshit….MICHELE BACHMAN IS AS UNELECTABLE AS IT GETS….BUT FEEL FREE TO WASTE YOUR VOTE….I ENCOURAGE IT

NOOOOO. Please Michele stop putting your foot in your mouth. Please, oh pretty please with sugar on top, be the Republican nominee. I am sick and tired of Rusty the Chickenhawk Limbaugh blaming every Republican beat down on the fact the candidate was not “conservative enough”. By the way, bring along Caribou Barbie for the ride, too. The ticket will be known as “Dumb and dumber”. The only problem is, who would receive top billing?

She’s done put a fork in her. Well put a fork in her if the media runs with this story. If they don’t she will put a fork in herself soon.

When will Republicans inquire with actual Black people whether or not we’re ok with invoking slavery to score cheap political points?

Ben Jealous still has a job, so it looks to me like it must be fine.

lillyluminatus said:
I think the ignorant part explains itself (I mean, really?! Kids were better off as slaves?!).

Bachmann didn’t say that. Tommy did.

I guess Ms. Christopher never saw Gone With The Wind. All the slaves and their children were much happier Antebellum. The entire country is worse off under Obummer than, say, the peasants under William the Conqueror.

How many times related to “Bachmann” have the “teas” had to say “that’s not what see said”, “she didn’t mean that”?
Please “Michele” speak out as much and as often as you wish, please, please, please! You now have the “black vote” on lock! You’re right ,Obama is shaking in his boots over debating you, whatever you do make sure and debate him, please!

If she is so intelligent as the Republicans and Tea baggers want us to believe, why does she continuously and reliably say really really stupid and dumb stuff? Cause she has 2 brain cells that keep bouncing off each other and it just gives her a headache. It’s not her fault.

Michele Bachmann-Signed Pledge Says Black Children Worse Off Under Obama Than During Slavery. This is a true statement. The more Black children are inundated with entitlements, freebees, gimmees, and handouts, the more dependent they will be to the nanny state government. They will never improve and become independent, resourceful citizens. They will forever be on the virtual plantation with Obama as the massah. Indeed, they are worse off today under Obama than during slavery.

Bob Uda you are a complete idiot for making that statement. I usually don’t say that but in this case I must. Do some research on slaves and slaveowners. Ill tell ya what don’t even do that. Just look up how they were transported across the Atlantic and get a clue. Amazing.

Sigh….Just when you think Repubs cannot sink any lower, say anything more outlandish—along comes a Bachmann with a signature to a pledge that says Black children born slaves were better off than those born to single mothers today!!! Was that child still better off, when it’s Father was the Master of the House, raping his female slaves? Was it better off, when it was sold at age 8, in an auction to a farmer needing cotton pickers? How about when his Father, if he did have one on the plantation was sold or died of hard work? You keep it up, Bachmann—every day you prove to more people, just WHY you are not Presidential matrial. These Repub women remind me of the song, Lemon Tree very pretty, but the fruit is impossible to eat ! They don’t have a brain amongst them all put together !

That Bachmann-Duke ticket sure seems like a fit now, doesn’t it?

–Cobra

True. The welfare slavery system is expanding and taking able bodied people and enslaving them to the government. What a bunch of sheep. Libs will never be happy until everyone is out of work and cannot have private money or land.

Van Jones signs a Truther pledge and loses his job.

Michelle signs a “slavery is peachy” pledge and runs for president.

Whatta country!!!

BFD said:
Van Jones signs a Truther pledge and loses his job. Michelle signs a “slavery is peachy” pledge and runs for president. Whatta country!!!

reading skills are not you strong suit huh

cjd ohio 1 says:
reading skills are not you strong suit huh
…………………………………………………………….
The “circus” and “tea” standard, if you don’t like what the clown does, (says) spin, baby spin!

timcajun said:
cjd ohio 1 says:reading skills are not you strong suit huh…………………………………………………………….The “circus” and “tea” standard, if you don’t like what the clown does, (says) spin, baby spin!

nope not a fan of bachmann to hard to the right for me, but slavery is peachy is a lie

cjd ohio 1 says:
but slavery is peachy is a lie
………………………………………..
Peachy, no, ok, but better off then to now? When the issues come to over and over again, cut this word, add that one, defend, defend. Maybe just, maybe, she helps “liberals” more than the “teas”.

timcajun said:
cjd ohio 1 says:but slavery is peachy is a lie………………………………………..Peachy, no, ok, but better off then to now? When the issues come to over and over again, cut this word, add that one, defend, defend. Maybe just, maybe, she helps “liberals” more than the “teas”.

never mind, truth is your enemy, go talk to BFD, you will be fine

cjd ohio 1 said:
never mind, truth is your enemy, go talk to BFD, you will be fine

I’ll also lay odds Bachmann fans are furiously trying to edit Wikipedia right now to make slavery actually look “peachy.”

–Cobra

Cobra said:
I’ll also lay odds Bachmann fans are furiously trying to edit Wikipedia right now to make slavery actually look “peachy.” –Cobra

glad to hear from the resident mediaite racist, good to hear from you cobra

Tommy is, as usual, being dishonest.

1) The pledge NEVER says they want to ban pornography. It states they want to foster an environment where we protect children from porn and we protect young women from getting into the porn industry or forced into sex slavery.

To claim there was a ban, as so many liberals are doing, shows one thing- liberals clearly can’t read. No one would read the pledge and take away any such meaning, unless they were hyper-partisans more interested in sensational lies than the truth.

2) Bachmann signed only the marriage vow. The slavery part is NOT IN THE MARRIAGE VOW!!!! So, dishonesty again by even implying she signed off and agreed to any of the slavery stuff.

Furthermore- the slavery stuff is pretty tame if you actually stop being partisan and accept what they’re clearly saying. From the wording, it’s obvious they meant that the abandonment of black children by their fathers in this country is a terrible thing and a serious issue that needs to be changed. They didn’t praise slavery, they called it terrible, they oppose it, and they oppose the conditions. The point was clearly that we should be progressing, but on this particular issue, though so many things HAVE improved, this is one area that we’re moving backward on. Nothing more, nothing less…it didn’t compare children under slavery to children today, it didn’t say children were worse off under Obama than during slavery, etc.

People like Tommy are so hyper-partisan, they simply REFUSE to honestly and objectively look at a statement and judge it. It’s so much easier just to dishonestly distort what was actually stated. It’s a shame, because he does this alot, which is why I have no respect for him or his supposed journalism.

I wonder if the people who are making the absurd claim of banning porn have actually read the vow? The first item states that the candidate vows to fidelity in their marriage, and the second states they respect the marital bonds of others, while the 4th is a vow to recognize the statistical evidence that married people have better happiness, sex, health, and live longer lives, etc. Do the folks who try to claim a legal ban on porn actually think that the family leader wants to criminalize and imprison people who don’t respect the marital bonds of others, who are unfaithful to their spouses, or who don’t declare the statistical evidence that married people are healthier and happier?

How would you make illegal these items?? Would a blog post declaring, “single people are happier than married people!”constitute an illegal act punishable by time in federal prison?

Use your brains, folks. Tommy might refuse to do so, but that doesn’t mean you have to follow suit.

cjd ohio 1 said:
glad to hear from the resident mediaite racist, good to hear from you cobra

I’m not the one trying to flack for Michelle Bachmann and the “slavery was better for Black children than in 2009″ Iowa nut-jobs.

Joshua Taj Bozeman said:
From the wording, it’s obvious they meant that the abandonment of black children by their fathers in this country is a terrible thing and a serious issue that needs to be changed. They didn’t praise slavery, they called it terrible, they oppose it, and they oppose the conditions. The point was clearly that we should be progressing, but on this particular issue, though so many things HAVE improved, this is one area that we’re moving backward on. Nothing more, nothing less…it didn’t compare children under slavery to children today, it didn’t say children were worse off under Obama than during slavery, etc.

“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.”

What? You can’t read that for yourself? Hey, I know it was once a felony to teach a Black person to read in America (during slavery by the way), but this black guy in 2011 can read EXACTLY what their point is here.

Joshua Taj Bozeman said:
1) The pledge NEVER says they want to ban pornography. It states they want to foster an environment where we protect children from porn and we protect young women from getting into the porn industry or forced into sex slavery.

Let the readers decide:

“The Candidate Vow:
Therefore, in any elected or appointed capacity by which I may have the honor of serving our fellow citizens in these United States, I the undersigned do hereby solemnly vow* to honor and to cherish, to defend and to uphold, the Institution of Marriage as only between one man and one woman. I vow* to do so through my:
 Personal fidelity to my spouse.9
 Respect for the marital bonds of others.10
 Official fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, supporting the elevation of none but faithful constitutionalists as judges or justices.11
 Vigorous opposition to any redefinition of the Institution of Marriage – faithful monogamy between one man and one woman – through statutory-, bureaucratic-, or court-imposed recognition of intimate unions which are bigamous, polygamous, polyandrous, same-sex, etc.12
 Recognition of the overwhelming statistical evidence that married people enjoy better health, better sex, longer lives, greater financial stability, and that children raised by a mother and a father together experience better learning, less addiction, less legal trouble, and less extramarital pregnancy. 13
 Support for prompt reform of uneconomic, anti-marriage aspects of welfare policy, tax policy, and marital/divorce law, and extended “second chance” or “cooling-off” periods for those seeking a “quickie divorce.” 14
 Earnest, bona fide legal advocacy for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) at the federal and state levels.15
 Steadfast embrace of a federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which protects the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman in all of the United States. 16
 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.17
 Support for the enactment of safeguards for all married and unmarried U.S. Military and National Guard personnel, especially our combat troops, from inappropriate same-gender or opposite-gender sexual harassment, adultery or intrusively intimate commingling among attracteds (restrooms, showers, barracks, tents, etc.); plus prompt termination of military policymakers who would expose American wives and daughters to rape or sexual harassment, torture, enslavement or sexual leveraging by the enemy in forward combat roles.18
 Rejection of Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human rights forms of totalitarian control.19
 Recognition that robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security. 20
 Commitment to downsizing government and the enormous burden upon American families of the USA‟s $14.3 trillion public debt, its $77 trillion in unfunded liabilities, its $1.5 trillion federal deficit, and its $3.5 trillion federal budget.21
 Fierce defense of the First Amendment‟s rights of Religious Liberty and Freedom of Speech22, especially against the intolerance of any who would undermine law-abiding American citizens and institutions of faith and conscience for their adherence to, and defense of, faithful heterosexual monogamy.”

Now, are you inferring that this group also doesn’t want to ban human trafficking, sexual slavery, prostitution, abortion and infanticide? Same place in the text as “all forms of pornography.”

–Cobra

Cobra-

“slavery was better for Black children than in 2009″ Iowa nut-jobs.

That is NOT what any rational person would take away from that paragraph. The point was clearly that a lot of things have improved since then, but the abandonment of black children by one parent is an epidemic, and it’s an area that is NOT improving, but rather getting worse. No honest person thinks they were trying to say slavery was better, so cut the BS off.

As for the pledge- you do notice that it’s a list of personal and legislative items, correct? There’s no way you’re honestly confused by this, unless there’s something wrong with you. The first sentence of the pledge states you should be in a marriage without infidelity. Are you supporting the idea that they want to make illegal and imprison people for cheating? Number 2 states you vow to respect the marital bonds of others…do you think they’re supporting laws to make illegal or imprison people who attack the marriages of others? “Hey sweetheart- Jim and Sally’s marriage is crappy.” knock knock…”open up, it’s the police.” Statement 4 says a candidate vows that they recognize that overwhelming statistical evidence supports the fact that married people are happier, have better sex, and live longer lives, etc. So, in your mind, you think they’re trying to make illegal people declaring the single life the best?

How would that work by the way? If I make a blog post that says, “the single life is way better than being married. Single people rule!” Would that be an act punishable by imprisonment? How many years in jail do you suppose the folks at The Family Leader would want me to serve for not recognizing that married people are happier? What if I don’t make a declaration that single life is better, but rather refuse to declare the marriage life is better- is my inaction, in and of itself, enough to constitute violating the law?

You’re being silly.

cjd ohio 1 says:
never mind, truth is your enemy, go talk to BFD, you will be fine
…………………………………………
Is this “tea” spew for,” I’ve been backed into a corner”? What part wasn’t true? That “teas” defend Bachmann too often or that liberals should be thankful for her? Wow,…. great deal of room for error there!

Sorry Michelle Bachmann, but you don’t get to rewrite history in that manner. Black people were not better off under slavery. They had no right to their very life. Their owners could kill, beat them to death, sell them, sell off their children or their husband or wife. Slave owners could choose to sleep with their slaves with the slave having no choice but to submit. They were treated as less than human and had no right to be free- to vote- to own property or to govern their own lives. Even those who were free could be swept up and sold into slavery and no person would do anything about it. It was against the law for slaves to be educated and they had few places they could go to school if they were free. For Bachmann to say something so stupid and so totally lacking in the slightest understanding of history and especially, the history of black Americans, is ample reason to say she has no business being in Congress, let alone the White House. She is a disgrace to women and a disgrace to Americans. She should crawl back under her toadstool and stay there. America would be better off.

I swear, this wacked out teabagger with this far-out rhetoric makes her actually makes her look worse than Palin. Shd better stick with her husband trying to cure homosexuality.

Just in case there was any doubt that the Bachmann right has embraced extremism as enthusiastically as they have embraced historical illiteracy, economic illiteracy, and Mrs. Grundyism at a level unseen in the US in a century, this nutbag pastiche stands as an example.

Is this the sort of flaming assholes *anyone* wants in positions of leadership?

Bachmann, you’re making Palin look like a saint. These are the reasons why I left the Tea Party–this kind of stuff makes us look bad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Crs13JJ87gA
Easy Money Lyrics
Nick Cave and The Bad Seeds

It’s difficult. It’s very tough.
I said to the man who’d been sleeping rough
To sit within a fragrant breeze
All among the nodding trees
That hang heavy with the stuff

He threw his arms around my neck
He brushed the tear from my cheek
And held my soft white hand
He was an understanding man
He did not even barely hardly speak

Easy money
Rain it down on the wife and the kids
Rain it down on the house where we live
Rain until you got nothing left to give
And rain that ever-loving stuff down on me

All the things for which my heart yearns
Gives joy in diminishing returns
He kissed me on the mouth
His hands they headed south
And my cheek it burned

Money, man, it is a bitch
The poor, they spoil it for the rich
With my face pressed in the clover
I wondered when this would be over
And at home we are all so guilty-sad

Easy money
Pour it down the open drain
Pour it all through my veins
Pour it down, yeah, let it rain
And pour that ever-loving stuff down on me

Now, I’m sitting pretty down on the bank
Life shuffles past at a low interest rate
In the money-coloured meadows
And all the interesting shadows
They leap up, then dissipate

Easy money
Easy money
Easy money
Rain it down on the wife and the kids
Rain it down on the house where we live
Rain it down until you got nothing left to give
And rain that ever-loving stuff down on me

Does anyone know how many of Frau Bachmann’s 23 foster children were black? I’m sure that some were. I’m just curious.

AmericaSucks said:
Does anyone know how many of Frau Bachmann’s 23 foster children were black? I’m sure that some were. I’m just curious.

Here’s a clue: she’s from Minnesota! It gets cold there.

Joshua Taj Bozeman says:
That is NOT what any rational person would take away from that paragraph. The point was clearly that a lot of things have improved since then, but the abandonment of black children by one parent is an epidemic, and it’s an area that is NOT improving, but rather getting worse. No honest person thinks they were trying to say slavery was better, so cut the BS off.

I accept that it was not their intention to claim slavery was better, but still that section is profoundly stupid. They have since removed it. If you want to say there’s a serious problem with single parent families in the black community then say that, without the reference to 1860, or that questionable reference to our first African American President. What does the president’s race have to do with that issue? Surely they can’t be hinting that it’s more his responsibility?

I’ve never been a slave but as a black man I’d rather be barefoot, hungry, homeless, fatherless, motherless and free than to be anybody’s damn slave. Maybe Ms. Bachmann should try being a slave for a little while and come back to tell us what she thinks.

Nature Freak said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Crs13JJ87gA
Easy Money Lyrics
Nick Cave and The Bad Seeds

Easy Money Lyrics
King Crimson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPdnjkM0bEo&feature=related

Your admirers on the street
Gotta hoot and stamp their feet
In the heat from your physique
As you twinkle by in moccasin sneakers

And I thought my heart would break
When you doubled up at the stake
With your fingers all a-shake
You could never tell a winner from a snake
but you always make money

Easy money

With your figure and your face
Strutting out at every race
Throw a glass around the place
Show the colour of your crimson suspenders

We would take the money home
Sit around the family throne
My old dog could chew his bone
For two weeks we could appease the Almighty

Easy money

Got no truck with the la-di-da
Keep my bread in an old fruit jar
Drive you out in a motor-car
Getting fat on your lucky star just making

Easy money.

AmericaSucks said:
Does anyone know how many of Frau Bachmann’s 23 foster children were black? I’m sure that some were. I’m just curious.

Well you got the internet why don’t you look it up.

lucky5 said:
Here’s a clue: she’s from Minnesota! It gets cold there.

Damn! Since people of all sorts of colors live up there in Minny I don’t know if that statement is racist or just plain ignorant. Well, since BB Skippy is in cross dressing mode right now I’ll go with ignorant. Now BB when you get done stretching your sister’s undies go help you’re imaginary and equally ignorant friend figure out what color Bachmann’s foster kids are.

== w w w ( y a h c c ) u s ===

A new season,

In our website can be found

in many cheap thing,

fashion for your choice.

Your charm start from here,

welcome to our website:
== w w w ( y a h c c ) u s ===
Dedicated service, the new style,

The new update, a large hot
== w w w ( y a h c c ) u s ===
== w w w ( y a h c c ) u s ===

“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.”

This is true. What’s the problem? Wake up and look around. Young blacks are running wild, because there are not 2 parents. Liberalism has been the downfall of their race, but still, they remain fooled by their new masters.

It’s the usual ‘black on black’ crime.

dougx says:
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.”

This is true. What’s the problem? Wake up and look around. Young blacks are running wild, because there are not 2 parents. Liberalism has been the downfall of their race, but still, they remain fooled by their new masters.
…………………………………
No, it’s not true and what’s the problem, “what’s the problem”? I don’t know if it’s better to let you low-q’s live in the dark or correct you! Why would you defend every stupid thing Bachmann says? Slave children were most likey taken from their families, for value reasons for the “owners”. Again, something the history buff, wouldn’t know. How would a child be better off born into a slave family, with no rights, forced labor, parents sold and weren’t really considered to be a person? You can’t salvage this moron’s statement. “Young blacks are running wild”! What’s your answer, slavery? Last I checked, young white trash redneck droppings were running wild! They continue to draw theirs checks and still vote “tea”, so you have some more hypocrisy to be proud of!

Tommy Christopher wrote: “To be fair, there’s a lot to hate in The Marriage Vow, but right at the top of page one is the paragraph that insists that black children born into slavery had a better shot at two-parent glory than those born under President Obama’s watch.”

To be fair, Tommy, you are nuts.

I would not sign such a pledge, but I don’t have a problem with any candidate who does. Most of the items or “vows” seem to be commonsense guidelines for promoting a traditional society.

As to the specific charge, what it said was “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”

To quote from an old column by Professor Walter E Williams (African-American economist):
”
In 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks was 19 percent, in 1960, 22 percent, and today, it’s 70 percent.

Some argue that the state of the black family is the result of the legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty. That has to be nonsense. A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of black families were nuclear families, comprised of two parents and children. In New York City in 1925, 85 percent of kin-related black households had two parents.

In fact, according to Herbert Gutman in “The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom: 1750-1925,” “Five in six children under the age of 6 lived with both parents.” Therefore, if one argues that what we see today is a result of a legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty, what’s the explanation for stronger black families at a time much closer to slavery?” (end of quote)

Tommy makes a big deal over the fact that an 1880 study showed most black families were nuclear families — he suggests that this is irrelevant to what life was like in the years following 1860. He must assume that as soon as they were freed from slavery, black men and women immediately married and formed nuclear families, something they had never experienced before.

Mr Christopher probably ought to do a bit more research on his own, before he decides to ridicule studies by black social scientists. We know what the current state of the black family is. And based on overwhelming evidence, the current state is worse than at any time since the Civil War.

Tommy Christopher wrote: “Because the American legal system did not recognize slaves’ marriage or family ties, slave owners were free to sell husbands from wives, children from parents, and sisters from brothers. According to a study of records kept by the Freedmen’s Bureau, over 32% of slave marriages were destroyed in this way.”

Leaving about 67% of marriages between male and female slaves NOT destroyed. Also, since the Marriage Pledge refers to children born into slavery in 1860, the number of marriages NOT destroyed by evil slaveowners most likely increased in the years afterward, especially after 1865.

So that leaves Tommy basically arguing about slave marriages in the period between 1860 and 1865.

Tommy Christopher wrote: “It remains to be seen whether Michele Bachmann saw the offending paragraph…”

There was nothing offensive about that paragraph — unless you are a left-wing zealot who think the destruction of the black family structure beginning with the Great Society programs of the 1960s would have happened anyway, even without the Great Society programs.

dougx said:
“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.”

This is true. What’s the problem? Wake up and look around. Young blacks are running wild, because there are not 2 parents. Liberalism has been the downfall of their race, but still, they remain fooled by their new masters.

You are such a racist moron -slaves weren’t allowed to be married, nor were they allowed to be party to any kind of contract. On top of that, families were usually split up by slave owners when they sold slaves.

Teas, want to follow their lead moron so much, that they waste all of their time holding up for these, “mistakes”. I guess we should be glad about that and hope they keep spending their money in support of these clowns. It’s still funny, how far out into left field the sheep go to try to save the gaff from being quite sooo stupid. By the time they get through it’s so watered down they look as stupid as Bachmann. We should also be thankful, that her being so defensive of her bone moves will push the center out of her nutty reach!

Jelperman said:
You are such a racist moron -slaves weren’t allowed to be married, nor were they allowed to be party to any kind of contract. On top of that, families were usually split up by slave owners when they sold slaves.

Slaves formed families. They had children, the children had a father and a mother. And according to the Freedmen’s Bureau, about 32% of these families were split up by the sale of one of the parents, meaning 68% were not. So 68% of children, approximately, lived in two-parent families during the last stages of the slave era, compared to roughly 30% today.

I would not call you a racist moron — just a moron.

J Baustian says:
I would not call you a racist moron — just a moron.
………………………………………………………….
She bailed on you,…because it …….was…a…moron’s…. pledge! The “tea” way,…. even when proven wrong,… their not wrong. Keep supporting her, don’t find another conservative and send her money,…. all you have!

IF YOU NEVER WANT TO SEE A BLACK MAN AGAIN, TELL HIM THAT HE’S GONNA BE A FATHER.

timcajun said:
dougx says:
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.”

This is true. What’s the problem? Wake up and look around. Young blacks are running wild, because there are not 2 parents. Liberalism has been the downfall of their race, but still, they remain fooled by their new masters.
…………………………………
No, it’s not true and what’s the problem, “what’s the problem”? I don’t know if it’s better to let you low-q’s live in the dark or correct you! Why would you defend every stupid thing Bachmann says? Slave children were most likey taken from their families, for value reasons for the “owners”. Again, something the history buff, wouldn’t know. How would a child be better off born into a slave family, with no rights, forced labor, parents sold and weren’t really considered to be a person? You can’t salvage this moron’s statement. “Young blacks are running wild”! What’s your answer, slavery? Last I checked, young white trash redneck droppings were running wild! They continue to draw theirs checks and still vote “tea”, so you have some more hypocrisy to be proud of!

Come on Tim. Quit acting like we are defending slavery. The point is that liberalism is so awful, that it actually is breaking up families more effectively than the institution of slavery. Remember Alex Haley’s Roots? Not one of those black men left their family, not 1. Today it is commonplace. Case closed.

dougx says:
The point is that liberalism is so awful, that it actually is breaking up families more effectively than the institution of slavery.

Oh, is THAT the point. That one, with no evidence, the one people keep repeating as fact, when they really have nothing to back it up. You know the kind of think partisan hacks do. Is that the point you’re referring to?

J Baustian says:
Leaving about 67% of marriages between male and female slaves NOT destroyed. Also, since the Marriage Pledge refers to children born into slavery in 1860, the number of marriages NOT destroyed by evil slaveowners most likely increased in the years afterward, especially after 1865.

Didn’t the study only go back to 1880, or are you referring to a different one?

Regardless, I thought someone already explained to you that the family structure of slaves in 1860 was drastically different than the family structure today. If the point is there is a serious problem with losing traditional family structure , especially in the black community , then say that, without a profoundly stupid reference to 1860 and our 1st African American president.

Regrading the meme that progressives are responsible for the disintegration of family structure in the black community. I’d like to see any evidence you have that supports it.

dougx says:
Come on Tim. Quit acting like we are defending slavery. The point is that liberalism is so awful, that it actually is breaking up families more effectively than the institution of slavery. Remember Alex Haley’s Roots? Not one of those black men left their family, not 1. Today it is commonplace. Case closed.

Remember Alex Haley’s Roots? Not one of those black men left their family, not 1. Today it is commonplace. Case closed.
…………………………………………………
“Roots”,….. I’m going along with, you are kidding, but if not, you scare the living hell ouy of me!

BACHMANN SAYS SHE IS FROM THE SAME TOWN AS JOHN WAYNE!!! (WHAT AN IDIOT!)

i cant STAND this women. she most defiantly is not getting my vote. 

i cant STAND this women. she most defiantly is not getting my vote. 

Look here you cave man, you aren’t good enough to lick my shoes.  It’s mighty funny there is more people of color nations than cave people of Europe b_____h.  And this is the truth ruth.  so research before open your stinky mouth .  And let’s not talk about the bible, look at who wrote it cave men.  I never did believe in the cave man bible. Go stop your woman from beating another women over her with the club.

michelle bauchmann is a racist, and she can be that . Because i don’t much care about inbred trailor trash.  She and her gay husband and her inbred children. I don’t give a darn what she said, she is not important she is a loser, a nobody something i scrape off the bottom of my shoe.  She is ugly as hell and looks funky and she has straw hair, but most important she is dumber than heck.  Cave woman!!!!!

You should stop taking everything literally. I was being critical of
religious men in the past who held racist beliefs. I do not agree with those
statements. I was making a point.
WTF!

You should stop taking everything literally. I was being critical of
religious men in the past who held racist beliefs. I do not agree with those
statements. I was making a point.
WTF!

I was making fun of people who use the Bible to justify racism. Perhaps look at my other posts for context. WTF!

“A black child born today is less likely to be raised by
both parents than a black child born during slavery. The recent
disintegration of the African American family is due in large part to
the mass imprisonment of black fathers.”

That’s a quote from Michelle Alexander from March 8, 2010 HuffPo. Ms. Alexander is the black author who has been bruiting about the idea of the U.S. prison system as the New Jim Crow. She is anti-white and considers our justice system from coast to coast racist. No one has bothered her about this comment as being “revoltingly stupid” because she is the correct skin color and in fact Ms. Alexander has great support for her ideas in the black community of writers and websites.

Hypocrisy: what a surprise. People who write about such issues should see what the black community is saying and reacting to themselves before making good for me not for you judgments that in the end have a gotcha feel but only for the author and not the intended target. It’s one or the other: which?

when your daddy fucked your sisters are they lucky Mutt??

Thats why he killed pharo cracker quit sleeping with your slut mother!!

every little white murderer who shot up a school lived with mom and dad what’s the point?Jeff Dalmer lived with mom and dad,Ted Bundy lived with mom and dad…a white women will take a$$ kickings for 20 yrs and stay married for the sake of the kids,be cheated on for the sake of the kids.A controling white man does everything to keep the weak white chic tottally depened on him so she can’t leave his no good a$$ they will even stay knowing daddys sexing up daughter, which alot of white boys delight in doing…4 out of 10 white girls suffer incest…most black women will kill a man for all the above 2 parent be damn….she don’t raise the kids alone..our familys are much closer than white familys.Put all this in your F’up stats

you stupid cracker back in those days slaves were also employees,why did God tell pharoh let the slaves go before he killed his dumb a$$,you crackers are gonna get yours too!!

Black families were torn apart during slavery.  Look around you.  Why are there so many different hues in the black family?  It is the result of rape by white slaveowners.  The prevalence of sin destroyed the black family.  Most families  were more moral in days gone by  whether they were white or black.  I have lived long enough to see morality go down the drain in both white and black families.  Check the divorce rate.  Look at Jerry Springer and Maury.  Ther’s a lot of little white girls getting pregnant by Black boys.  Most of them don’t even know who the father is.          frizzymstarbaby2

What century do we live in? It seems that the Republican Party has gone so far to the right that it has become a very scary tea pot of hatred, ignorance, paranoia, and greed. What a nasty mix of characters have done to a once great political party.

Oh my
goodness! an amazing article dude. Thank you However I am experiencing issue
with ur rss . Don’t know why Unable to subscribe to it. Is there anyone getting
identical rss problem? Anyone who knows kindly respond. Thnkx
kia soul