Reply With Quote
WC basically masters us all by remaining oblivious. He is a rock and we are the waves.
Props to WC for completely derailing this thread.
It's devolved into a debate about what she "might" have meant.
Only someone who doesn't have good command of the English language could have confused the issue like this.
WC basically masters us all by remaining oblivious. He is a rock and we are the waves.
At the end of the day, Bachmann saying she thinks a "tax holiyear" sounds like an "awesome" idea, amounts to hand waving.
A strict ascription of support is a bit of a stretch at this point, but I think Bachmann reached the target audience with her message.
Let's play, NRA gun-fetishist style, "Shooting Bachmanns in Barrel"
Michele Bachmann Adds The First Amendment To The Long List Of Cons utional Provisions She Refuses To Obey
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) became the first presidential candidate to sign a maximalist socially conservative pledge that, among other things, calls for “all forms of pornography” to be banned. In other words, yesterday marks the day when Bachmann added the First Amendment to the long list of cons utional provisions she despises.
As the Supreme Court explained nearly 40 years ago, only the most “patently offensive” erotic expression that is utterly lacking in any “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” can be banned without violating the First Amendment.
Bachmann, however, clearly believes the entire Cons ution should be read according to her most uninformed whims. Bachmann suggested Census forms are uncons utional. She supports stripping federal judges of their power to hear marriage equality cases in order to prevent the Cons ution’s guarantee of equal protection of the law from being extended to gay people. Bachmann even invited two radical tenthers who believe that everything from Social Security to the federal highway system to the 17th Amendment to the Cons ution are uncons utional to lecture her fellow lawmakers on what the Cons ution requires. (Yes, you read that right, one of Bachmann’s cons utional role models believes that part of the Cons ution is uncons utional.)
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...rst-amendment/
We know where her heart is. That's all that matters.
ThinkProgress continues to swing and miss the easiest ing targets out there.
Here is the pledge she signed. There is a long list of absolutely abhorable "promises" on this pledge, NONE of which call for the outright banning of pornography. The part about pornography reads:
"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 pros ution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence."
It is most reasonable to believe that the "pornography" they're talking about is child pornography or other non-consensual pornography, given the context of the bullet. Nothing about a ban of pornography.
Why ThinkProgress chooses to focus on this part of the pledge instead of all of the other viciously phobic and ridiculous assertions about the government's responsibility to uphold the idea of marriage as a permanent heterosexual ins ution, I have no idea. I would think you'd have to work hard to pick one part out of the pledge to harp about and be wrong. It takes a degree of willful ignorance to pull that part out as the story here.
Demolished TP. Nice critique.
lol thinkprogress. lol boutons.
the IA bubbas can't write for
"protection of women ... from all forms of pornography and pros ution"
sure sounds like some bubba lawyering could sue for that as banning (all) pornography.
lol assholes here who can't read
I just posted the whole sentence. Why did you post a clipped one?
My point is you and TP chose to based the headline of the story on a possible interpretation of a single part of a pledge that is full of other things that are crystal clear and still wrong.
Also, you realize this isn't an actionable legislative do ent, right? This doesn't do anything.
Thank God boutons is here to edit out all those "unnecessary" words IA wrote in between "protection of women" and "from all forms of pornography..." to tell us what IA really means.
I snipped the words that relate to "protecting women ... from all forms of pornography"
That could easily include stopping women from engaging in commercial porn, and well as preventing women from being exposed to porn.
How TF do the missing words change the meaning of what I clipped? They don't.
and all forms of pornography and pros ution"
this guy
it's called reading between the lines.
I read it to mean that women (and children too) be shielded from any form of porn, promiscuity, abortion, etc.
It changes the context of that part of the pledge.
Even as crazy as Bachmann is there's no reason to believe she signed this pledge with the intent to ban all pornography.
Her signing this gives concerning, though unsurprising, insight into her views on sexuals and religious involvement in policy, which is a point completely missed when you frame this story as "Mic e Bachmann promises to ban porn."
CARL QUINTANILLA (CNBC): Does it strike you that as the unemployment rate goes up that your chances of winning office also go up?
MICHELE BACHMANN: Well, that could be. Again, I hope so.
http://www.alternet.org/module/print...ndviews/631124
===
In line with Repugs 2010 strategy of prolonging/deepening the jobs pain and blame it on Barry, which is still their strategy for 2012.
After winning the House, what have the Repugs done about jobs? not a ing thing. It's all about union busting, deficits (not jobs), abortion, and opposing EVERYTHING without compromise.
without boutons around to post and bold the important parts of every important article, we would never find nor understand them
That's my point. I don't think she thinks a year is a good idea, but I said she gave a political answer. She was playing to the audience. I am also serious that the quotes are intended as her meaning it is awesome he had the same idea as a colleague. Not that the idea was awesome. This was, it remains an honest response.
People, look again at the exchange in full context.
Hey, it's their job to lie for the left.
It can be argued that the courts have given far more la ude to the first amendment than was intended regarding speech, and less regarding religion. I say the first amendment was intended to protect political speech, and not ever allow it to be illegal. Now, here we are, enforcing our ideals on other nations, like Libya.
Give me a break. The rulings regarding pornography vs. religion... are they reasonable?
Have you considered backing Mic e Bachmann, WC?
I'll back here before Obama. If she makes the republican nomination, I will back her.
Who do you like now? Mitt Romney?
Right now, I prefer Cain.
Pretty much what we already knew.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
