2012 Elections

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 10:30 am

Exodor wrote:What does this even mean?

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 arassment, torture, enslavement or sexual leveraging by the enemy in forward combat roles
I get the "OMG!Gheys in teh Showers!" aspect but "sexual leveraging by the enemy in forward combat roles" ?

That means no women in combat or forward positions.

silverjon · Post by **silverjon** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 10:33 am

Well, one argument against allowing women into combat roles has always been that opposing forces could use their sexual vulnerability against them (like that's worse than being killed or something). Sounds like it's just language to cover in case they missed anything. But it does sound to me like, "keep our women away from the front lines, where we can better guarantee their sexual safety and whatnot".

Edit: What Fed said, with fewer explanations.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:01 am

I'm a bit uninformed on how much rape-rape is going on in the US military, but doe Bachmann's pledge also address what's going on with the military contractors?

Like other alleged victims, Jones had signed a contract requiring her to deal with sexual assault allegations through arbitration. But in September 2009 a federal appeals court ruled that the case could go to court instead of arbitration. In October 2009, Jones testified before Congress in support of the Franken Amendment, now passed, which prohibits contractors with Pentagon contracts from using arbitration as opposed to the courts against ex-employees claiming sexual assault.

While sexual assault issues in the workplace deserve attention, this seems like it needs a giant spotlight.

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:35 am

I think some real attention to sexual assault in the military (and, like Smoove suggests, with military contractors) would be great. This pledge seems to be using it as a cultural wedge issue to reduce the role of women in the military and reinforce the notion that women ought stick to traditional roles.

silverjon · Post by **silverjon** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:40 am

Yeah, this is just more reinforcement of the notion that rape can and should be prevented by controlling women's actions, rather than by teaching men not to be rapists.

Texian · Post by **Texian** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 12:56 pm

More Michelle Bachmann outrageousness:

Appearing on CNBC this morning, presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) was asked about this morning’s dismal jobs report and whether higher unemployment rates might help her chances of winning in 2012. “Does it strike you that as the unemployment rate goes up, your chances of winning office also go up?” host Carl Quintanilla asked. “Well, that could be. Again, I hope so,” Bachmann replied

She is actively pursuing policies that will make the economy worse in order to help her own campaign. Hmm, couldn't this be considered Treason?

Next, she signed a pledge to ban pornography (among other things):

Tonight, Michele Bachmann became the first presidential candidate to sign a pledge created by THE FAMiLY LEADER, an influential social-conservative group in Iowa. By signing the pledge Bachmann “vows” to “uphold the institution of marriage as only between one man and one woman” by committing herself to 14 specifics steps. The ninth step calls for the banning of “all forms” of pornography. The pledge also states that homosexuality is both a choice and a health risk.

Lnk to actual document (long)
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/upl ... Pledge.pdf" target="_blank
Summary of the Vows:
1. Personal fidelity to spouse
2. Respect for marital bonds of others
3. Official fidelity to the US Constitution
4. Vigorous opposition to any redefinition of marriage
5. Recognition that married people enjoy better health, better sex, live longer lives, more financial stability than unions that are bigamous, polygamous, etc.
6. Prompt reform of welfare policies that tend to favor unmarried and divorced people
7. Advocacy for the Defense of Marriage Act
8. Advocacy for a Marriage Amendment to the US Constitution
9. Humane protection of women and children from all deviant forms of sexual commerce or coercion including pornography and prostitution
10. Support for protection of US Military personal from sexual harassment and termination of military policymakers who would expose American wives and daughters to rape, exploitation, etc.
11. Rejection of Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human rights totalitarian control
12. Recognition that robust childbearing is beneficial to US economic, demographic, strategic and actuarial goals
13. Commitment to downsizing government and the budget
14. Fierce defense of Religious Freedom and Freedom of Speech especially against the intolerance of those who would undermine law-abiding American citizens and institutions of faith and conscience for their adherence to and defense of heterosexual monogamy.

Texian · Post by **Texian** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 1:01 pm

Also, part of the 14 vows document
Quoting PZ Myers:

Oh, wait, I just saw this other weird part of her vows.

"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born in to 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."

I don't understand the message she's trying to get across here. "Slavery: Not So Bad As Freedom?" Or is she making a pledge to re-enslave all the black folk and force Mommy and Daddy to live together and raise their children?

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 1:16 pm

Texian, like I said, I'm not sure that's right. I think the document can also be read to be talking about pornography in the context of sexual exploitation of trafficked women. But perhaps the entity will clarify.

Arcanis · Post by **Arcanis** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 1:18 pm

Texian you do realize how big of a stretch you are making by taking "I benifit from there being high unemployment" to "I try to cause high unemployment to have a better chance", don't you? She would have gotten in a bit of trouble if she would have finished the answer "I hope so, otherwise the voters are idiots who don't want employment." I don't even like her but your creative interpretation of her answer is BS. Just as much as if someone used the same standards to say the President should be charged with treason for running up the debt to further his own political agenda.

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 2:26 pm

Texian, aren't you the same guy who was boasting of his rationality in the thread where you called for a purging of theists? Setting the bar so low doesn't reflect well on your cause.

Texian · Post by **Texian** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 2:47 pm

Perhaps, some clarification is in order. "Actively pursuing policies" part was from the article...
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/ ... mployment/" target="_blank

The question about treason is a real concern in my mind. If a member of government is actually actively working to make things worse for the country in order to help promote their own selfish political goals, then you must question their loyalty to the nation.

silverjon · Post by **silverjon** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 2:51 pm

I think the only thing you can really infer from her words is that she's dumb enough to have said she hopes the crappy economy will help her win. There's no indication she's actually trying to make things worse (other than by existing, depending on your take).

You've got a little foam on your chin there.

Arcanis · Post by **Arcanis** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 2:57 pm

Texian wrote:Perhaps, some clarification is in order. "Actively pursuing policies" part was from the article...
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/ ... mployment/" target="_blank

The question about treason is a real concern in my mind. If a member of government is actually actively working to make things worse for the country in order to help promote their own selfish political goals, then you must question their loyalty to the nation.

Then most politicians from the past 40-50 years should be tried for treason. I read the articles they used as proof of her pursuing policies to get potential votes. They really weren't all too convincing and just showed politics as usual, IMO. The only thing here that makes it stand out is that she admits an obvious fact that her high unemployment would help her if she got the nomination.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 3:29 pm

Mr. Fed wrote:Michele Bachmann signed on to a pledge. What pledge? This pledge.

Holy shit, check out footnote 8

No peer-reviewed empirical science or rational demonstration has ever definitively proven, nor even has shown an overwhelming probability, that homosexual
preference or behavior is irresistible as a function of genetic determinism or other forms of fatalism. Furthermore, no peer-reviewed empirical science or rational,
scholarly demonstration has ever definitively proven, nor even has shown an overwhelming probability:

(1) That society‟s interest in the physical, psychological and sociological health of infants, children, young people and other minors is not best upheld through the
enduring institution of legal marriage, especially faithful monogamy, as between only one man and one woman;

(2) That society‟s interest in a healthy, vibrant, and growing indigenous population and workforce to drive economic growth and actuarially support public and private
pension, benefit and entitlement systems is in any way advanced by undermining the institution of faithful, lawful marriage as between only one man and one woman;

(3) That the longstanding religious liberties of American parents, children, religious and civic leaders who adhere to Jewish and Christian tradition, teaching and sacred
texts regarding faithful heterosexual monogamy are not jeopardized by recent or pending redefinitions of legal marriage to include same-sex unions, polygamy and other
kinds of intimate relations;

(4) That practices such as adultery, bisexuality, homosexuality, anal intercourse, group sex, promiscuity, serial marriage, polygamy, polyandry and extramarital sex,
individually or collectively, lead to general improvements in

a. Human mortality; See for example, Robert S. Hogg et al, “Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal
of Epidemiology, 1997, Vol. 26, no. 3. From the abstract: “In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than
for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th
birthday

...

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 3:32 pm

Wait, Wait, footnote 12 is even better:

Justice Scalia‟s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html" target="_blank) holds that laws against such things as bigamy/polygamy,
prostitution, bestiality, adult incest -- customs historically rejected within the United States -- may become Constitutionally-inevitable under U.S. Supreme Court logic
which could be used to invalidate the Defense of Marriage Act and laws, in the overwhelming majority of states, against so-called same-sex marriage and nearequivalents. This is particularly problematic with regard to polygamy, a demographic and strategic means for the advancement of Sharia Islamist misogyny, for attacks
upon the rights of women, for the violent persecution of homosexuals, for the undermining of basic human rights, and for general religious and civil intolerance for
Jewish, Christian and other non-Islamic faiths under Sharia law

It's a straight line from Lawrence vs. Texas to Sharia Law.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 3:55 pm

Do the fundie Mormons know that they're advocating Sharia law?

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 6:17 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:Do the fundie Mormons know that they're advocating Sharia law?

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:37 pm

Have these right-wingers even stopped to think of the propaganda impact of female and gay soldiers gunning down Islamic fundies?

That's right: America will defeat you with girls and girlie-men!

(I had better add a huge

here, just in case).

Creepy_Smell · Post by **Creepy_Smell** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 10:06 pm

down with the evil that is serial marriage!

<found this one funny among the usual anti gay/porn/nonmissionary sex bits>

silverjon · Post by **silverjon** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 10:24 pm

It's not really any weirder than those other evils. Their definition of marriage is supposed to be between one man and one woman, forever, full stop. It's just the cultural ideal taken to an even higher moralistic level.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 7:42 am

Do we have a tally of which GOP hopefuls have signed on, refused, or ignored this creed? I saw that Huntsman refused (on the general basis of "not signing pledges"), and I can't imagine Romney signing a blatantly narrow religious statement (since Mormons require a certain amount of pluralism by definition), but what about Pawlenty, Cain, et al?

As a policy-making document, this kind of thing is worthless. But as a litmus test, it can shape the debate if it gains traction. That's got to be what Bachmann is hoping, since this is her turf.

Has Santorum staked out territory farther to the Right yet? Outlawing condoms, maybe?

Rick Perry has it covered, at least if he agrees with the Texas GOP platform, which includes

*Opposing all criminal or civil penalties against anti-gay activists and any actions they make take to "oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values."

*Banning sodomy and demanding that Congress "withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy."

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:30 pm

Holman wrote:Do we have a tally of which GOP hopefuls have signed on, refused, or ignored this creed? I saw that Huntsman refused (on the general basis of "not signing pledges"), and I can't imagine Romney signing a blatantly narrow religious statement (since Mormons require a certain amount of pluralism by definition), but what about Pawlenty, Cain, et al?

As a policy-making document, this kind of thing is worthless. But as a litmus test, it can shape the debate if it gains traction. That's got to be what Bachmann is hoping, since this is her turf.

Has Santorum staked out territory farther to the Right yet? Outlawing condoms, maybe?

Rick Perry has it covered, at least if he agrees with the Texas GOP platform, which includes

*Opposing all criminal or civil penalties against anti-gay activists and any actions they make take to "oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values."

*Banning sodomy and demanding that Congress "withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy."

The Texas GOP is just disgusting.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Sun Jul 10, 2011 3:31 pm

Michele Bachmann's husband runs a clinic that tries to "fix" gay people. What wretched, worthless people these Bachmanns are.

$iljanus · Post by **$iljanus** » Sun Jul 10, 2011 4:57 pm

That "vow" is so full of bat shit insane material that I don't know where to begin. The mind boggles.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sun Jul 10, 2011 4:58 pm

Fireball1244 wrote:Michele Bachmann's husband runs a clinic that tries to "fix" gay people. What wretched, worthless people these Bachmanns are.

I don't think we can really judge him until we've examined the contents of his closet.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:30 pm

Fireball1244 wrote:Michele Bachmann's husband runs a clinic that tries to "fix" gay people. What wretched, worthless people these Bachmanns are.

Which is even more troubling given

we have Bachmann on video saying those words—saying she submitted to her husband when he told her to get a post-doctoral degree in tax law, and agreed to run for Congress after he pushed her in that direction.

Which Bachmann is running for president, exactly?

Back in October 2006, recounting her life journey to an audience at the Living Word Christian Center, Bachmann talked about “receiving Jesus” at 16, studying hard, meeting her future husband at college, and earning a law degree. “My husband said ‘Now you need to go and get a post-doctorate degree in tax law.’ Tax law! I hate taxes—why should I go and do something like that?” she told the audience. “But the Lord says be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.”

Bachmann said she never had taken a tax course, “never had a desire for it,” but “I was going to be faithful to what I felt God was calling me to do through my husband.” Later, when the opportunity to run for Congress arose, “my husband said, ‘You need to do this,’ and I wasn’t so sure.” She became sure two days later, after praying and fasting with her husband.

I wouldn't care how things worked in their marriage if she wasn't running for president.

SpaceLord · Post by **SpaceLord** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:48 pm

Holman wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:Michele Bachmann's husband runs a clinic that tries to "fix" gay people. What wretched, worthless people these Bachmanns are.
I don't think we can really judge him until we've examined the contents of his closet.

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:54 pm

I can get behind the idea that women need to be submissive to their husbands in terms of finances, and family decisions, and parenting, and where to live, and what kind of sex to have when. But making your wife go back for a tax LLM just seems so unnecessarily degrading that it calls the whole principle into question. Can't you be satisfied just bending her roughly over the buffet and taking her in the ass now and then?

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:57 pm

It's been a few years since my CCD classes, but I'm pretty sure I do remember Sister Mary Francis telling us all about the benefits of getting a specialized law degree while simultaneously warning us about the evils of onanism.

silverjon · Post by **silverjon** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:12 pm

So, because I often have no visual reference as to who these people are, I had to look up pictures of Marcus Bachmann to verify that laughing boy up there is himself. Ok, standard-issue pudgy jowly I'm-your-buddy conservative mouthpiece (see everyone from Glen Beck to Ralph Klein).

But holy crap has Michele Bachmann been botoxed to hell and back. That's not helping the Stepford imagery here.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:24 pm

silverjon wrote:So, because I often have no visual reference as to who these people are, I had to look up pictures of Marcus Bachmann to verify that laughing boy up there is himself.

IE: right-click | View Properties
Chrome: right-click | Inspect element

Either will give you the pic URL. Not always useful enough for re-hosted content but it this case:

Code: Select all

http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Marcus-BachmannX390.jpg

Translation: I was in the same boat that you were. I just had a different method to get to the same destination.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:47 pm

Mr. Fed wrote:I can get behind the idea that women need to be submissive to their husbands in terms of finances, and family decisions, and parenting, and where to live, and what kind of sex to have when. But making your wife go back for a tax LLM just seems so unnecessarily degrading that it calls the whole principle into question. Can't you be satisfied just bending her roughly over the buffet and taking her in the ass now and then?

You had me until 'what kind of sex to have and when'.

I'm totally on board with my wife being submissive to what kind of sex we have and when.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:51 pm

Was he experimenting with an early treatment in "fixing" his wife? Or maybe trying to get rid of her after she went to law school?

If obedience to her husband is why Michelle Bachman pursued an LLM in taxation, it might explain why she doesn't seem to have a good grap of basic tax principles.

Maybe her husband told her to sign the marriage pledge, too.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:25 pm

Ron Paul decides to retire

I mean, he won't seek congressional reelection, which amounts to the same thing.

Texian · Post by **Texian** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:40 pm

Rick Perry is actively promoting The Response, a right wing effort to blur the boundaries between church and state by calling on government officials to come together and pray to Jesus for the nation.

http://theresponseusa.com/" target="_blank

I wonder if Perry has ever read or would heed the words of wisdom on this issue from conservative Republican Barry Goldwater (1981):

“There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, and D. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism.”

And, so will I "fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans." So say we all?

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:56 pm

Oddly enough, that very much follows the line of a discussion I had with my mother a couple months ago. I don't care who you are, I will not stand by and let you govern me by fiat from your holy book, no matter whose it is.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:37 pm

Bachmann is up, Up, UP!

I live in a large urban center in a mid-Atlantic state. Republicans here are basically just about hating unions and gun control rather than actually copy-and-pasting the Bible into the Constitution, so I don't think I know any Bachmann supporters. Even my parents down South seem to be more involved with McCain-Palin nostalgia than Bachmania.

Do any of you know any Bachmann people? Do they have basic literacy?

Texian · Post by **Texian** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:26 pm

Holman wrote:Bachmann is up, Up, UP!

I live in a large urban center in a mid-Atlantic state. Republicans here are basically just about hating unions and gun control rather than actually copy-and-pasting the Bible into the Constitution, so I don't think I know any Bachmann supporters. Even my parents down South seem to be more involved with McCain-Palin nostalgia than Bachmania.

Do any of you know any Bachmann people? Do they have basic literacy?

Yes, I got some relatives in Georgia who are Bachmann and/or Perry. They are your typical really sweet high school grad no college; gun totin'; baptist Southerners who would not vote for other than lily white republican Protestants even if you paid them buckets of cash to do otherwise. They fit the stereotype more than I can say.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:39 pm

Holman wrote:
Do any of you know any Bachmann people? Do they have basic literacy?

I don't think we allow them in MA. They all get sent to NH. And frankly I don't know what's come over that state recently.

Contrary to popular belief, we do have Republicans here. My town usually leans that way. But we go strictly for financial conservatism, not the wacky intolerant stuff.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:30 pm

While his campaign limps on life support, Gingrich has made good use of social media, having a huge following on twitter and hanged in a G+ hangout.

For an old guy, I'm impressed with how well he's using technology/social media.