Octopus Overlords

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" ?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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

...

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

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

*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."

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."

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

“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.”

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?

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