View Full Version : Michelle Bachmann Ban On Porn?
Bachmann said she would sign a pledge to ban porn and gay marriage.
What?
AT LEAST she is not being a hypocrit and only wanting to ban "gay marriage" but also letting straights what they can and cannot do with their personal sex lives. ugh.
a ban on porn? can you imagine?
lol
here come the porn police! better flush the stuff!
Yeah - I can imagine that it would be VERY expensive to enforce, that's for sure.
I thought that whole crew's rallying cry was smaller government and getting the gov out of people's beeswax and letting the free market decide. (or am I confusing her with Ron Paul?)
Here is FoxNews' coverage of this pledge and it does seem kind of 'fair and balanced' in this article - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/09/bachmann-stands-by-marriage-pact-that-links-slavery-to-black-family-values/
When you read that the group's aim is to strengthen marriage in the US on the face of it your like 'Yeah, marriage probably does need to be strengthened as an institution in our country because its' modern day unraveling is expensive for everyone', but good grief - then you read the fine print.
Why would a politician even need to become involved in something like this?
Well, on the face of it, the State bears the burden financially of families not staying together.
But how can that wing want to dictate people's personal lives and then get PO'd when Michelle Obama wants to get kids to drink less pop --- which costs the US a fortune in the long run?
At least with Bachmann you know that she really does believe in what she spouts out and she puts her money where her mouth is, and isn't just an egomaniac chasing a camera ...
I strongly believe in women having access to safe and legal abortions, but she shuts down one of my favorite comebacks to people who are anti-choice "How many unwanted children have you taken in and raised?"
She can pipe up "23 thank you very much" - that's impressive.
I haven't had time to do it yet, but I was interested in reading up more on her foster parenting.
nutcake
A nutcake that would win TN today.
Do you see that tripe that passes as legislation through Nashville?
goldensmom
7-12-11, 8:02am
Yes, I can imagine a ban on porn but imagining is about all that will ever happen. It would not be enforceable. I've seen the damage porn can do to families and individuals and would welcome a ban but it is unrealistic. It didn't work with alcohol and sadly would not work with porn.
Yes, I can imagine a ban on porn but imagining is about all that will ever happen. It would not be enforceable. I've seen the damage porn can do to families and individuals and would welcome a ban but it is unrealistic. It didn't work with alcohol and sadly would not work with porn.
I've seen far more marriages and families ruined by affairs. However, I suppose a ban on those wouldn't gain much traction with her congressional peers.
goldensmom
7-12-11, 10:07am
I've seen far more marriages and families ruined by affairs. However, I suppose a ban on those wouldn't gain much traction with her congressional peers.
There are laws against adultery but, again, not enforced/enforceable.
mtnlaurel
7-12-11, 10:48am
I moved this post to a separate thread.
There are laws against adultery but, again, not enforced/enforceable.
Yes, but those are at the state level and not every jurisdiction has laws against it. I'm referring to a federal ban, which I assume is also what she's pushing for.
Although, back to the porn, I wonder what Google would do if a ban was passed...
mtnlaurel.........you are so correct.......we are in deep do-do in TN
Ms Bachmann within the past few weeks has already signed a pledge in Iowa regarding something about preserving marriage, that *clearly* on the very first page said that black children were better off during slavery than they are now. Something about slave families being more stable than present day free black families. Ya, right....
Anyone who votes for that Christaliban control freak needs to have their head examined. What happened to keeping the government off our backs and reducing regulations? That mindset must pertain only to giving big business tax breaks and subsidies, but does not apply to anything having to do with sexual behavior 'they' do not approve of including porn, adultery, gay marriage, and abortion.
They want freedom - as in the freedom to force their religious beliefs on everyone else.
loosechickens
7-12-11, 2:41pm
"I strongly believe in women having access to safe and legal abortions, but she shuts down one of my favorite comebacks to people who are anti-choice "How many unwanted children have you taken in and raised?"
She can pipe up "23 thank you very much" - that's impressive.
I haven't had time to do it yet, but I was interested in reading up more on her foster parenting." (mtnlaurel)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.....definitely do more research. Because it would be impressive, if it were actually true in any real sense. There probably HAVE been several dozen foster children over the years , but but many sources have pointed out that some of them were with her family for a week to a month, none were actually "raised" by her, and while she IS to be commended for opening her home to foster children at all, the numbers and the length of time she fostered any of them belie her comments about having "raised 23 foster children. As politicians are prone to do, the exaggeration level about this subject is extreme, so should be taken with a grain of salt.
Although, I DO commend her for being involved at all.
poetry_writer
7-12-11, 3:17pm
,,,,,i see the media trashing of a candidate with conversative values has began. I saw the news last night. Talk about biased.....
Foster children tend not to be raised by any one foster parent for their entire childhood, yet it's not at all inaccurate to say that a foster parent has raised a foster child for whatever amount of time that foster child is with them. I was a short-term foster parent for several years, which meant that most of the children who were placed with me were there for only a few days, and few were with me for more than a few months. One boy was with me from the age of seven through twenty, years after he had left the foster program, but I actually had to receive a separate license provision in order for him to remain with me that long.
Most of the kids who were with me were placed with me by police departments, often after the parents had been arrested, injured, killed or whatever, and they remained with me only until the child welfare workers could find a long-term placement. No, I didn't really think about each of these kids as if I had "raised" them, especially since I don't even remember most of their names, but I don't think that it would be inaccurate for someone who has a foster child for a year or more to consider that they have helped raise them. Someone raised them and if there is no one person to whom this can be assigned, it has to be said that a number of parents raised them.
would masturbation also be illegal?
banning porn would be great - but we have freedom of the press - and with the good comes the smut. As long as their is demand, their will be porn, unfortunately, the demand is growing thanks to the internet.
Yes, that darn first amendment is always getting in the way at the most inconvenient times. And that's probably a really really good thing since it often also gets in the way of nefarious plans by people within the government as much as for people outside it. Who knows what different trajectory our country might have gone on if the pentagon papers hadn't ever been published or if watergate had been successfully suppressed. As much as I may not agree with what the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church has to say, I very much value their right to say it. Porn may not be as important as teh pentagon papers, but until someone can convince me that it'll cause the literal downfall of this country I will equally support the first amendment right of people to produce and consume it.
Personally I'm leaning more and more libertarian as I get older. The idea that the government needs to protect us from ourselves gets more and more annoying as the days go by. If I didn't want porn in my life I'd simply stop watching it and I'd sever ties with anyone in my life that consumed it if I felt that their use of it affected me negatively. Problem solved without the government treating everyone like a 3 year old that needs to be babysat.
Yes, that darn first amendment is always getting in the way at the most inconvenient times. And that's probably a really really good thing since it often also gets in the way of nefarious plans by people within the government as much as for people outside it. Who knows what different trajectory our country might have gone on if the pentagon papers hadn't ever been published or if watergate had been successfully suppressed. As much as I may not agree with what the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church has to say, I very much value their right to say it.
Much as I despise the Westboro people, the private action to separate them from the bereaved has been far better (and more honorable (http://www.patriotguard.org/)) than simple banning by the Government.
From an amoral view, one of the bigger drivers in both computer development and the Internet are video games and porn. On the porn front, it wasn't amazon.com and youtube at the forefront of ecommerce and streaming video.
Yes, that darn first amendment is always getting in the way at the most inconvenient times. And that's probably a really really good thing since it often also gets in the way of nefarious plans by people within the government as much as for people outside it. Who knows what different trajectory our country might have gone on if the pentagon papers hadn't ever been published or if watergate had been successfully suppressed. As much as I may not agree with what the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church has to say, I very much value their right to say it. Porn may not be as important as teh pentagon papers, but until someone can convince me that it'll cause the literal downfall of this country I will equally support the first amendment right of people to produce and consume it.
Personally I'm leaning more and more libertarian as I get older. The idea that the government needs to protect us from ourselves gets more and more annoying as the days go by. If I didn't want porn in my life I'd simply stop watching it and I'd sever ties with anyone in my life that consumed it if I felt that their use of it affected me negatively. Problem solved without the government treating everyone like a 3 year old that needs to be babysat.
We are the government and the government is us. We do need our elected representatives to aggressively and actively 'protect us from us' or people like Michelle Backman will gain power and ban whatever they don't happen to like. Or big companies will pollute at will like they do in China, or 'pad' the baby formula with questionable fillers, to name just a few. Business is in the business of making money, and to that end won't police themselves if not watched.
That goes for congress. We need to hold them accountable, and make sure we are protected from such nonsense like this. She and her many pledges (is there any pledge she hasn't signed?) need to be seen for what they are, and soundly ridiculed.
poetry_writer
7-13-11, 1:35pm
banning porn would be great - but we have freedom of the press - and with the good comes the smut. As long as their is demand, their will be porn, unfortunately, the demand is growing thanks to the internet.
We ban other things that are not good for us and unhealthy for society. Just sayin...
We ban other things that are not good for us and unhealthy for society. Just sayin...
Yes, I suppose the porn ban will be coming along about the same time the big mac ban happens. There are already happy meal toy bans in places so it wouldn't surprise me. God forbid people actually take even a little responsibility for their own lives and those of the people they care about. Lets just give government the power to control every aspect of our lives so that we don't even have to think any more. That's gotta be the best solution...
Mangano's Gold
7-13-11, 11:24pm
Yes, I suppose the porn ban will be coming along about the same time the big mac ban happens. There are already happy meal toy bans in places so it wouldn't surprise me. God forbid people actually take even a little responsibility for their own lives and those of the people they care about. Lets just give government the power to control every aspect of our lives so that we don't even have to think any more. That's gotta be the best solution...
Ultimately, I think it is all about judgment calls. To take the Big Mac example, why do we ban lead paint on kids' toys? If parents don't want their kids to play with lead toys, they shouldn't let them.
For porn, why not legalize heroin? How far should the government go to protect people from themselves? If you decide to legalize heroin on philosophical grounds, should you then allow heroin dealers to advertise? Send direct mail with free samples to potential consumers in the prime demographic?
IMO, there is no way to get around judgment calls. I think that we have to make them one way or the other, for better or worse. Banning porn seems to me to be pretty solidly in the "bad idea" camp.
But there's a difference between toys with lead paint and toys that are just toys. Toys by themselves are not inherrantly harmful. Do kids really view the happy meal toys as a reason to gorge on fast food? I had plenty of happy meals as a kid. I survived without ever becoming remotely overweight. Chomping on lead paint is a completely different scenario. Every kid that does so will likely be harmed. And most kids, especially at teething age, are likely to want to chomp on paint.
There was a blurb on the news the other day about how many public swimming pools wouldn't be opening on time this summer because they didn't have some new safety drain thing installed. A whole one kid per year had died in the US over the last 10 years by being sucked into the drain of a pool. I'm sorry those kids died. But is it really worth it to keep millions of kids from going swimming on the off chance that one might drown this summer? And if it is then why don't we just shut down all swimming pools forever because someone might someday drown in one of them.
Ultimately I think I agree with you. Lead paint on kids toys is a really really bad idea and ought to be banned. There's no good to come from any lead painted toy. Happy meal toys, on the other hand, can be enjoyed by plenty of kids without ruining their lives. And if it becomes apparent that the toys are causing obesity or other problems for the kid then it should be up to the parent to be responsible and act like a parent and say no to future happy meals.
By the same token plenty of people can enjoy porn without destroying their lives. And frankly, unlike with kids, if an adult can't manage their life and if porn destroys it then so be it. As an adult I want to be able to make my own decisions about what to do with my life. I don't need to spend all of it as a little kid, first to my parents and then to my government. If the government should be involved at all it should be to offer help and assistance to people who realize that the porn (or drugs in the case of heroin users) is causing them problems and they want help from someone.
Mangano's Gold
7-14-11, 1:33am
You make some good points, jp. I think it still comes down judgment calls, though. For example, what if it wasn't one kid per year that died in the drain, but seven, or seventy, or seven hundred? How many before Big Daddy Government steps in? Your judgment, I'm guessing, is that government steps in somewhere greater than one death but less than all of kids who swim in public pools. The judgment must be made somewhere.
As for lead paint/Happy Meals, I think one is just an easier call than the other. Happy Meals probably don't adversely affect every kid. I doubt being exposed to lead paint did either (kids stop putting everything in their mouth by two or three) but it is foolish to allow the sale of such toys when there are better alternatives. I'd say that eating the glorified salty, fatty, artificial "food like substances" at a young age surely contributes to the obesity madness (and its consequences) we see today. No doubt, I'd take my kids to McDonald's before letting them play with Chinese lead toys, though.
Backman and her tea-party cohorts are getting to be nothing but a bunch of thugs!!
Gingerella72
7-14-11, 9:59am
Just saw where Mitt Romney has refused to sign this pledge.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/13/republican.family.leader.pledge/index.html
I'm not a conservative but good for him.
The idea of an elected law-making official signing a pledge like this is a dangerous thing, imo. It puts their priority towards the special interest group behind the pledge, instead of on upholding our secular laws. Bachmann and Santorum can yap all they want about how much they agree with the sentiments of the pledge, but in the end it all comes down to getting campaign money....which they wouldn't have gotten from The Family Leader if they hadn't of signed the silly thing.
Just saw where Mitt Romney has refused to sign this pledge.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/13/republican.family.leader.pledge/index.html
I'm not a conservative but good for him.
The idea of an elected law-making official signing a pledge like this is a dangerous thing, imo. It puts their priority towards the special interest group behind the pledge, instead of on upholding our secular laws. Bachmann and Santorum can yap all they want about how much they agree with the sentiments of the pledge, but in the end it all comes down to getting campaign money....which they wouldn't have gotten from The Family Leader if they hadn't of signed the silly thing.
Agreed and agreed! Every tea partier who cries about 'nanny government' has been officially put on notice that Michelle Bachman is ready and willing to be the head 'nanny'! If they vote for her after seeing her many pledges/promises, then they are raciest, homophobic phonies posing as concerned citizens!
OK maybe that was a bit harsh, but I'm feeling a bit uncharitable towards the tea partiers who are blackmailing regular republicans into bumper sticker blabbing idiots who are willing to drive this economy over the cliff for a vote.
You make some good points, jp. I think it still comes down judgment calls, though. For example, what if it wasn't one kid per year that died in the drain, but seven, or seventy, or seven hundred? How many before Big Daddy Government steps in? Your judgment, I'm guessing, is that government steps in somewhere greater than one death but less than all of kids who swim in public pools. The judgment must be made somewhere.
You're right, at some point there would be enough deaths that I would agree that the government should do something. However, that number (for me at least. everyone's mileage will differ on this) is WAAAAY higher than 1 per year. For instance I just saw on ABC news that 156 people died in national parks last year. (it was in a story about the hikers in yosemite that jumped the guardrail to play in the water and drowned) I don't have stats on the number of people going to national parks last year versus the number that swam in public pools. I also don't know the total number of deaths in public pools, only those that got sucked into drains. To make a fair comparison one would have to work all those numbers to come up with a real apples to apples comparison, but at first glance it would seem that national parks are substantially more dangerous than public pools. But can you imagine how quickly anyone suggesting that we should close all national parks due to this "danger" would get laughed aside as an absurd alarmist who was freaking out over nothing? Most people would say that of course there are dangers in national parks. After all it's 'wilderness' with all that goes along with wilderness. And my response would be "and they're swimming pools. Drowning is one of the more common ways that kids in the US die every year. Swimming pools are enjoyable but also have serious risks." The people in yosemite jumped a guard rail. Perhaps like the pool drain covers we could put big chain link fences up in national parks to keep people from the dangerous parts.
Personally I don't want to go down that road. I'd rather expect people to use a little judgment to keep themselves safe, which includes not jumping guardrails and not swimming to the bottom of a public pool where the drain is. At yosemite they have signs in multiple languages warning of the dangers of going in the water where the people drowned. I'd much prefer signs at public pools saying "don't swim to the bottom of the deep end of the pool where the drain is. The suction is quite powerful" or something to that effect.
poetry_writer
7-22-11, 11:30am
But there's a difference between toys with lead paint and toys that are just toys. Toys by themselves are not inherrantly harmful. Do kids really view the happy meal toys as a reason to gorge on fast food? I had plenty of happy meals as a kid. I survived without ever becoming remotely overweight. Chomping on lead paint is a completely different scenario. Every kid that does so will likely be harmed. And most kids, especially at teething age, are likely to want to chomp on paint.
There was a blurb on the news the other day about how many public swimming pools wouldn't be opening on time this summer because they didn't have some new safety drain thing installed. A whole one kid per year had died in the US over the last 10 years by being sucked into the drain of a pool. I'm sorry those kids died. But is it really worth it to keep millions of kids from going swimming on the off chance that one might drown this summer? And if it is then why don't we just shut down all swimming pools forever because someone might someday drown in one of them.
Ultimately I think I agree with you. Lead paint on kids toys is a really really bad idea and ought to be banned. There's no good to come from any lead painted toy. Happy meal toys, on the other hand, can be enjoyed by plenty of kids without ruining their lives. And if it becomes apparent that the toys are causing obesity or other problems for the kid then it should be up to the parent to be responsible and act like a parent and say no to future happy meals.
By the same token plenty of people can enjoy porn without destroying their lives. And frankly, unlike with kids, if an adult can't manage their life and if porn destroys it then so be it. As an adult I want to be able to make my own decisions about what to do with my life. I don't need to spend all of it as a little kid, first to my parents and then to my government. If the government should be involved at all it should be to offer help and assistance to people who realize that the porn (or drugs in the case of heroin users) is causing them problems and they want help from someone.
Porn is garbage that destroys families, homes, treats human beings like pieces of meat. Nothing is good about it. It usually destroys an innocent party involved, like a spouse. I know women who have caught their husbands looking at it. they were devastated and their marriages did not always survive. Its crap.
Government regulations banning certain things: toys, cribs, cars, foods, paints, medicines, etc... are for safety reasons not ethical or moral reasons. There is an implyed belief that what we put in our mouth, on or in our bodies, have our kids play with, vehicles we drive, etc... with will be safe and we will not be hurt physically or die from those things. Whereas porn (and books or movies that many would find to be "R" or "X" rated), while offensive to many- including myself - in and of themselves can't physically harm you - unless you get a paper cut - like the lead paint in a childs toy which has been banned.
When you get right down to it porn is similar to the violent video games we were discussing a few threads back. Neither have many (if any) socially redeeming qualities, but both are necessarily protected under the 1st amendment. Porn has been limited for participation in and sale to adults by the SC, but aside from access limitations it is protected by the constitution.
I don't consider porn a big deal (not talking about child or underage porn). Admittedly, in my younger days I always looked forward to the latest Playboy and even went to a couple of the Playboy clubs in the 70's. They were fun and in those days just a little skin or so was so "risqué". Later I went to a couple of the all-nude places - Gold Club and Cheetah Lounge - both in Atlanta. Now that is what I am talking about!!:0!
I didn't tell my DW about either of the clubs in Atlanta (company team-building) but did bring home a Cheetah Club T-shirt. She was wearing it one day and someone commented about it (it pretty much looked like an athletic jersey with the XXX size thingy on it. She came home so mad! I would have never thought out here in po-dunk Central Texas anyone would have known about that place.
I also have been to the "Yellow Rose" in Austin - only to eat the $10 prime rib at lunch. Some of our most famous "Conservative" Texas politicians are regulars (not far from the Texas Capitol building). FYI - Renée Zellweger was a waitress there while attending UT/Austin (not a stripper). Just some pretty college girls trying to pay for their education!
Peace
I think it likely that a ban on porn would be as effective, and as harmful, as the ban on alcohol during Prohibition.
Much of my "porn" is actually day-time Tv Soap Operas. Would those be banned?
flowerseverywhere
8-3-11, 3:13pm
Much of my "porn" is actually day-time Tv Soap Operas. Would those be banned?
you just beat me to it. Who will define porn? Should art museums paint drapes over any painting with "naughty bits" showing? What about novels that describe sex scenes? What about movies? Will we go back to a married couple sleeping in separate beds on TV shows? I think a lot of the stuff I see on the TV at the gym (two and a half men jumps to mind) could be called into question?
Is this what we elected these people to do? There are laws in place that protect children and other victims of sex crimes and it doesn't deter these things from happening.
Don't make government bigger. Please.
The Storyteller
8-3-11, 4:51pm
Edited...
Others beat me to it...
Define porn.
Define porn.
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . ." ~ Justice Potter Stewart, 1964
flowerseverywhere
8-4-11, 7:38am
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . ." ~ Justice Potter Stewart, 1964
if it were only that easy. Did you know that the Sistine Chapel paintings were recently restored and they removed the modesty drapes that had been placed on some of the figures? That is why I mentioned art.
And don't forget there are women in this world who are only allowed out in public covered from head to toe with a little slit for their eyes to see. Even breast feeding in public has been very controversial. The right to breastfeed act was only passed in 1999 in the US. Every now and then a woman is harassed for breast feeding in public even now. I know a very Christian family whose young girls are not allowed to wear pants so wear long skirts and never show their shoulders, and at the other extreme I was at a graduation party last week and some of the little bathing suits had only a few square inches of fabric. So we obviously all have differing views of modesty and public displays of skin.
So I really don't want anyone meddling in what I can see or do as long as it does not involve minors, the participants are willing and consenting, and no one is being harmed. And I am a woman. Of course I think it is demeaning to women but if that is what you want to do it is not my business to tell you that you cannot. and it is not the governments business either.
One thing we can all be sure of is that there are plenty of problems our government can work on, they don't have to start making new problems.
The Storyteller
8-4-11, 9:31am
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . ." ~ Justice Potter Stewart, 1964
That was about obscenity, not porn. Obscene materials are already unprotected and illegal, pornography is not. All obscene materials are pornography, but not all pornography is obscene.
Legally speaking, at any rate.
Gingerella72
8-4-11, 3:36pm
Porn is garbage that destroys families, homes, treats human beings like pieces of meat. Nothing is good about it. It usually destroys an innocent party involved, like a spouse. I know women who have caught their husbands looking at it. they were devastated and their marriages did not always survive. Its crap.
This may be TMI to share but my husband and I enjoy porn together occasionally, it is part of our sex life. If you don't wish to view it or engage in it, no problem, but do not dictate to me what I can view and engage in in my own bedroom, thank you.
loosechickens
8-4-11, 9:33pm
Hmmmm....very interesting piece in Scientific American this month on pornography, and examining porn in depth, and including the research that shows it may even have a role in preventing violence, as well as the studies of its negative effects.
.....who woulda thought.......obviously not such a black/white issue as Ms. Bachmann thinks. SO many shades of grey here.....
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-sunny-side-of-smut
(I have to say, I enjoyed seeing what the research showed about which men are the most sexist.....somehow I was NOT surprised, hahahahaha)
That was about obscenity, not porn. Obscene materials are already unprotected and illegal, pornography is not. All obscene materials are pornography, but not all pornography is obscene.
Legally speaking, at any rate.
I foujd this clarification useful. I think that those two terms pornography and obscentiy WERE getting muddled in this discussion.
So why don't we just use the term "erotic" for "pornography" and perhaps the discussion would be less heated.
I foujd this clarification useful. I think that those two terms pornography and obscentiy WERE getting muddled in this discussion.
So why don't we just use the term "erotic" for "pornography" and perhaps the discussion would be less heated.
I like this idea. Erotic is different than pornography. When I think of porn, i think of child porn, or degrading porn, in degrading the man or woman. Or anything regarding children, really. Erotica is for adults, period. And private.
flowerseverywhere
8-4-11, 11:07pm
I like this idea. Erotic is different than pornography. When I think of porn, i think of child porn, or degrading porn, in degrading the man or woman. Or anything regarding children, really. Erotica is for adults, period. And private.
well we all seem to share this view but does Michelle Bachmann?
I think of erotica as being porn that doesn't make you laugh out loud...http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing001.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
"It's for you honey--the pizza delivery man!"
flowerseverywhere
8-13-11, 11:23am
interesting article about Bachmann from the LA times
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2011/08/michele-bachmann-is-worried-about-the-renaissance.html
"Tea party queen and Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann is convinced that America is sinking into tyranny. Why? In a remarkable profile of the candidate appearing in the Aug. 15 issue of the New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/15/110815fa_fact_lizza) magazine, the artistic flowering of the Italian Renaissance takes a beating for having done away with the god-fearing Dark Ages."
Well I just heard on the news that she believes women should be submissive to the will of their husbands and do what they tell them. So maybe her stance on porn and other things aren't really "her" stance at all but her hubbys. Would anyone want a person in top office who felt it was her or his duty to submit to the will of their spouse? I think the top office holder needs to submit to the will of the people as their elected representative and no one else Especially not to one person who may have their own political agenda.
Well I just heard on the news that she believes women should be submissive to the will of their husbands and do what they tell them. So maybe her stance on porn and other things aren't really "her" stance at all but her hubbys. Would anyone want a person in top office who felt it was her or his duty to submit to the will of their spouse? I think the top office holder needs to submit to the will of the people as their elected representative and no one else Especially not to one person who may have their own political agenda.
I guess that depends on how "the news" chose to frame the issue. When asked about the whole "submissive" thing, she replied that she and her husband respected each others wishes. That seemed reasonable to me.
loosechickens
8-13-11, 3:15pm
Yes, her response seemed reasonable to me, also, IF it matched in any way many other comments she's made over the years. In explaining how she became a tax attorney, for instance, she said she hated it and never wanted to do that for a career, but her husband wanted her to do it, and since women should be submissive to their husbands, she became a tax attorney.
Look, it is very much the religious conservative outlook that the man is the head of the house and makes all the final decisions. I have several friends who are very conservative Christians and every decision in their lives must be passed on by the person in the house that has the "headship", the husband.
It certainly can mean that a husband can respect his wife's wishes, and choose to allow them, and it is true that the wife can respect her husband's wishes and choose to go along with what he wants out of respect, but when the rubber hits the road and one wants one thing and one wants the other, it's the husband in those families that has the deciding vote.
I'm not going by what the news media is doing in "framing" the issue. I am going by a number of things that Michelle Bachmann has said herself over the years regarding women's place in the family, submissiveness to a husband, and her own admissions that she has followed paths in her life that she did not choose because she was being submissive (and SHE used those words) to her husband's authority.
Just as it was a legitimate question in 1960 for JFK to be asked if he would put his religious beliefs over the Constitution, or for Mitt Romney or Harry Reid for that matter to be questioned as to their loyalties if the Constitution and the Mormon Church views on an issue are different, I think that a woman who has over the years preached on the need for women to submit to their husbands and be obedient and submissive to their wishes, even if they did not agree, that is a legitimate thing to question. Who would we be electing President, after all, Michelle Bachmann or her husband, behind her pulling the strings.
Look, I am going to be horrified if either Michelle Bachmann or Rick Perry becomes the Republican nominee. Although, honestly, I fear the competition to President Obama from a Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman far more. But it is a measure of how much power the extreme right wing social conservatives in this country have managed to achieve that we are even seriously looking at someone like Bachmann or Perry as anything other than an extreme fringe candidate. Heck, Ronald Reagan would be considered a RINO these days, and Barry Goldwater said before his death that he, far to the right in 1964 and holding the same views many years later, would have been considered a liberal by today's Republican Party.
It's not your father's Republican Party, and not even the Republican party of my youth and middle age......the folks running the show today make the old John Birchers look positively socialist.
It's not your father's Republican Party, and not even the Republican party of my youth and middle age......the folks running the show today make the old John Birchers look positively socialist.
Even if Bachmann and Perry don't get the nomination, I think they do much to shift the center to the right.
I remember not long ago when Hillary Clinton was running she was accused of being nothing more than a back door to Bill getting back into the White House. And I don't think anyone could construe "submissive" out of that relationship.
One reason why Bachman might be considered a viable candidate other than the fiction that the far right controls the Republican party is that she is a polished speaker with convictions about the national debt. Last time I looked that debt thing was pretty important in the polls.
I was impressed with her performance in Ames. Pawlenty, who claims to be more to the right on abortion than any one on the stage that night, was unimpressive.
Well I just heard on the news that she believes women should be submissive to the will of their husbands and do what they tell them. So maybe her stance on porn and other things aren't really "her" stance at all but her hubbys. Would anyone want a person in top office who felt it was her or his duty to submit to the will of their spouse? I think the top office holder needs to submit to the will of the people as their elected representative and no one else Especially not to one person who may have their own political agenda.
They asked her the "submissive" question at the debate and she explained it as having respect for her spouse, just as he has respect for her.
I personally am not making a big deal out of that. There are other issues of conservative social politics that I don't like, but the politics of personal attack aren't interesting to me although the mainstream media does love them. Also she looked really good on stage, a tad less pretty than Sarah Palin but much better looking than Tina Brown's image of a crazed one would have you believe.
I guess that depends on how "the news" chose to frame the issue. When asked about the whole "submissive" thing, she replied that she and her husband respected each others wishes. That seemed reasonable to me.
Really, I should read all responses before I post. You will notice that I posted practically the same thing. haha.
I personally am not making a big deal out of that. There are other issues of conservative social politics that I don't like, but the politics of personal attack aren't interesting to me although the mainstream media does love them. Also she looked really good on stage, a tad less pretty than Sarah Palin but much better looking than Tina Brown's image of a crazed one would have you believe.
Isn't that an interesting aspect of the media and political discourse these days? I think the lengths that publications and private individuals go to in order to make someone appear unreasonable, offensive or odd is telling. Not so much for the candidate, but for their commenters.
Isn't that an interesting aspect of the media and political discourse these days? I think the lengths that publications and private individuals go to in order to make someone appear unreasonable, offensive or odd is telling. Not so much for the candidate, but for their commenters.
It's what sells. At the end of the day, the only reason they are there is to make money.
loosechickens
8-13-11, 11:01pm
And sometimes, persons simply ARE unreasonable, offensive and odd, and all the media has to do is run up video after video of them hanging themselves with their very own words and positions on issues over a period of years. And the media will find riches in their archives of speeches and comments by Michelle Bachmann that will offend and horrify most mainstream Americans.
She may attempt artful pivots about submissive wives, but the record of her thoughts on those matters contains lots of "submissive" comments and only VERY recently, it morphed into "respect".
It's been said that Michelle Bachmann is Sarah Palin if Sarah Palin were articulate, and undeniably Ms. Bachmann has done very well in the debates, etc. As I remember, Allen Keyes was WONDERFUL in the debates, but it didn't mean that he wasn't something of a nutcase, and Michelle Bachmann's ability to be articulate doesn't mean that what she believes is anything that any but a small percentage of Americans would find attactive once she is examined carefully. Which a Presidential campaign leaves lots of opportunity to do.
Look, if you conservatives want her or Rick Perry, go for it. Personally, if you want to beat President Obama, you need a lot more gravitas and ability than either of them possess. I would fear several other candidates as competition for President Obama far more, myself.
loosechickens
8-13-11, 11:09pm
Ah, from Fox News to the Dogs ears..........
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/08/12/juan-williams-democratic-view-is-gop-out-step/
loosechickens
8-13-11, 11:28pm
hmmmm......this, from the Huffington Post. Significant not for what Michelle Bachmann's husband said, but for what he DIDN'T say......I think I rest my case......... (plus, it's time to head for the pool for evening swim...g'nite)
"AMES, IOWA -- Marcus Bachmann, standing off to the side of the stage a few minutes before his wife spoke, told The Huffington Post he was optimistic about her chances in the poll.
"I appreciate the weather cooperating," he said, referring to the gorgeous, mid-80's day.
HuffPost asked him if he thought it was appropriate and fair for a question to be asked of his wife in the debate Thursday night about whether she would be "submissive" to him, her husband, if she were president.
"The answer was brilliant," he said.
I asked him again.
"They need to focus on what's important in this country," Marcus Bachmann said, pointing to jobs and the economy as the topics that should take priority. "It's unfortunate that they focus on things that are not as important."
loosechickens
8-13-11, 11:39pm
o.k. I really AM headed for the pool....just couldn't resist this.......much closer to my own take on whether wives should be submissive...... ;-)
Husband reads a book : "You are the man of your house"! So he storms to his wife and announces- "From now on you need to know I'm the man of the house. My word is LAW. You WILL cook & clean for me.You WILL go upstairs & give me the kind of sex I want. After, you WILL draw me a bath wash my back & massage my feet. Oh, & guess who's going to dress me & comb my hair in the morning?.." The wife replied, "A freaking funeral director would be my 1st guess!"
g'nite......
Loosechickens, we get it. You don't like Michele Bachmann, you don't like her belief's, her positions and her husband. We really do get it.
flowerseverywhere
8-14-11, 11:11am
Loosechickens, we get it. You don't like Michele Bachmann, you don't like her belief's, her positions and her husband. We really do get it.
I am not a fan after reading some of her views but I saw her this morning on the news shows. She comes across as smart, together, attractive but not too much so and was not afraid to voice her views. I thought "this could be the next president of the US." I remember thinking that when Obama started to run, but thought that there was no way an African-American would ever make it into the white house in my lifetime.
People are fed up. The debt, unemployment and underemployment, stock market gyrations, loss of pensions, CEO bonuses, and dismal school performance will mobilize people who want change. I don't know if she is it but she sure came across as self assured and unafraid to stand up for what she believes in. Not wishy-washy in any way.
I am not a fan after reading some of her views but I saw her this morning on the news shows. She comes across as smart, together, attractive but not too much so and was not afraid to voice her views. I thought "this could be the next president of the US." I remember thinking that when Obama started to run, but thought that there was no way an African-American would ever make it into the white house in my lifetime.
People are fed up. The debt, unemployment and underemployment, stock market gyrations, loss of pensions, CEO bonuses, and dismal school performance will mobilize people who want change. I don't know if she is it but she sure came across as self assured and unafraid to stand up for what she believes in. Not wishy-washy in any way.
I agree. She comes across to me as a leader, and one that some demographics are intimidated by. Just look at the concerted effort to marginalize her.
Dharma Bum
8-14-11, 2:20pm
She comes across to me as a leader
I'm not convinced. I thought electing BO was a mistake last time because he had no record of leadership, just pretty words. Walking the walk is much tougher than talking the talk. Maybe it is a sad commentary on the state of affairs when we can't find candidates who have actually accomplished anything and just have to find one that talks pretty and hope for the best. But I think we are risking a lot when we let ourselves get suckered in by these people and are paying the price today for chosing the accomplishment-free big talker the last time. I think he is in over his head and am pretty sure she would be in way over hers.
I'm not convinced.
Neither am I. But I'm pretty sure she's a better choice than our current President, we do know what she stands for.
flowerseverywhere
8-15-11, 7:45am
Neither am I. But I'm pretty sure she's a better choice than our current President, we do know what she stands for.
But some of the things she stands for I just cannot endorse. I have been doing a lot of reading about her record and views after seeing her on TV. She does not believe in abortion under any circumstances. She believes in creationism and that it should be taught in schools, does not believe in homosexuality, and that medicare and social security should be gradually fizzled out along with the health care initiatives. And while she talks against government involvement and subsidies her family has taken advantage of them for their farm and housing purchases, as well as her husbands clinic funding. (most of this info is summarized in Wikipedia, but her views are very easy to find)
I do agree she would be way in over her head. And the president of our country has to represent non-Christians and be respectful of their views as well. As an atheist I tolerate prayers at sporting events or public gatherings out of respect and expect others to be courteous of my beliefs. Especially the government.
I guess that depends on how "the news" chose to frame the issue. When asked about the whole "submissive" thing, she replied that she and her husband respected each others wishes. That seemed reasonable to me.
Haven't read the rest of the responses yet but I was talking about her humorously saying how hubby said she had to go back to law school to study taxes and she said something to the effect of "Yuck, hate taxes, don't want to do that but the Bible says a woman should submit to her husband so I guess I gotta do it". While I realize she was trying to be humorous, it also made me realize that many people in this country DO feel this way - that the man is the head of household (and men in general may be superior in terms of things outside the home) and a woman should submit to his will, and obey him. And that made me wonder how that belief would effect the leadership of a female president who felt this way. How would she be in dealing with not only issues effecting women, but dealing with men in authority positions like the Joint Chiefs, other world leaders, etc... How much control and influenceover the issues will her DH have? I can only see negative effects but I'll read the rest of the responses before throwing out my personal thoughts on this.
Editted to add: I remember back when everyone milined Nancy Reagan for appearing to be the "real" decider and leader of the Presidency. Would that be the same with Marcus Bachman?
How would she be in dealing with not only issues effecting women, but dealing with men in authority positions like the Joint Chiefs, other world leaders, etc...
It might be beneficial for Mrs. Bachmann to do a little reading about women like Angela Merkel, Benazir Bhutto, Helen Clark, Indira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher, Dimla Vana Linhares Rousseff, Golda Meir, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, etc. No argument that there are unique challenges to a woman taking the reigns in a "mans world", but if the woman is strong enough it can be done.
It might be beneficial for Mrs. Bachmann to do a little reading about women like Angela Merkel, Benazir Bhutto, Helen Clark, Indira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher, Dimla Vana Linhares Rousseff, Golda Meir, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, etc. No argument that there are unique challenges to a woman taking the reigns in a "mans world", but if the woman is strong enough it can be done.
What does the fact that she's a woman have to do with anything?
Zigzagman
8-16-11, 12:59pm
What does the fact that she's a woman have to do with anything?
As a woman I think her "biblical" view of gender roles would be a big issue in dealing with issues like gay marriage, abortion, etc. Bachmann's worldview, which she sees as under siege by secularists, feminists, imaginary socialists and other bogeymen, must be defended for future generations which immediately puts her leadership ability in question.
In my wildest dreams I just cannot picture a graduate of Oral Roberts University (was the largest Charismatic Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_Movement) university in the world) leading our nation.
Peace
I agree with what James Taranto had to say on the subject of Mrs. Bachmann:
“Suppose Bachmann gets the nomination. She will be asking voters, in effect, to take a flier on a politically talented but inexperienced lawmaker with unusual religious views and a history of irresponsible statements. Last time they did that, they ended up with Barack Obama. This time, if they don't do it, they'll end up with Barack Obama.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903480904576510271119903298.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion
It might be beneficial for Mrs. Bachmann to do a little reading about women like Angela Merkel, Benazir Bhutto, Helen Clark, Indira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher, Dimla Vana Linhares Rousseff, Golda Meir, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, etc. No argument that there are unique challenges to a woman taking the reigns in a "mans world", but if the woman is strong enough it can be done.
While I agree with Alan that it shouldn't matter if she were a woman or not (in my ideal world at least), I think that if a person is in a leadership position where they are breaking barriers, that studying others in the same situation can really help - certainly can't hurt - to understanding the desires of people they will be serving and potential obstacles she may face. But, as a woman, I really find that comments like her's about submissiveness scare the behoovies out of me. Not only because it implies that she needs to be lead by her spouse in an almost childlike way (and maybe men in general) but because, to me, it seems she does not see women as equal to men (i.e the word "submissive" implies something much different then "respect" IMHO - respecting your spouse means honoring their beliefs even if different from yours, whereas submitting means doing what they say even if it is against your wishes). While that's all fine and dandy in her personal life since it doesn't effect me, but in public (i.e. presidental) life she has the opportunity to make public policy that may/will effect all of us. Will she keep her personal believes out of her public policy making? I'm doubtful. To me it is the same as a white supremacist saying that blacks should be submissive to whites. They have every right to believe that in their own lives, but I wouldn't want to see someone who holds that kind of view as my president no matter how great their politics were in other areas.
“Suppose Bachmann gets the nomination. She will be asking voters, in effect, to take a flier on a politically talented but inexperienced lawmaker with unusual religious views and a history of irresponsible statements. Last time they did that, they ended up with Barack Obama. This time, if they don't do it, they'll end up with Barack Obama.”
:laff: +1.0
I see what you're saying Spartana, and it makes sense. Hopefully Mrs. Bachmann's true views, whatever they are, will become apparent as the campaign goes on. With the level of media scrutiny placed on the candidates she won't have much opportunity to say anything off the record so we should be able to get a handle on what she really believes.
San Onofre Guy
8-16-11, 4:08pm
I just wish that Ron Paul wasn't getting too sucked in by the wackos in the Republican Party. He seems to be the only one saying the freedom includes bringing our troops home and keeping out of other countries business.
While I am at it I am sick to death of "liberal" California taking away my ability to enjoy being nude on a small portion of state beach without fear of being issued a citation.
Come on people freedom is at stake here!
I see what you're saying Spartana, and it makes sense. Hopefully Mrs. Bachmann's true views, whatever they are, will become apparent as the campaign goes on. With the level of media scrutiny placed on the candidates she won't have much opportunity to say anything off the record so we should be able to get a handle on what she really believes.
What makes anyone think her true views haven't already been made known?
While I am at it I am sick to death of "liberal" California taking away my ability to enjoy being nude on a small portion of state beach without fear of being issued a citation.
Come on people freedom is at stake here!
Watch out for the "Freedom Riders In The Sand" the new right will not tolerate such activities!
Vote for Paul - Legalize Weed!!
Peace
What makes anyone think her true views haven't already been made known?
You are correct Alan. I should have said Ms. Bachmann's views are not known to me. I suspect a lot of other folks aren't sure about her for the same reason. That reason is that I have only taken the chance to listen to sound bites so far. Those may or may not give an accurate representation of Michelle Bachmann, I don't know yet. I do not fault the candidate for that. Over the course of the next several months I expect the sound bites to accumulate in such a way as to provide a clearer picture (for me) of what Ms. Bachmann stands for. It may not be an ideal or completely accurate method, but is a product of my own apathy brought on by the knowledge that I am about to be bombarded with campaign rhetoric, commercials and completely inane commentary from the media for more than a year to come.
Barack Obama has "unusual religious views?" Could you expand on that? He seems pretty mainstream middle of the road Christian to me.
In this strange country of ours, no one who espouses an even mildly off-center spiritual path can get nominated to high office, let alone elected.
Barack Obama has "unusual religious views?" Could you expand on that? He seems pretty mainstream middle of the road Christian to me.
In this strange country of ours, no one who espouses an even mildly off-center spiritual path can get nominated to high office, let alone elected.
Here's what Taranto said:
"Where the parallels get interesting, though, is in considering why her detractors regard Bachmann as "crazy." Much of it comes down to religion. "Bachmann belongs to a generation of Christian conservatives whose views have been shaped by institutions, tracts, and leaders not commonly known to secular Americans, or even to most Christians," writes Ryan Lizza (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/15/110815fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all) in The New Yorker. Lizza attributes to Bachmann "a set of beliefs more extreme than those of any American politician of her stature."
He does not mention that the man she seeks to challenge had a "spiritual mentor" who described AIDS as a racist U.S. government plot, said of 9/11 that "America's chickens are coming home to roost," published Hamas propaganda in the church newsletter, and thundered from the pulpit: "God damn America!" Obama's mentor's beliefs might have seemed normal in the faculty lounge or the offices of The New Yorker, but they were not commonly known to Christians, or even most secular Americans."
I just wish that Ron Paul wasn't getting too sucked in by the wackos in the Republican Party. He seems to be the only one saying the freedom includes bringing our troops home and keeping out of other countries business.
While I am at it I am sick to death of "liberal" California taking away my ability to enjoy being nude on a small portion of state beach without fear of being issued a citation.
Come on people freedom is at stake here!
Maybe the other people on the beach did not enjoy the view.
I just wish that Ron Paul wasn't getting too sucked in by the wackos in the Republican Party. He seems to be the only one saying the freedom includes bringing our troops home and keeping out of other countries business.
While I am at it I am sick to death of "liberal" California taking away my ability to enjoy being nude on a small portion of state beach without fear of being issued a citation.
Come on people freedom is at stake here!
Maybe the other people on the beach did not enjoy the view.
I just wish that Ron Paul wasn't getting too sucked in by the wackos in the Republican Party. He seems to be the only one saying the freedom includes bringing our troops home and keeping out of other countries business.
While I am at it I am sick to death of "liberal" California taking away my ability to enjoy being nude on a small portion of state beach without fear of being issued a citation.
Come on people freedom is at stake here!
You know, I can read Ron Paul and think he's fine, but IRL--hum. At the Ames debate he came off as a wacko himself. He's just not Presidential. I could probably, theoretically, support Ron Paul but he is not electable and he doesn't inspire confidence in me.
Is it just me or is the media pretty much ignoring Ron Paul? I mean, didn't he come in second in the straw poll, not that anyone should put any weight to that buy-the-vote vote. I confess I don't know much about him but like IL thought he was a bit of fluff. But he does come in pretty high in the polls that he is in. Do the right simply not like him or what? He certainly couldn't say anything goofier than Palin or Bachmann so it must be something else. You people on the right, what gives?
Ron Paul came in second by less than 200 votes.
There was a funny Jon Stewart bit about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX6-cN7WEcA
Is it just me or is the media pretty much ignoring Ron Paul? I mean, didn't he come in second in the straw poll, not that anyone should put any weight to that buy-the-vote vote. I confess I don't know much about him but like IL thought he was a bit of fluff. But he does come in pretty high in the polls that he is in. Do the right simply not like him or what? He certainly couldn't say anything goofier than Palin or Bachmann so it must be something else. You people on the right, what gives?
I think most people do not consider him seriously. He has a lot of good points and I think he might be an effective candidate in the 50's or maybe even the early 60's.
My main problem with Paul is that he pretty much doesn't think the government has an reason to be involved in our society at all, any where, any time. I like the idea of independence from government but that is not the world that we live in or have lived in for almost > 200 years.
I like a lot of his ideas and I think he would be a excellent to be friends with - I just don't think we can live like that in 2011 and beyond. I kinda wish we could but if I am gonna wish for something it certainly is not gonna be for a dream world in which we are all just a bunch of folks doing our thing with no more direction than when doing "window pane" (gel acid for those younger than 50- looked like scotch tape).
Peace
Ron Paul came in second by less than 200 votes.
There was a funny Jon Stewart bit about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX6-cN7WEcA
That WAS hilarious, wow, how consistant are the mainstream media when they choose their talking point.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.