U.S. Presidential says black children had a more stable family life under slavery

MrMatisse

If you thought Palin was bad, get this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/republicans/8628717/Michele-Bachmann-signs-controversial-slavery-marriage-pact.html

How the U.S continues to produce these people and give them air time is a mystery.

Oh_Noes

She's slightly MILF-ish like Sarah Palin too.

I'm off to the conspiracy theory forum.

Overheal

Poltifact will have a field day with this.

ejmaztec

Another nutter is upon us.

My name is URL

Are there any sane Republicans in the US..? Seriously..

orourkeda

My name is URL wrote: »

Are there any sane Republicans in the US..? Seriously..

Yes. They're called democrats.

Capt'n Midnight

U.S. Presidential says black children had a more stable family life under slavery.

That's because back then they lived in stables :rolleyes:

strobe

She's the psycho clown fan isn't she?

I think she's great, nothing in the world would make me happier than having her and Palin square off against each other in a live televised 3 hour debate. I have started an internet petition to make it happen.

Iwasfrozen

All the hot chicks are christian.

General General

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7jlyRQcAi4

strobe

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

All the hot chicks are christian.

I bet Philologos has that bumper sticker on his Volvo.

RichieC

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

All the hot chicks are christian.

Hot? she looks like a horse... Man I prey she gets nominated, comedy gold...

Manic Moran

None of the posters, as yet, have addressed the question of if she's right or not.

There's a difference between liberty, equality, and stability. Now, personally, I would prefer to be free, equal, and unstable, but the amount of broken or dysfunctional black families in the US today is rather high. You can argue that it's a function of societal stratification, and that she may be drawing a false conclusion (or that there is no conclusion that she's drawing at all), but you can't just go at her for making a comment about something being true back in the slavery days.

The question is not over if she is being offensive (the statement itself is not), or if she is wrong (which she may not be, and nobody is addressing), but really over if you take her statement at face value as true, "so what?" What is the proposed solution to the decline in familial stability, other than just saying that it's worse now than it used to be, and "what has Obama's administration done to make it worse?" That's more important, and a little depressing that nobody has asked it instead of making reflex comments.

NTM

ancapailldorcha

I love how the Republicans over there basically take the piss out of themselves. Saves the likes of Seth MacFarlane doing it.

dlofnep

It's crazy to see American being so evolved in some aspects, and then you see this. Cringe-worthy.

dlofnep

Manic Moran wrote: »

None of the posters, as yet, have addressed the question of if she's right or not.

She's not.

Question answered.

Iwasfrozen

strobe wrote: »

I bet Philologos has that bumper sticker on his Volvo.

Who's Philologos ?

RichieC wrote:

Hot? she looks like a horse... Man I prey she gets nominated, comedy gold...

Sill a MILF, c'mon are you saying you wouldn't?

MrMatisse

MrMatisse wrote: »

If you thought Palin was bad, get this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/republicans/8628717/Michele-Bachmann-signs-controversial-slavery-marriage-pact.html

How the U.S continues to produce these people and give them air time is a mystery.

She is probably correct.

Bachmann wrote:

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President,

craggles

Manic Moran wrote: »

None of the posters, as yet, have addressed the question of if she's right or not.

Honestly? And you're a mod?

Yes, things were better for black people when white people fucking owned them?

How can you even consider questioning a statement like that?

strobe

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Who's Philologos ?

The artist formerly known as Jakass, vocal Christian poster, drives a Volvo (probably).

Iwasfrozen

Jaylen Bald Juggler wrote: »

She is probably correct.

What about all the poor black half caste children who originated from slave owners raping their "property".

JohnMc1

Manic Moran wrote: »

None of the posters, as yet, have addressed the question of if she's right or not.

There's a difference between liberty, equality, and stability. Now, personally, I would prefer to be free, equal, and unstable, but the amount of broken or dysfunctional black families in the US today is rather high. You can argue that it's a function of societal stratification, and that she may be drawing a false conclusion (or that there is no conclusion that she's drawing at all), but you can't just go at her for making a comment about something being true back in the slavery days.

The question is not over if she is being offensive (the statement itself is not), or if she is wrong (which she may not be, and nobody is addressing), but really over if you take her statement at face value as true, "so what?" What is the proposed solution to the decline in familial stability, other than just saying that it's worse now than it used to be, and "what has Obama's administration done to make it worse?" That's more important, and a little depressing that nobody has asked it instead of making reflex comments.

NTM

She is right. Welfare has all but destroyed the nuclear family. When a single Mother can get an extra 1000 a head, all her utilities and rent paid for and eventually moved into a bigger place all on the tax payer you can see why the traditional family concept is practically dead.

Iwasfrozen

strobe wrote: »

The artist formerly known as Jakass, vocal Christian poster, drives a Volvo (probably).

Oh yeah, I didn't know he changed his name.

Biggins

Is the Republican party actually going out of their way to grow these dopes!
She might be right - I do not know - but talk about putting her foot in it! LOL

c_man

craggles wrote: »

Honestly? And you're a mod?

Yes, things were better for black people when white people fucking owned them?

How can you even consider questioning a statement like that?

That's not what was said, at all.

iPlop

Republicans have always been crazy with money historically.

U.S. president Party Term years Start debt/GDP End debt/GDP Increase debt ($T) Increase debt/GDP
(in percentage points) House Control
(with # if
split during term) Senate Control
(with # if
split during term)
Roosevelt/Truman D 1945–1949 117.5% 93.1% -0.01 -24.4% 79th D, 80th R 79th D, 80th R
Harry Truman D 1949–1953 93.1% 71.4% 0.01 -21.7% D D
Dwight Eisenhower R 1953–1957 71.4% 60.4% 0.01 -11.0% 83rd R, 84th D 83rd R, 84th D
Dwight Eisenhower R 1957–1961 60.4% 55.2% 0.02 -5.2% D D
Kennedy/Johnson D 1961–1965 55.2% 46.9% 0.03 -8.3% D D
Lyndon Johnson D 1965–1969 46.9% 38.6% 0.04 -8.3% D D
Richard Nixon R 1969–1973 38.6% 35.6% 0.10 -3.0% D D
Nixon/Ford R 1973–1977 35.6% 35.8% 0.24 +0.2% D D
Jimmy Carter D 1977–1981 35.8% 32.5% 0.22 -3.3% D D
Ronald Reagan R 1981–1985 32.5% 43.8% 0.68 +11.3% D R
Ronald Reagan R 1985–1989 43.8% 53.1% 0.75 +9.3% D 99th R, 100th D
George H. W. Bush R 1989–1993 53.1% 66.1% 1.14 +13.0% D D
Bill Clinton D 1993–1997 66.1% 65.4% 0.73 -0.7% 103rd D, 104th R 103rd D, 104th R
Bill Clinton D 1997–2001 65.4% 56.4% 0.29 -9.0% R R
George W. Bush R 2001–2005 56.4% 63.5% 1.71 +7.1% R 107th Split, 108 R
George W. Bush R 2005–2009 63.5% 84.2% 3.97 +20.7% 109th R, 110th D 109th R, 110th D
Barack Obama
D 2009– 84.2% 93.2% (2010) 1.65 (2010) +9.0% (2010) 111th D, 112th R D
(Source: CBO Historical Budget Page and Whitehouse FY 2012 Budget - Table 7.1 Federal Debt at the End of Year PDF, Excel, Senate.gov)


That's a bit hard to read look at the wiki link ,republicans historically have started wars and got America into debt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

Aldebaran

Manic Moran wrote: »

None of the posters, as yet, have addressed the question of if she's right or not.

People may have addressed the issue if the person who raised it wasn't Bachmann, a politician who takes lying to a whole new level:

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/cbs-bob-schieffer-calls-out-bachmann

southsiderosie

Manic Moran wrote: »

None of the posters, as yet, have addressed the question of if she's right or not.

There's a difference between liberty, equality, and stability. Now, personally, I would prefer to be free, equal, and unstable, but the amount of broken or dysfunctional black families in the US today is rather high. You can argue that it's a function of societal stratification, and that she may be drawing a false conclusion (or that there is no conclusion that she's drawing at all), but you can't just go at her for making a comment about something being true back in the slavery days.

The question is not over if she is being offensive (the statement itself is not), or if she is wrong (which she may not be, and nobody is addressing), but really over if you take her statement at face value as true, "so what?" What is the proposed solution to the decline in familial stability, other than just saying that it's worse now than it used to be, and "what has Obama's administration done to make it worse?" That's more important, and a little depressing that nobody has asked it instead of making reflex comments.

NTM

Because the statement is so mind-numbingly stupid, that it doesn't even warrant engagement.

Regardless of the abysmal state of the black family today in the US, black children cannot be taken away and sold like cattle, black women aren't being raped and impregnated by their owners, and blacks can be legally married if they should choose to. The opposite was true under slavery.

It is a sign of how insane and out of touch the far right is with both American history and the sensitivities of the black community that such a statement could not only be released, but signed by two presidential hopefuls. God help us all.

Dangerous Man

Manic Moran wrote: »

None of the posters, as yet, have addressed the question of if she's right or not.

There's a difference between liberty, equality, and stability. Now, personally, I would prefer to be free, equal, and unstable, but the amount of broken or dysfunctional black families in the US today is rather high. You can argue that it's a function of societal stratification, and that she may be drawing a false conclusion (or that there is no conclusion that she's drawing at all), but you can't just go at her for making a comment about something being true back in the slavery days.

The question is not over if she is being offensive (the statement itself is not), or if she is wrong (which she may not be, and nobody is addressing), but really over if you take her statement at face value as true, "so what?" What is the proposed solution to the decline in familial stability, other than just saying that it's worse now than it used to be, and "what has Obama's administration done to make it worse?" That's more important, and a little depressing that nobody has asked it instead of making reflex comments.

NTM

Why would anybody need to do that? Why would anybody need to waste time by engaging with such idiocy? Black families were regularly torn asunder by slavery for the sake of profit. It's deeply and immediately offensive and no amount of intellectualizing makes it any less so. She's wrong and that's obvious. You are wrong too.

craggles

JohnMc1 wrote: »

She is right. Welfare has all but destroyed the nuclear family. When a single Mother can get an extra 1000 a head, all her utilities and rent paid for and eventually moved into a bigger place all on the tax payer you can see why the traditional family concept is practically dead.

Fail to see how this somehow makes their current situation worse than when they were enslaved.

Lirange

Manic Moran wrote: »

None of the posters, as yet, have addressed the question of if she's right or not.

It doesn't matter if she's right. It is a stupid comparison to make. Slaves needed permission to marry. Divorce for slaves was usually forbidden. Slave families without two parents usually meant one was deceased. Therefore even if black families in America today were stable by modern standards they would still fare poorly in comparison to the "stability" of black families during the era of slavery. So from all this what do we learn about the problems of black families in America today? Nothing. The comparison is not only dumb and needlessly provocative it also sheds absolutely no light on the current problems Bachmann professes to be concerned about.

Yahew

My own feeling is that peasant families were more stable too, but I - a man whose ancestors are certainly peasants - would prefer to be richer meself.

mikemac

Sink The Banana wrote: »

That's a bit hard to read look at the wiki link ,republicans historically have started wars and got America into debt.

WW1 Wilson
WW2 Roosevelt
Korea Truman (even if this a United Nations operation)
Vietnam Kennedy and Johnson
The farce of Operation Eagle Claw under Carter
All Democrats

Is it only the last twenty years you're looking at?

Biggins

Does anyone of intelligence actually bother to vet their speeches before they go off on such daftness?
If they do, they ought to be sacked.

strobe

Sink The Banana wrote: »

Republicans have always been crazy with money historically.

U.S. president Party Term years Start debt/GDP End debt/GDP Increase debt ($T) Increase debt/GDP
(in percentage points) House Control
(with # if
split during term) Senate Control
(with # if
split during term)
Roosevelt/Truman D 1945–1949 117.5% 93.1% -0.01 -24.4% 79th D, 80th R 79th D, 80th R
Harry Truman D 1949–1953 93.1% 71.4% 0.01 -21.7% D D
Dwight Eisenhower R 1953–1957 71.4% 60.4% 0.01 -11.0% 83rd R, 84th D 83rd R, 84th D
Dwight Eisenhower R 1957–1961 60.4% 55.2% 0.02 -5.2% D D
Kennedy/Johnson D 1961–1965 55.2% 46.9% 0.03 -8.3% D D
Lyndon Johnson D 1965–1969 46.9% 38.6% 0.04 -8.3% D D
Richard Nixon R 1969–1973 38.6% 35.6% 0.10 -3.0% D D
Nixon/Ford R 1973–1977 35.6% 35.8% 0.24 +0.2% D D
Jimmy Carter D 1977–1981 35.8% 32.5% 0.22 -3.3% D D
Ronald Reagan R 1981–1985 32.5% 43.8% 0.68 +11.3% D R
Ronald Reagan R 1985–1989 43.8% 53.1% 0.75 +9.3% D 99th R, 100th D
George H. W. Bush R 1989–1993 53.1% 66.1% 1.14 +13.0% D D
Bill Clinton D 1993–1997 66.1% 65.4% 0.73 -0.7% 103rd D, 104th R 103rd D, 104th R
Bill Clinton D 1997–2001 65.4% 56.4% 0.29 -9.0% R R
George W. Bush R 2001–2005 56.4% 63.5% 1.71 +7.1% R 107th Split, 108 R
George W. Bush R 2005–2009 63.5% 84.2% 3.97 +20.7% 109th R, 110th D 109th R, 110th D
Barack Obama
D 2009– 84.2% 93.2% (2010) 1.65 (2010) +9.0% (2010) 111th D, 112th R D
(Source: CBO Historical Budget Page and Whitehouse FY 2012 Budget - Table 7.1 Federal Debt at the End of Year PDF, Excel, Senate.gov)


That's a bit hard to read look at the wiki link ,republicans historically have started wars and got America into debt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

fnord. That's because Republicans are the thin edge of the wedge. They are the cartoon badies brought in when people need to be murdered, the proles need to be taken down a notch and liberties need to be restricted. Then once that has been accomplished the Democrats get a spin in order to placate the masses and intelligentsia. fnord.

iPlop

strobe wrote: »

fnord. That's because Republicans are the thin edge of the wedge. They are the cartoon badies brought in when people need to be murdered and the proles need to be taken down a notch and then once that has been accomplished the Democrats get a spin in order to placate the masses and intelligentsia. fnord.

I agree and 9/11 would not have happened if democrats were in power, but that's a different story..

My name is URL

If this was just a comment made in passing then it wouldn't seem quite as bad as it does, but your one has a lot of form in making silly claims/comments. She also stated that a recent healthcare reform bill may allow kids to have abortions while at school without their parent's knowledge.

She's batshit crazy just about intelligent enough to realise that she needs to appeal to stupid people.

Chuck Stone

JohnMc1 wrote: »

She is right. Welfare has all but destroyed the nuclear family. When a single Mother can get an extra 1000 a head, all her utilities and rent paid for and eventually moved into a bigger place all on the tax payer you can see why the traditional family concept is practically dead.

This is a lazy (ideologically informed) analysis of a complex problem.

jhegarty

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This is a lazy (ideologically informed) analysis of a complex problem.

Your going to do the complex analysis ?

hatrickpatrick

To those arguing genuinely about the content, it's highly unlikely that they could have had a stable family life when they were viewed as property. Piss off your owners or just end up with particularly sh*tty people as owners and a slave could (legally, I'd imagine) expect an incredible amount of abuse, sexual and otherwise.

Chuck Stone

jhegarty wrote: »

Your going to do the complex analysis ?

Too hungover.

I'm probably not smart enough to know everything that contributes to black people having problems.

I just know enough to know that blaming welfare alone is lazy.

JohnMc1

craggles wrote: »

JohnMc1 wrote: »

She is right. Welfare has all but destroyed the nuclear family. When a single Mother can get an extra 1000 a head, all her utilities and rent paid for and eventually moved into a bigger place all on the tax payer you can see why the traditional family concept is practically dead.

Fail to see how this somehow makes their current situation worse than when they were enslaved.

Because they went from being by landowners to being for all intents and purposes owned the Govt. They have (and whites and others who are welfare lifers) them hooked on these entitlements like it heroin.

aligator_am

My name is URL wrote: »

Are there any sane Republicans in the US..? Seriously..

Yep, Ron Paul.

dlofnep

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Because they went from being by landowners to being for all intents and purposes owned the Govt. They have (and whites and others who are welfare lifers) them hooked on these entitlements like it heroin.

Do you have an issue with any form of welfare, or is it just welfare fraud?

aligator_am

orourkeda wrote: »

Yes. They're called democrats.

Are you serious? Obama is George W Bush 2.0, where's the change you can believe in?

He's a lier, but a brilliant campaigner, both parties currently are mostly bad as each other IMO.

Kevin Duffy

Manic Moran wrote: »

None of the posters, as yet, have addressed the question of if she's right or not.

There's a difference between liberty, equality, and stability. Now, personally, I would prefer to be free, equal, and unstable, but the amount of broken or dysfunctional black families in the US today is rather high. You can argue that it's a function of societal stratification, and that she may be drawing a false conclusion (or that there is no conclusion that she's drawing at all), but you can't just go at her for making a comment about something being true back in the slavery days.

The question is not over if she is being offensive (the statement itself is not), or if she is wrong (which she may not be, and nobody is addressing), but really over if you take her statement at face value as true, "so what?" What is the proposed solution to the decline in familial stability, other than just saying that it's worse now than it used to be, and "what has Obama's administration done to make it worse?" That's more important, and a little depressing that nobody has asked it instead of making reflex comments.

NTM

Are you for real? Of course the statment is offensive. It's also not right and is just a pathetic attempt to score a point against Obama, not some clever analysis of history.

The statement's stupidity come from the fact that anyone would even pretend there was some benefit in slavery for the slaves. The only way to make it worse would have been to add that slaves got free travel from Africa, got to learn a new language and had 100% employment, ergo it was all rather good for them.

amacachi

Plenty of righteous indignation on this thread anyway.:rolleyes: Factually I can see little issue with what she said but it was a very stupid thing to say and her point is more than off the radar.

craggles

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Because they went from being by landowners to being for all intents and purposes owned the Govt. They have (and whites and others who are welfare lifers) them hooked on these entitlements like it heroin.

And that's worse than slavery and everything that came with it?

Cop on.

amacachi

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

The statement's stupidity come from the fact that anyone would even pretend there was some benefit in slavery for the slaves. The only way to make it worse would have been to add that slaves got free travel from Africa, got to learn a new language and had 100% employment, ergo it was all rather good for them.

Oddly enough any "benefits" there were for the slaves would be called benefits only under the kind of government/state that the republicans are supposed to loathe.

southsiderosie

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Because they went from being by landowners to being for all intents and purposes owned the Govt. They have (and whites and others who are welfare lifers) them hooked on these entitlements like it heroin.

Not all blacks receive benefits. The federal government does not take children away and sell them. Welfare officers don't rape women. Comparisons between slavery and the modern welfare state are absurd.

amacachi wrote: »

Plenty of righteous indignation on this thread anyway.:rolleyes: Factually I can see little issue with what she said but it was a very stupid thing to say and her point is more than off the radar.

So factually you think black families were better off when they were owned by other people and could be split up and sold for profit than they are today?

The entire premise of the statement is beyond offensive.

amacachi

southsiderosie wrote: »

So factually you think black families were better off when they were owned by other people and could be split up and sold for profit than they are today?

The entire premise of the statement is beyond offensive.

Seriously? Really? Factually the family unit was more likely to stay intact back then. That's generally seen as a good thing. Obviously the rest of the implications of slavery more than balance out that one benefit.
Factually it's correct but of course I'm not suggesting black people in the US were better off back then.