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

MrMatisse · 10-07-2011 08:21PM #1

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 · 10-07-2011 08:24PM

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

I'm off to the conspiracy theory forum.

Overheal · 10-07-2011 08:28PM

Poltifact will have a field day with this.

ejmaztec · 10-07-2011 08:29PM

Another nutter is upon us.

My name is URL · 10-07-2011 08:30PM

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

orourkeda · 10-07-2011 08:33PM

My name is URL wrote: »

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

Yes. They're called democrats.

Capt'n Midnight · 10-07-2011 08:34PM

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 · 10-07-2011 08:37PM

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 · 10-07-2011 08:37PM

All the hot chicks are christian.

General General · 10-07-2011 08:38PM

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

strobe · 10-07-2011 08:39PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

All the hot chicks are christian.

I bet Philologos has that bumper sticker on his Volvo.

RichieC · 10-07-2011 08:43PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

All the hot chicks are christian.

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

Manic Moran · 10-07-2011 08:44PM

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 · 10-07-2011 08:44PM

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

dlofnep · 10-07-2011 08:45PM

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

dlofnep · 10-07-2011 08:47PM

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 · 10-07-2011 08:51PM

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?

10-07-2011 08:52PM

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 · 10-07-2011 08:54PM

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 · 10-07-2011 08:55PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Who's Philologos ?

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

Iwasfrozen · 10-07-2011 08:55PM

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 · 10-07-2011 08:56PM

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 · 10-07-2011 08:56PM

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 · 10-07-2011 09:00PM

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 · 10-07-2011 09:02PM

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 · 10-07-2011 09:02PM

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 · 10-07-2011 09:04PM

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 · 10-07-2011 09:09PM

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 · 10-07-2011 09:10PM

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 · 10-07-2011 09:11PM

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 · 10-07-2011 09:11PM

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.

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

Comments