PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Why is this a bad question?!


Frankie
08-12-2011, 04:00 PM
Questioner under fire for asking Bachmann what it means to be a ‘submissive’ wife

A moderator at last night's GOP presidential debate is coming under fire for questioning Michele Bachmann on what it means when she says she's a "submissive" wife and how it might affect her presidency.

The Biblical phrase came up in a recent Washington Post profile of Bachmann's husband, Marcus, which reported the Minnesota lawmaker had told congregants at her church in 2006 that she'd pursued her degree in tax law only because her husband had told her to.

"The Lord says: Be submissive, wives. You are to be submissive to your husbands," Bachmann said at the time, according to the Post. Her campaign hasn't disputed the remarks.

On Thursday, the Washington Examiner's Byron York, a conservative columnist who was one of the moderators of the 2012 debate, asked Bachmann directly about that quote.

"As president, would you be submissive to your husband?" he asked, a question that prompted the crowd to erupt in loud boos.

After a slight pause, Bachmann smiled and thanked York for his question.

"Marcus and I will be married for 33 years this September 10th," she said. "What submission means to us … it means respect. I respect my husband. He's a wonderful, godly man and a great father, and he respects me as his wife. That's how we operate our marriage."

While Bachmann didn't exactly answer the question, debate viewers, both fans and non-fans of the congresswoman, immediately took to Twitter and blogs trashing the question as "sexist" and unnecessary, suggesting no male contender would ever face such scrutiny.

But the question seemed fair, considering Bachmann had publicly discussed her views on how religion plays a role in her marriage. Her campaign, in fact, didn't seem peeved at all about the line of inquiry. Her pollster, Ed Goeas, told the Des Moines Register the campaign viewed the question as an "opportunity" and implied the audience may have overreacted.

On Friday, Bachmann told NBC's "Today Show" she was "happy" to address the question, though she danced around whether it was appropriate or not. Still, she did seem to be a bit sensitive about using the word "submissive." Asked if she felt the need to clarify her position what it means to be a submissive wife, the GOP hopeful replied, "I think so. I think it's important to talk about respect."

"We've been married for 33 years, and the basis of our marriage is respect," Bachmann told NBC. "I'm just grateful to get that answered and that comment out."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/questioner-under-fire-asking-bachmann-means-submissive-wife-170236837.html

petegz28
08-12-2011, 04:03 PM
Fair? Perhaps. Tacky? Very.

Baby Lee
08-12-2011, 04:05 PM
"Why is this a bad question?!"

Because Bacmann's husband is a fucking fairy. Do you want the president submissive to a faggot? [/liberal]

HonestChieffan
08-12-2011, 04:40 PM
If she was Iranian would you mind if she was asked if her husband buggers goats?

It was a stupid damn question that added zero to the debate. Did they ask any of the men if they stand on the old ladys neck and keep her submissive?

Calcountry
08-12-2011, 06:07 PM
Here's a question, that was never asked of Obama at any of his debates: "What did Jeremiah Wright mean, when he said, America's chicken's are coming home, to roost, and, if you didn't agree with them, why did you let him baptise your Children?"

Oh no, no can't go there.

Brainiac
08-12-2011, 07:03 PM
If she was Iranian would you mind if she was asked if her husband buggers goats?

It was a stupid damn question that added zero to the debate. Did they ask any of the men if they stand on the old ladys neck and keep her submissive?

It seems like a legitimate question to me, since she has made it very clear how important her religion is to her. I don't want a President submitting to his or her spouse.

Brainiac
08-12-2011, 07:10 PM
Here's a question, that was never asked of Obama at any of his debates: "What did Jeremiah Wright mean, when he said, America's chicken's are coming home, to roost, and, if you didn't agree with them, why did you let him baptise your Children?"

Oh no, no can't go there.

That question SHOULD have been asked.

Brock
08-12-2011, 07:15 PM
It's a stupid question because her husband is clearly not the alpha dog in that relationship.

patteeu
08-12-2011, 07:29 PM
It's a legitimate question and it's not sexist since it's inspired by her own statement.

BTW, all wives should be submissive unless their husband tells them to be otherwise. And yes, this is a sexist comment.

HonestChieffan
08-12-2011, 07:36 PM
It's a legitimate question and it's not sexist since it's inspired by her own statement.

BTW, all wives should be submissive unless their husband tells them to be otherwise. And yes, this is a sexist comment.

Bullshit.

KCTitus
08-12-2011, 08:24 PM
Typically questions come from the perspective of 'If you were President, how would you act...'

This particular question seems to poke into a religious text, which is surprising considering the left believes that the state should be free of religion. So the question was odd.

That said, I dont think it was bad and her answer was spot on. There are two parts to the biblical statement in question. Women submit to your husbands and husbands treat your wife like Jesus treated the church (he died for it, btw).

So was the question, would you, Michelle, do what your husband wanted you to in a critical situation as President or would you do what you thought was best...if both Michelle and her husband are Christians believers, the point is moot.

patteeu
08-12-2011, 08:44 PM
Bullshit.

No. It's definitely a fair question. If she said she doesn't believe in working on Sundays, it would be fair to ask her what she'd do if the nation faced a crisis on a Sunday too.

KCTitus
08-12-2011, 08:46 PM
No. It's definitely a fair question. If she said she doesn't believe in working on Sundays, it would be fair to ask her what she'd do if the nation faced a crisis on a Sunday too.

Play golf?

patteeu
08-12-2011, 08:47 PM
Play golf?

LMAO

HonestChieffan
08-12-2011, 08:51 PM
LMAO

My response was to your BTW comment.

Frankie
08-12-2011, 09:10 PM
If she was Iranian would you mind if she was asked if her husband buggers goats?
No sir. Bigotry does not exist in this forum. Thank you for your hater, for bringing up something totally irrelevant to the subject.

It was a stupid damn question that added zero to the debate. Did they ask any of the men if they stand on the old ladys neck and keep her submissive?
It was a great question and a legitimate concern. Here's why: (Watch 1:27-1:44)

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/l0rUBomKvY0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Frankie
08-12-2011, 09:13 PM
It's a stupid question because her husband is clearly not the alpha dog in that relationship.

But she says that she is submissive to him. Is she lying or are we to look forward to President Marcus Bachmann?

KCTitus
08-12-2011, 09:15 PM
It was...a legitimate concern...

explain.

Didnt mean to scare you...might try listening past the 1:47 mark...I'd say around 1:55 through the end explains that the calling was from God.

Is the concern the God called her or some other issue?

SNR
08-12-2011, 09:25 PM
There's only one possible explanation.

Michelle Bachmann is actually a robot programmed by her creator and "husband" Marcus Bachmann

alnorth
08-12-2011, 09:36 PM
It is a fair question. Now, obviously we know the vast majority of christians really don't pay attention to a lot of the loonier parts of the bible. That part of the bible that commands wives to submit to their husbands, most christians if they don't flat-out say they don't believe it, will come up with some convoluted explanation for why that doesn't mean what it plainly says it means. If there's no reason to believe that a random female politician believes in the fundamentalist belief of being submissive, then the question would be unfair.

It is fair for Bachmann because her own eyebrow-raising statements leads one to believe she's one of those few crazy women who takes that part seriously and obeys her husband about things related to her education and her career. If true, such a woman is clearly unfit to be president.

VAChief
08-12-2011, 09:48 PM
While I think she is a loon in many other ways, I thought she handled that particular question with class.

KCTitus
08-12-2011, 09:52 PM
It is a fair question. Now, obviously we know the vast majority of christians really don't pay attention to a lot of the loonier parts of the bible. That part of the bible that commands wives to submit to their husbands, most christians if they don't flat-out say they don't believe it, will come up with some convoluted explanation for why that doesn't mean what it plainly says it means. If there's no reason to believe that a random female politician believes in the fundamentalist belief of being submissive, then the question would be unfair.

Interesting...which parts are the 'loonier parts' of the bible?

It is fair for Bachmann because her own eyebrow-raising statements leads one to believe she's one of those few crazy women who takes that part seriously and obeys her husband about things related to her education and her career. If true, such a woman is clearly unfit to be president.

Note for Frankie, this is a good attempt at an explanation as to why it's a 'legitimate' concern. It's contextually bereft, but at least it's an attempt.

VAChief
08-12-2011, 09:53 PM
Here's a question, that was never asked of Obama at any of his debates: "What did Jeremiah Wright mean, when he said, America's chicken's are coming home, to roost, and, if you didn't agree with them, why did you let him baptise your Children?"

Oh no, no can't go there.

These were her words, not her pastor's words...I wouldn't say it was unfair, but I don't think it was a very good question either. She handled it very well, and it ended up being a plus in her favor. She's a loon, but she get kudos for her composure there.

Frankie
08-12-2011, 09:58 PM
explain.

Didnt mean to scare you...might try listening past the 1:47 mark...I'd say around 1:55 through the end explains that the calling was from God.

Is the concern the God called her or some other issue?

It's a legitimate concern that her husband could end up effectively being POTUS, when it comes to important decision making.

It was a legitimate question that she would have been asked later in the campaign if not now.

Frankie
08-12-2011, 09:59 PM
While I think she is a loon in many other ways, I thought she handled that particular question with class.

In fairness I don't disagree.

Mr. Kotter
08-12-2011, 10:01 PM
:spock:


LMAO

Jaric
08-12-2011, 10:01 PM
Aren't there more important issues to talk about? You know, like the impending collapse of the economy? The 3 or 4 wars we're in (or kinetic actions as they call it in newspeak)?

Mr. Kotter
08-12-2011, 10:03 PM
Aren't there more important issues to talk about? You know, like the impending collapse of the economy? The 3 or 4 wars we're in (or kinetic actions as they call it in newspeak)?

Regardless, it's a legit question. Too bad she was unprepared to answer an obvious question. Heh.

KCTitus
08-12-2011, 10:04 PM
It's a legitimate concern that her husband could end up effectively being POTUS, when it comes to important decision making.

How would that work Constitutionally...would he be allowed to sign congressional bills into law?

It was a legitimate question that she would have been asked later in the campaign if not now.

Well..true, she probably would be asked that later, and I think it's been covered, but a concern for that reason, meh...Im going to doubt that was your real concern and that it was the former reason.

KCTitus
08-12-2011, 10:04 PM
Aren't there more important issues to talk about? You know, like the impending collapse of the economy? The 3 or 4 wars we're in (or kinetic actions as they call it in newspeak)?

Yes...

alnorth
08-12-2011, 10:19 PM
Interesting...which parts are the 'loonier parts' of the bible?

Geez, where to start. Most of the book is freaking insane. Well first, I'm an atheist and believe that the bible in general is a bunch of fantasy horse crap.

Anyway, randomly picked, and in no particular order:

Mythical creatures like satyrs and giants really existed.

People used to live several hundreds of years

God decided to send a couple bears from the woods out to kill 42 children for daring to tease Elisha about his baldness.

Sticking with Elisha and sadistic cruelty, God decided to burn over 100 men to death just to prove he was a man of God.

Job. Nothing more needed, just Job. One of the most horrible stories in that stupid fairy-tale book. Either the bible is a bunch of horse crap, or God is an evil sadistic bastard who deserves to be reviled, not respected.

God kills Aaron's sons for improperly making some kind of offering of incense to him. Aaron is warned not to mourn or God will kill him too.

I could go on and on. Seriously, the bible is a really stupid unbelievable book. The only way any rational person can believe in that crap is if they were brainwashed in their youth, or if they desperately want to believe in it, glossing over and ignoring all the crazy parts.

Frankie
08-12-2011, 10:20 PM
Aren't there more important issues to talk about? You know, like the impending collapse of the economy? The 3 or 4 wars we're in (or kinetic actions as they call it in newspeak)?

Yes. But it seems that this one has gathered a lot of steam.

Frankie
08-12-2011, 10:23 PM
How would that work Constitutionally...would he be allowed to sign congressional bills into law?
Of course not. But he could 'command' her "submissive" wife to make certain 'presidential' decisions.

HonestChieffan
08-12-2011, 10:25 PM
Of course not. But he could 'command' her "submissive" wife to make certain 'presidential' decisions.

He could stone her if she disobeyed

KCTitus
08-12-2011, 10:29 PM
Geez, where to start. Most of the book is freaking insane. Well first, I'm an atheist and believe that the bible in general is a bunch of fantasy horse crap.

Anyway, randomly picked, and in no particular order:

Mythical creatures like satyrs and giants really existed.

People used to live several hundreds of years

God decided to send a couple bears from the woods out to kill 42 children for daring to tease Elisha about his baldness.

Sticking with Elisha and sadistic cruelty, God decided to burn over 100 men to death just to prove he was a man of God.

Job. Nothing more needed, just Job. One of the most horrible stories in that stupid fairy-tale book. Either the bible is a bunch of horse crap, or God is an evil sadistic bastard who deserves to be reviled, not respected.

God kills Aaron's sons for improperly making some kind of offering of incense to him. Aaron is warned not to mourn or God will kill him too.

I could go on and on. Seriously, the bible is a really stupid unbelievable book. The only way any rational person can believe in that crap is if they were brainwashed in their youth, or if they desperately want to believe in it, glossing over and ignoring all the crazy parts.

Im impressed...as an atheist, you seem to have great knowledge of the Old Testaments of the bible...please provide scripture book and verse for all of your assertions and I will be happy to read them.

Aside from the Old Testament, there is one inescapable message in the New Testament, that Jesus is the Savior and that no one can can be saved from Hell but through Him.

I certainly respect your non-belief, but is your non-belief so secure that you have to resort to denigrating others beliefs?

ROYC75
08-12-2011, 10:30 PM
Of course not. But he could 'command' her "submissive" wife to make certain 'presidential' decisions.

Fear much?

How often do you think Obo and Shel communicate in the bedroom at night about the country?

Seriously, why worry about it, many presidents have wives. Sure, one day we may have a 1stdude in the WH.

We just got the 1st black ( half & half ) man. Times are changing.

KCTitus
08-12-2011, 10:31 PM
Of course not. But he could 'command' her "submissive" wife to make certain 'presidential' decisions.

He could? Did you watch the youtube video you posted from 1:55 forward? I think that might give you the answer.

Brainiac
08-12-2011, 10:35 PM
Interesting...which parts are the 'loonier parts' of the bible?

Are you serious? You really don't think there are loony parts in the Bible?

The fact is that there are are far too many loony parts to list. The Old Testament is full of stories where God orders his followers to kill entire cities or countries because the people who live there are non-believers.

Here are three examples. There are many more.

So Joshua and his warriors traveled to the water near Merom and attacked suddenly. And the LORD gave them victory over their enemies. The Israelites chased them as far as Great Sidon and Misrephoth-maim, and eastward into the valley of Mizpah, until not one enemy warrior was left alive. Then Joshua crippled the horses and burned all the chariots, as the LORD had instructed. Joshua then turned back and captured Hazor and killed its king. (Hazor had at one time been the capital of the federation of all these kingdoms.) The Israelites completely destroyed every living thing in the city. Not a single person was spared. And then Joshua burned the city. Joshua slaughtered all the other kings and their people, completely destroying them, just as Moses, the servant of the LORD, had commanded. However, Joshua did not burn any of the cities built on mounds except Hazor. And the Israelites took all the captured goods and cattle of the ravaged cities for themselves, but they killed all the people. As the LORD had commanded his servant Moses, so Moses commanded Joshua. And Joshua did as he was told, carefully obeying all of the LORD's instructions to Moses. (Joshua 11:7-15 NLT)

"Next we headed for the land of Bashan, where King Og and his army attacked us at Edrei. But the LORD told me, 'Do not be afraid of him, for I have given you victory over Og and his army, giving you his entire land. Treat him just as you treated King Sihon of the Amorites, who ruled in Heshbon.' So the LORD our God handed King Og and all his people over to us, and we killed them all. We conquered all sixty of his towns, the entire Argob region in his kingdom of Bashan. These were all fortified cities with high walls and barred gates. We also took many unwalled villages at the same time. We completely destroyed the kingdom of Bashan, just as we had destroyed King Sihon of Heshbon. We destroyed all the people in every town we conquered – men, women, and children alike. But we kept all the livestock for ourselves and took plunder from all the towns." (Deuteronomy 3:1-7 NLT)

At the customary time for offering the evening sacrifice, Elijah the prophet walked up to the altar and prayed, "O LORD, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, prove today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant. Prove that I have done all this at your command. O LORD, answer me! Answer me so these people will know that you, O LORD, are God and that you have brought them back to yourself." Immediately the fire of the LORD flashed down from heaven and burned up the young bull, the wood, the stones, and the dust. It even licked up all the water in the ditch! And when the people saw it, they fell on their faces and cried out, "The LORD is God! The LORD is God!" Then Elijah commanded, "Seize all the prophets of Baal. Don't let a single one escape!" So the people seized them all, and Elijah took them down to the Kishon Valley and killed them there. (1 Kings 18:36-40 NLT)

The Bible also condones slavery over and over. Here is one example:

Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse. (1 Peter 2:18 NAB)

Here's another:

Slaves are to be under the control of their masters in all respects, giving them satisfaction, not talking back to them or stealing from them, but exhibiting completely good faith, so as to adorn the doctrine of God our savior in every way. (Titus 2:9-10 NAB)

I sure hope you've never worked on the Sabbath, because the Lord considers it a holy day, so you must be PUT TO DEATH if you work on that day.

The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)

And don't get me started on the whole story of Cain and Abel. I'd like to know who the hell Cain married after he killed his brother and ran away from Adam and Eve. Where did Cain's wife come from? Was she his long-lost sister?

I could keep going, but I think you should get the picture by now.

Frankie
08-12-2011, 10:40 PM
Im impressed...as an atheist, you seem to have great knowledge of the Old Testaments of the bible...please provide scripture book and verse for all of your assertions and I will be happy to read them.

He is correct, KCT. I have read them.

FWIW.

Frankie
08-12-2011, 10:41 PM
Fear much?

How often do you think Obo and Shel communicate in the bedroom at night about the country?

Seriously, why worry about it, many presidents have wives. Sure, one day we may have a 1stdude in the WH.

We just got the 1st black ( half & half ) man. Times are changing.

We should have had "1stdude" in the WH this time around.

Frankie
08-12-2011, 10:42 PM
He could? Did you watch the youtube video you posted from 1:55 forward? I think that might give you the answer.

I have not. But I will. I promise.

KCTitus
08-12-2011, 10:52 PM
Are you serious? You really don't think there are loony parts in the Bible?

The fact is that there are are far too many loony parts to list. The Old Testament is full of stories where God orders his followers to kill entire cities or countries because the people who live there are non-believers.

Here are three examples. There are many more.

Those are pretty brutal, but Im not Theologian or expert. If you're genuinely interested, I could surely find some context for you. What I do know is that God was delivering his chosen people from slavery in Egypt to the promised land and commanded his people to take that land.

The Bible also condones slavery over and over.

Interesting...again, Im not a Theologian, so I'd have to study it. Is your concern that Christians today believe in slavery or is it the bible quotes in particular?

I sure hope you've never worked on the Sabbath, because the Lord considers it a holy day, so you must be PUT TO DEATH if you work on that day.

Finally an easy question...the death of Jesus changed all of that. See John 3:16. It's the 'free pass' to all of that.

And don't get me started on the whole story of Cain and Abel. I'd like to know who the hell Cain married after he killed his brother and ran away from Adam and Eve. Where did Cain's wife come from? Was she his long-lost sister?

Good questions, since the bible didnt address it, we're left to guess...weren't we talking about loony things actually in the bible?

I could keep going, but I think you should get the picture by now.[/QUOTE]

Brainiac
08-12-2011, 10:53 PM
Interesting...which parts are the 'loonier parts' of the bible?

Any discussion of loony parts of the Bible should also include Noah's ark. Noah was 500 years old (Genesis 5:32), and yet he was spry enough to build an ark big enough to hold two of every sort of every living thing to survive the flood waters that covered the entire world. (Genesis 6:14 thru 8:20).

I don't want to make fun of or insult anyone who believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible. I also don't want that person to be President with his/her finger on the buttons that could trigger the next (and undoubtedly the last) world war.



.

KCTitus
08-12-2011, 10:55 PM
I have not. But I will. I promise.

I wont wait up...

KCTitus
08-12-2011, 10:57 PM
He is correct, KCT. I have read them.

FWIW.

That's awesome! Im glad you read them...did you spend any time actually studying them?

Brainiac
08-12-2011, 10:57 PM
Those are pretty brutal, but Im not Theologian or expert. If you're genuinely interested, I could surely find some context for you. What I do know is that God was delivering his chosen people from slavery in Egypt to the promised land and commanded his people to take that land.

Interesting...again, Im not a Theologian, so I'd have to study it. Is your concern that Christians today believe in slavery or is it the bible quotes in particular?

Finally an easy question...the death of Jesus changed all of that. See John 3:16. It's the 'free pass' to all of that.

Good questions, since the bible didnt address it, we're left to guess...weren't we talking about loony things actually in the bible?

Yes we were, and I just listed a whole bunch of them.

You don't need to deliver any context for me. I've read the Bible, and I'm pretty sure I understand the context.

KCTitus
08-12-2011, 10:58 PM
Any discussion of loony parts of the Bible should also include Noah's ark. Noah was 500 years old (Genesis 5:32), and yet he was spry enough to build and ark big enough to hold two of every sort of every living thing to survive the flood waters that covered the entire world. (Genesis 6:14 thru 8:20).

I don't want to make fun of or insult anyone who believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible. I also don't want that person to be President with his/her finger on the buttons that could trigger the next (and undoubtedly the last) world war.

Oh no...dont make fun...I agree. People have their own beliefs and I respect those that dont want the leader of the free world to act opposite of their countries best interest.

KCTitus
08-12-2011, 10:59 PM
Yes we were, and I just listed a whole bunch of them.

You don't need to deliver any context for me. I've read the Bible, and I'm pretty sure I understand the context.

Well, that certainly saves me some time. I didnt really think you were actually interested.

Frankie
08-12-2011, 11:02 PM
Any discussion of loony parts of the Bible should also include Noah's ark. Noah was 500 years old (Genesis 5:32), and yet he was spry enough to build an ark big enough to hold two of every sort of every living thing to survive the flood waters that covered the entire world. (Genesis 6:14 thru 8:20).

Turns out it wasn't big enough after all. He didn't have room for the dinosaurs. :hmmm:

KCTitus
08-12-2011, 11:03 PM
Turns out it wasn't big enough after all. He didn't have room for the dinosaurs. :hmmm:

You did it...proof that God doesnt exist. dang!

dirk digler
08-12-2011, 11:09 PM
I thought it was sexist and stated such in the debate thread.

And no one can bitch that liberals are the only sexist people that was about as blatant as it can get...well next to Chris Wallace asking her if she was a flake.

Brainiac
08-12-2011, 11:12 PM
Well, that certainly saves me some time. I didnt really think you were actually interested.
It's not that I'm not interested. I just think I already know the answer: The Bible was written thousands of years ago and was intended to provide religious guidance to very primitive people who didn't have a very good understanding of the world they lived in. If God truly did inspire the writing of the Bible, I don't believe that he intended for people to literally believe every word in it, particularly the stories of creation and Noah's ark. I believe they are parables that are intended to provide guidance about how people should live their lives.

The Bible was written so that the people at the time would understand it. If Genesis started out with the story of a singularity, a big bang, an expanding universe, and evolution, I suspect the shepherds of Israel would have responded with something on the order of "LOL, Wut?". So instead the Bible has stories of the garden of Eden, the serpent, the apple, and Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel.

Brainiac
08-12-2011, 11:16 PM
You did it...proof that God doesnt exist. dang!
I wouldn't call that proof that God doesn't exist. I'd call it proof that a literal interpretation of everything in the Bible is probably an incorrect belief.

Those are two very different things.

listopencil
08-12-2011, 11:18 PM
Interesting...which parts are the 'loonier parts' of the bible?


"The Biblical phrase came up in a recent Washington Post profile of Bachmann's husband, Marcus, which reported the Minnesota lawmaker had told congregants at her church in 2006 that she'd pursued her degree in tax law only because her husband had told her to."

That's loony.

listopencil
08-12-2011, 11:29 PM
The Bible also condones slavery over and over.


Interesting...again, Im not a Theologian, so I'd have to study it. Is your concern that Christians today believe in slavery or is it the bible quotes in particular?


It's a pretty straightforward idea. The Bible does condone (and even advocate) slavery. If you beleive that the Bible is the literal word of God written in inspired text than you have a few choices.

1) Accept slavery

2) ?

Or you could choose to believe that the Bible is a chronicle of God's message written by men and that the text will be biased by those who wrote it. Even that Jesus was an instrument of God's will meant to foster understanding of that message. In which case you can take a lot of the writings with "a grain of salt" and try to find enlightenment in the message itself.

Frankie
08-12-2011, 11:31 PM
I thought it was sexist and stated such in the debate thread.

And no one can bitch that liberals are the only sexist people that was about as blatant as it can get...well next to Chris Wallace asking her if she was a flake.

Well she IS a flake. I don't think many here are disputing that.

listopencil
08-12-2011, 11:33 PM
I thought it was sexist and stated such in the debate thread.

And no one can bitch that liberals are the only sexist people that was about as blatant as it can get...well next to Chris Wallace asking her if she was a flake.

Has a man ever ran for President and said that he was "submissive to his wife"? Did he use a religious reason for it?

Frankie
08-12-2011, 11:33 PM
"The Biblical phrase came up in a recent Washington Post profile of Bachmann's husband, Marcus, which reported the Minnesota lawmaker had told congregants at her church in 2006 that she'd pursued her degree in tax law only because her husband had told her to."

That's loony.

It's in the video I posted. It's true that she said it.

listopencil
08-12-2011, 11:34 PM
It's in the video I posted. It's true that she said it.


I wasn't doubting that she said it, I was pointing out something that I think is loony.

patteeu
08-13-2011, 05:56 AM
My response was to your BTW comment.

Oh, OK. That part was a TIC.

BucEyedPea
08-13-2011, 05:59 AM
Bullshit.

He's Italian. They all think they're stallions!
And the home is run like Il Duce.


( Rent the movie Malena and you'll see what I mean.)

patteeu
08-13-2011, 06:00 AM
It's a legitimate concern that her husband could end up effectively being POTUS, when it comes to important decision making.

It was a legitimate question that she would have been asked later in the campaign if not now.

Are you concerned that Michelle Obama might have influence over her husband?

patteeu
08-13-2011, 06:06 AM
I thought it was sexist and stated such in the debate thread.

And no one can bitch that liberals are the only sexist people that was about as blatant as it can get...well next to Chris Wallace asking her if she was a flake.

How is it sexist?

BucEyedPea
08-13-2011, 06:08 AM
It's a legitimate concern that her husband could end up effectively being POTUS, when it comes to important decision making.

It was a legitimate question that she would have been asked later in the campaign if not now.

I had this concern about Hilary. Ya' know the co-president. Many on the right did too.
Who's the alpha dog in that relationship?

patteeu
08-13-2011, 06:10 AM
"The Biblical phrase came up in a recent Washington Post profile of Bachmann's husband, Marcus, which reported the Minnesota lawmaker had told congregants at her church in 2006 that she'd pursued her degree in tax law only because her husband had told her to."

That's loony.

It's only loony if her husband told her to do it out of the blue so she dropped what she was personally interested in doing to do it. Far more likely, she was interested in doing it, but had concerns that her family couldn't deal with the time commitment it would take but her husband said that if that's what she thought would make her happy, she should do it and he'd help pick up the slack at home. Not loony.

HonestChieffan
08-13-2011, 06:20 AM
Well she IS a flake. I don't think many here are disputing that.

You calling anyone a flake....thats rich

Brainiac
08-13-2011, 07:44 AM
It's only loony if her husband told her to do it out of the blue so she dropped what she was personally interested in doing to do it. Far more likely, she was interested in doing it, but had concerns that her family couldn't deal with the time commitment it would take but her husband said that if that's what she thought would make her happy, she should do it and he'd help pick up the slack at home. Not loony.

The way she told the story in the video sounded much more like the former than the latter.

patteeu
08-13-2011, 08:18 AM
The way she told the story in the video sounded much more like the former than the latter.

I agree that that's what the video makes it sound like, but she also said that God put the idea of going to law school in her head even though she had no interest in going to law school so I'm a little skeptical of a literal interpretation of her descriptions.

stevieray
08-13-2011, 10:53 AM
the irony is rich in this thread.

the Bible is looney tunes! ...but it's a fair and valid question!

....pretty obvious some don't understand what submit means in the context of marriage.

Okie_Apparition
08-13-2011, 11:12 AM
I had this concern about Hilary. Ya' know the co-president. Many on the right did too.
Who's the alpha dog in that relationship?

Nancy Reagan & her belief in astrology put people on edge

BucEyedPea
08-13-2011, 12:25 PM
Nancy Reagan & her belief in astrology put people on edge

I'd rather see a First Mate into that, or fashion and interior design, than a co-president making policy.
Those are harmless. I didn't elect the spouse for policy making.

go bowe
08-13-2011, 12:31 PM
Geez, where to start. Most of the book is freaking insane. Well first, I'm an atheist and believe that the bible in general is a bunch of fantasy horse crap.

Anyway, randomly picked, and in no particular order:

Mythical creatures like satyrs and giants really existed.

People used to live several hundreds of years

God decided to send a couple bears from the woods out to kill 42 children for daring to tease Elisha about his baldness.

Sticking with Elisha and sadistic cruelty, God decided to burn over 100 men to death just to prove he was a man of God.

Job. Nothing more needed, just Job. One of the most horrible stories in that stupid fairy-tale book. Either the bible is a bunch of horse crap, or God is an evil sadistic bastard who deserves to be reviled, not respected.

God kills Aaron's sons for improperly making some kind of offering of incense to him. Aaron is warned not to mourn or God will kill him too.

I could go on and on. Seriously, the bible is a really stupid unbelievable book. The only way any rational person can believe in that crap is if they were brainwashed in their youth, or if they desperately want to believe in it, glossing over and ignoring all the crazy parts.

dave, is that you?

go bowe
08-13-2011, 12:42 PM
It's only loony if her husband told her to do it out of the blue so she dropped what she was personally interested in doing to do it. Far more likely, she was interested in doing it, but had concerns that her family couldn't deal with the time commitment it would take but her husband said that if that's what she thought would make her happy, she should do it and he'd help pick up the slack at home. Not loony.

did you watch the video?

she clearly said that she had no desire to go to law school or get a post-graduate degree in tax law, but did so because her husband told her to and/or because it was god's calling for her...

i don't recall anything being said about her husband thinking that if going to law school was what she wanted then she should go and he would pick up the slack...

is there some other video that supports that view?

go bowe
08-13-2011, 12:45 PM
I agree that that's what the video makes it sound like, but she also said that God put the idea of going to law school in her head even though she had no interest in going to law school so I'm a little skeptical of a literal interpretation of her descriptions.

ok now, her literal interpretation of the bible is good, but a literal interpretation of what she says is not?

i'm confused...

patteeu
08-13-2011, 01:09 PM
the irony is rich in this thread.

the Bible is looney tunes! ...but it's a fair and valid question!

....pretty obvious some don't understand what submit means in the context of marriage.

This is why it's a good question. Many people don't understand what she means by it and a question gives her the opportunity to tell us what she means. I have no problem with her statement, but I can see why some people might be concerned by it.

stevieray
08-13-2011, 01:48 PM
This is why it's a good question. Many people don't understand what she means by it and a question gives her the opportunity to tell us what she means. I have no problem with her statement, but I can see why some people might be concerned by it.

I agree. I don't have a problem with the question or the answer. I'm glad she didn't allow herself to be "shamed" for what she said.

BucEyedPea
08-13-2011, 02:01 PM
I agree. I don't have a problem with the question or the answer. I'm glad she didn't allow herself to be "shamed" for what she said.

I thought she handled it well.

Frankie
08-13-2011, 02:36 PM
Are you concerned that Michelle Obama might have influence over her husband?

No. Obama never declared to be submissive to Michelle.

Frankie
08-13-2011, 02:37 PM
I had this concern about Hilary. Ya' know the co-president. Many on the right did too.
Who's the alpha dog in that relationship?

Hilary. ;)

Frankie
08-13-2011, 02:38 PM
It's only loony if her husband told her to do it out of the blue so she dropped what she was personally interested in doing to do it. Far more likely, she was interested in doing it, but had concerns that her family couldn't deal with the time commitment it would take but her husband said that if that's what she thought would make her happy, she should do it and he'd help pick up the slack at home. Not loony.

She says in the video that she was NOT interested, but God told her to be submissive to her husband.

Frankie
08-13-2011, 02:44 PM
You calling anyone a flake....thats rich

Personal jab #2.

Frankie
08-13-2011, 02:49 PM
Are you concerned that Michelle Obama might have influence over her husband?

I know I already answered this post. But I couldn't resist this. Sorry.

I am concerned that this guy would be the power behind the thrown. :)

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/v7eNoawRIrZtCXZWvHkD0A--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zNzU7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2011-07-28T195711Z_01_WAS413_RTRIDSP_3_USA.jpg

patteeu
08-13-2011, 03:11 PM
did you watch the video?

she clearly said that she had no desire to go to law school or get a post-graduate degree in tax law, but did so because her husband told her to and/or because it was god's calling for her...

i don't recall anything being said about her husband thinking that if going to law school was what she wanted then she should go and he would pick up the slack...

is there some other video that supports that view?

I don't think the video is as clear about what happened as you guys seem to think it is.

patteeu
08-13-2011, 03:14 PM
ok now, her literal interpretation of the bible is good, but a literal interpretation of what she says is not?

i'm confused...

I don't know much about her interpretation of the bible, but I do know that someone who says that God put the idea of law school in their head and they thought, "Law school? I have no interest in law school," probably shouldn't be taken literally.

patteeu
08-13-2011, 03:18 PM
No. Obama never declared to be submissive to Michelle.

So you're hung up on the word? It seems to me that if you're worried about a spouse having undue influence, the fact that the candidate talks about being submissive only changes the concern by a matter of degree at most.

There's no more reason for people to be concerned here than there was to be concerned when we were going to get two for one with Bill and Hillary Clinton.

go bowe
08-13-2011, 03:44 PM
So you're hung up on the word? It seems to me that if you're worried about a spouse having undue influence, the fact that the candidate talks about being submissive only changes the concern by a matter of degree at most.

There's no more reason for people to be concerned here than there was to be concerned when we were going to get two for one with Bill and Hillary Clinton.

iirc, hillary didn't take federal money to pray away the gay...

orange
08-13-2011, 03:55 PM
There's no more reason for people to be concerned here than there was to be concerned when we were going to get two for one with Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Marcus Bachmann needs to come out and speak in the open, though.


Ooops! Did I say "come out?" I meant "step forward." Yeah, that's it.

Mojo Jojo
08-13-2011, 03:59 PM
Do you remember when Joe Lieberman was running for VP, and the inauguration was scheduled to be on a Jewish Holiday. Joe said he would refuse to be at the ceremony and the Speaker would assume his duties for one day. He would then take the oath of office the following day. When asked about it the left went nuts saying his religion had nothing to do with his ability to govern, and we should all respect his beliefs. Funny how the left forgets their own stands.

orange
08-13-2011, 04:14 PM
Do you remember when Joe Lieberman was running for VP, and the inauguration was scheduled to be on a Jewish Holiday. Joe said he would refuse to be at the ceremony and the Speaker would assume his duties for one day. He would then take the oath of office the following day. When asked about it the left went nuts saying his religion had nothing to do with his ability to govern, and we should all respect his beliefs. Funny how the left forgets their own stands.

I don't remember the specifics, but I take it the right thought his religion was an important consideration. Is that true?

Frankie
08-13-2011, 04:17 PM
Do you remember when Joe Lieberman was running for VP, and the inauguration was scheduled to be on a Jewish Holiday. Joe said he would refuse to be at the ceremony and the Speaker would assume his duties for one day. He would then take the oath of office the following day. When asked about it the left went nuts saying his religion had nothing to do with his ability to govern, and we should all respect his beliefs. Funny how the left forgets their own stands.

Joe Lieberman is a Lefty?. :hmmm:

Mojo Jojo
08-13-2011, 04:25 PM
I don't remember the specifics, but I take it the right thought his religion was an important consideration. Is that true?
The way I remember it, and it has been several years...it was a media story that never went anywhere except for a few awkward questions. The right avoided the issue...realized it was a no win for them.

Mojo Jojo
08-13-2011, 04:26 PM
Joe Lieberman is a Lefty?. :hmmm:

He was seen as one then.

orange
08-14-2011, 02:02 PM
Do you remember when Joe Lieberman was running for VP, and the inauguration was scheduled to be on a Jewish Holiday. Joe said he would refuse to be at the ceremony and the Speaker would assume his duties for one day. He would then take the oath of office the following day.

Hmmm, this is QUITE a coincidence:

NATIONAL NEWS

August 13, 2011 Share
Joe Lieberman Shapes Legacy
Washington
Ron Kampeas
JTA Wire Service

Call Joe Lieberman the unlikely evangelist.

The Independent senator from Connecticut—and the best-known Orthodox Jew in American politics—is probably more cognizant than most of his Jewish congressional colleagues about rabbinical interdictions against encouraging non-Jews to mimic Jewish ritual.

Yet here he is, about to release a book advising Christians and others not to drive to church, to welcome their Sabbath in the evening, to cut off the wired world and to, umm, enjoy your significant other.

Upon meeting with Lieberman in his Senate offices last week, before the Aug. 16 release date of his new book, “The Gift of Rest: Rediscovering the Beauty of the Sabbath,” he laughed at the term evangelical. But he also embraced it.

“In a way it is” evangelical, he said.

read more: http://www.jewishtimes.com/index.php/jewishtimes/news/jt/national_news/joe_lieberman_shapes_legacy/26305

Are you actually Mojo Joliebermanjo?