• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bachmann pledges to ban pornography

Okay, don't then :lol:

I expect a certain degree of consistency of people. I am not saying I lose respect over a mild flip-flop or a bit of pandering. But when someone's entire philosophy is "GOVERNMENT IS BAD" and then they support stuff like this, it's a bridge too far for me. (Not that I would have supported Bachmann anyway, for multiple reasons. But something like this sure makes me respect her a lot less.) I guess we have different standards by which we judge our leaders, and if you can't take me seriously because of it, so be it, I'll probably be able to sleep at night anyway.

Why, exactly? I am well assuming under your philosophy that government is good, but that doesn't stop you from likely declaring government is bad in other spheres of life.
 
whats she wanna control? no more anal to mouth hahaha xD

I never said she wanted to ban it. She still wants to control it, which would involve government intervention. Again, we're talking about a politician whose #1 message is that government is bad. Obama wants the government to control certain aspects of the health care market, a far more consequential issue than pornography, and she considers it socialism. But when it's something that will rile up her evangelical base, government intervention is the right solution? I call bull****. Be consistent in your philosophy or I can't take you seriously.
 
Why, exactly? I am well assuming under your philosophy that government is good, but that doesn't stop you from likely declaring government is bad in other spheres of life.

Right, but you're missing the point. Michele Bachmann has made it her platform that just about any and all government intervention is harmful to our freedom. I don't see how this issue should be any different??

Barack Obama never ran on the idea of "all government is good", so it's not really hypocritical for him to think x or y shouldn't be solved by government intervention. Bachmann, however, IS running on the idea that "government is bad", so for her to take an issue as inconsequential and small as pornography and inject government intervention into it gives me great pause; if she thinks the government needs to solve that small "problem", who's to say how she will react to bigger problems? How genuine can she actually be if she can't even leave the issue of pornography alone? I'm no Ron Paul fan, but I respect him because he is extremely consistent in his beliefs. Bachmann is no Romney, to be sure, but stuff like this leads me to believe that she is not as genuine as she would have us believe.
 
" the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy"

You know, I've heard a lot of euphemisms for children in my brief time on Earth. That is definitely the worst one I've ever heard.
 
Right, but you're missing the point. Michele Bachmann has made it her platform that just about any and all government intervention is harmful to our freedom. I don't see how this issue should be any different??

She obviously has not if she also rang true to social conservatives for years. I'm still not seeing what you are talking about. I see your point, I just really think you are focusing too much.
 
I wouldn't have voted for her anyway, but now that she wants to eradicate my porn...them's fightin' words!
 
"Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy :)lol:) -our next generation of American children- from human trafficking, sexual slavery....all forms of pornography and prostitution....blah blah.

Sounds like they want to ban it.
But only for women and children. AFAICT, men are still free to indulge
 
support human protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy” and protect them from “seduction into promiscuity and all forms of pornography…and other types of coercion or stolen innocence
.....where do you see BAN ALL PORNOGRAPHY?
Exactly. It just says that women should be protected from it. It says nothing about men using pr0n.

False alarm. Nothing to see here folks. She only wants to keep women away from pr0n.
 
What, it never occured to you that women like it? Geesh - can't have a lot of porn people like without a chick last I looked.
Do not fear, Aunt Spiker--Bachmann will protect you.
 
She obviously has not if she also rang true to social conservatives for years. I'm still not seeing what you are talking about. I see your point, I just really think you are focusing too much.

I mean, I'm only focusing on it because that's the thread we're in. I just think it's hypocrisy. It's hardly the biggest issue I have with Bachmann, or the biggest issue facing our country (or even top 10). Just offering my take on it.
 
Only from a religious idiot!
We have more important things to worry about.

There's no way that she will get the nom.



BREAKING: Bachmann pledges to ban pornography | ThinkProgress

Bachmann became the first presidential candidate to sign a pledge created by THE FAMiLY LEADER, an influential social-conservative group in Iowa. By signing the pledge Bachmann “vows” to “uphold the institution of marriage as only between one man and one woman” by committing herself to 14 specifics steps. The ninth step calls for the banning of “all forms” of pornography. The pledge also states that homosexuality is both a choice and a health risk. You can read all the details of the pledge here.

sounds like my mom.
 
I mean, I'm only focusing on it because that's the thread we're in. I just think it's hypocrisy. It's hardly the biggest issue I have with Bachmann, or the biggest issue facing our country (or even top 10). Just offering my take on it.

It's not that hypocritical. Perhaps foolish, but not hypocritical.
 
Actually it does not. Look at the list, notice they all hold something in common. It's talking about being in porn, and it is talking about with that point, children.
The text doesn't support separating "women" from "the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy." They are compounded together in that sentence.
 
Sounds like that's an issue for YOU and YOU alone. I assume you agree with Ms. Bachmann?

I don't think I agree with her on that one. You can't stop it. If she succeeds, all it will do is create a black market for it. It's like trying to ban whiskey. That didn't work either. There's something else for organized crime to peddle and put an exorbitant price on it.
 
It's not that hypocritical. Perhaps foolish, but not hypocritical.

Agree to disagree I guess. Again...how is it NOT hypocritical? We have perhaps the most blatantly anti-government candidate in the race outside of Ron Paul...supporting government regulation, or controls of some kind, on pornography of all things. If you're so anti-government, I would think you would be even MORE anti-government about something as insignificant as this one. Does this not fly in the face of everything she stands for? If Barack Obama proposed a comprehensive porn regulation bill, do you think she would lock arms with him and support it?
 
Right, but you're missing the point. Michele Bachmann has made it her platform that just about any and all government intervention is harmful to our freedom. I don't see how this issue should be any different??

Why not use quotes rather than interpreting the candidates position yourself?
Barack Obama never ran on the idea of "all government is good", so it's not really hypocritical for him to think x or y shouldn't be solved by government intervention. Bachmann, however, IS running on the idea that "government is bad", so for her to take an issue as inconsequential and small as pornography and inject government intervention into it gives me great pause; if she thinks the government needs to solve that small "problem", who's to say how she will react to bigger problems? How genuine can she actually be if she can't even leave the issue of pornography alone? I'm no Ron Paul fan, but I respect him because he is extremely consistent in his beliefs. Bachmann is no Romney, to be sure, but stuff like this leads me to believe that she is not as genuine as she would have us believe.

All candidates run on the idea that they will improve on the present situation, as Barrack Obama once did and is doing once again. Few would run, and be successful, if they vowed to continue with the policies of their political opponents. This is where the electorate comes in. They have to decide what is important to the future of their country and what the issues really are.

That would exclude the interests of any political party to which, in the juvenile spirit of home team enthusiasm, they had earlier attached themselves. If you allow yourself to be swayed by signing a meaningless bit of wishful thinking, rather than looking at the real issues, then the United States is consigning itself to further debt, despair and disappointment.
 
Last edited:
Why not use quotes rather than interpreting the candidates position yourself?

I did, in this very thread:

"I want my candidacy for the presidency to stand for the moment when "we the people" reclaimed our independence from a government that has gotten too big, spends too much and has taken away too much of our liberty."

- Michele Bachmann's presidential campaign launch

This is my problem with conservatives. They say they're for less government involvement, but they're really just for less government involvement in areas they don't like.
 
Since it was mentioned...I don't understand women who restrict their men, especially in regards to something that isn't detrimental to the woman or doesn't require direct sacrifice. If I'm okay with porn, that means when I'm not in the mood I don't have to feel guilty because he's still got access to any number of videos and images and can take care of himself without my involvment. And I know he won't feel the need to be ashamed or hide things from me of a sexual nature..so it's a win-win for me and a win-win for him.
 
Michele Bachmann:

"we need more freedom & liberty!!!!!!!!!!



...unless you're gay, like looking at porn, want the right to have an abortion, or be a prostitute. for you guys, we need more tyranny and government intrusion."
 
I did, in this very thread:

Sorry I missed that post but she is right. There is too much government in many areas and it should be streamlined.

That does not mean that the idea of government should be abandoned or that some governments departments aren't necessary. It just needs to be strictly rationalized.
 
Michele Bachmann:

"we need more freedom & liberty!!!!!!!!!!



...unless you're gay, like looking at porn, want the right to have an abortion, or be a prostitute. for you guys, we need more tyranny and government intrusion."

Do you have her statements on these issues that you can share with other posters?
 
Agree to disagree I guess. Again...how is it NOT hypocritical? We have perhaps the most blatantly anti-government candidate in the race outside of Ron Paul...supporting government regulation, or controls of some kind, on pornography of all things. If you're so anti-government, I would think you would be even MORE anti-government about something as insignificant as this one. Does this not fly in the face of everything she stands for? If Barack Obama proposed a comprehensive porn regulation bill, do you think she would lock arms with him and support it?

Because there are multi-faceted political philosophies requiring multiple layers. That is how most people operate.

As Daniel Bell once said, "I am a socialist in economics, a liberal in politics, and a conservative in culture."

We currently have controls on pornography, many of which supported by liberals who may otherwise like to keep government out of our bedroom.

"If Barack Obama proposed a comprehensive porn regulation bill, do you think she would lock arms with him and support it?"

She may in fact do so, should it come about.
 
Do you have her statements on these issues that you can share with other posters?

she supports a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.

she is 100% anti-Abortion.

she supports the nation-wide banning of prostitution and pornography.
 
Back
Top Bottom