facebook comments:

111 responses

  1. Paula
    August 29, 2011

    This is almost and I mean almost as bad as Barbara Bush’s comment about the victims of Katrina in the shelters, “And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway,” she said, “so this is working very well for them.”
    I’m sure it was a great life for them.

  2. Elva
    August 28, 2011

    Apart from the obvious horror and ridicule, it’s ironic that General Lee himself was against slavery. (He fought for states rights and patriotism to his state. I think he actually freed his slaves too.)

    • Rebecca Ore
      August 31, 2011

      Um, no. Robert Lee was the guy who had slaves whipped for wanting the Custis will freeing them to be honored immediately rather than after making them work to pay off the Custis debts. It was about slavery (he made a proposal for freeing the slaves so it would be fought on state’s right’s issues, but that wasn’t taken seriously by anyone, probably not even him).

      The irony is that most of the people flying the Confederate battle flag these days would have been disenfranchised cannon-fodder without public education, without any say in the Confederate government, without freedom of press (Grant mentioned that his foes had more control over their newspapers than the Union had over its papers).

    • Erdman West III
      August 18, 2012

      Hr also said after the war, “Perhaps it was for the best [that we lost”.

  3. reedgalex
    August 18, 2011

    Can there be any doubt that the Tea Party, as represented by Michelle Bachmann, is the modern-day face of the Ku Klux Klan?

  4. Yaina
    August 14, 2011

    I would like to establish a new terminology when referring to the African slaves. Let us call them heretofore as they were “the ENSLAVED”! This will prevent any future confusion the next time anybody wants to wax nostalgic about the “Old South” or re-write history. It might make it harder for them to gloss over the fact that our African ancestors did not have a choice in the matter of being enslaved. If the enslaved ever seemed to be getting along with their masters, it was only a strategy of survival. Hasn’t anyone ever heard of the Stockholm Syndrome? Look it up! I wonder if the owners of the enslaved can still feel the love of Jesus now that they are burning in hell?

  5. sunnydalum
    August 14, 2011

    Okay, I learned in middle school that slavery was universally bad in this country, marriage for blacks was illegal, ethnic connections were forcibly erased and families were often broken up and sold like cattle. In ARIZONA. This moron claims that there were more marriages in that day between blacks than NOW? When in that day it was illegal for them to even be married because they weren’t considered human? That is so offensive to me as a person as well as an educated individual.

  6. Michael Kirchner
    August 12, 2011

    Michele is one very scary bitch. People would have to be idiots to every vote for her.

  7. SmeonBeresford
    August 12, 2011

    strange you should think that when the Southern baptists say.

    Many of our congregations have intentionally and/or unintentionally excluded African-Americans from worship, membership, and leadership;

    http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=899

    and that “We grieve over that and we repent of it and we ask for the forgiveness of our African-American brothers and sisters.”

    The truth is Christian or Pagan Black people would arrive in the American south and be barred from many churches, and the remaining churches seemed much more willing to teach Colossians 3-22. than Leviticus 25. Yes The south was Christian in name. So what it taught its slaves, Torture rape and death.That god demanded nothing but servility of them.

  8. PAUL TUTHILL
    August 10, 2011

    Michelle’s statement may be fantasy. Where are the stats kept on the two parent black family during slavery? Do you think she is, well, fabricating, maybe?

  9. Nanarae
    August 10, 2011

    Her statement “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” is the most rediculous thing to say. I think that anyone who knows anything about history would agree that most children in 1860 were raised by both parents.These are different times and a multitude of reasons lead to children being raised by one parent now. What does that have to do with our President?

  10. nosferotica
    August 10, 2011

    To the reporter of the article:

    Yes. Michelle said something in bad taste.

    What is more horrifying than her comment is your interpretation of the comment.

    She was not suggesting that the forced conversion of the slaves to Christianity helped the slaves to not mind their slavery.

    No, she was saying the south was Christian. Because the south was Christian, Christians understood ethics, and right and wrong. Because the south was Christian, they treated their slaves with respect.

    Because of the south’s Christianity, the slaves saw masters of good character. How could they not mind working for such great people.

    The south and their Christianity inspired the slaves to look upon their chains in gratitude. Hell, they may even embrace the Lord at that point.

    Learn to read. Or learn to comprehend what it is you’re reading. Either way, you were way off base. It’s like you completely looked over the emphasis of mutual respect rather than the afterthought of a common faith.

    • Lucy
      August 10, 2011

      OMG, you can’t be serious!! Slaves were well treated in the South because their owners were Christians? Really? So they weren’t kept in chains, beaten, raped, sold, and tortured? You are probably one of those idiots who doesn’t believe the Holocaust really happened either.

      It is so disheartening that people like you are really this ignorant.

    • Thermidor
      August 10, 2011

      …Are you serious?! You just reworded what she said and it’s still equally vile. So no one misunderstood or interpreted anything. You’re just the same brand of offal she is.

    • Marek
      August 11, 2011

      Dear Nosferotica,
      I appreciate your enlightened attitude and would like to enslave you as I have many of the moral qualities that you look for in a master. I promise you will respect me highly as I whip your back into a bloody pulp to the sounds of my favorite hymns…. You will love me as I sell any children you may have to other moral masters. Just to share the joy I will enslave your parents and relatives as well, and then separate them from you. I will beat you to within an inch of your life so you may see heaven should I ever see you cry. And in the end I could never do any such a repulsive thing but do wish you could have spent one day in such an enlightened relationship so you would never say something so sadistic and sick again.

    • Dedrick Lewis
      August 12, 2011

      So we are to believe that it was right to s take a people from their land, treat them as cattle, beat, rape, kill, maim, lynch, I could go on but I truly don’t believe these are Christian values. She is out of touch and so are you!!!

    • Shae McQuoid
      August 14, 2011

      Seriously? The south was and is christian in name only. The slave owners did NOT treat their slaves as their bible would say because in truth, they did not view them as human..but as property, lower than their livestock. This does not apply to all, but as a whole that is truth. And the author of this piece listed the book in question as an inflammatory pull in..get people to read. Slaves of the 1800’s did not have a family unit(would have required owner approval) without the threat of one or the other being sold at any given time depending upon the owner’s whim. White children were raised in 2 family homes, but truthfully, in the present day, sometimes that isn’t healthy either with abuse, drugs, etc in the picture. Stop making excuses for society’s ills and take some personal responsibility, no matter your race, religion or sexual preference. We are ONE race..HUMAN

    • ken Dixon
      August 15, 2011

      Sick, hypocritical self rightous UNCHRISTIANS who use they re claimed christianity to justyfy discrimination and hate should rot in hell oh that is if there was a hell!

    • Steven Robinson
      August 18, 2011

      Two of my slave ancestors were beaten to death by their masters….I’ll have to call B.S. on white slave owners having any RESPECT for their slaves.

      • Ed Hawkins
        August 28, 2011

        Dear Noseferotica. . . I’m willing to buy your ass and have you as my slave. You can take care of the house, the lawns, the cars, and my sexual needs. I live in a house that actually has a room – tiny, but still a room – where servants used to sleep. You can have that room, and I promise I’ll visit you every night and we can listen to hymns together and have a good ole time. How bout it?

    • Dana Lynn Saunders
      August 20, 2011

      You and Michelle Bachamnn are both out of your rabid a** minds.

    • Zube
      August 28, 2011

      nosferotica MUST be correct!

      The slaves saw masters of good character. Which explains why sooooo many of the female slaves had babies with their wonderful, loving, God-fearing Christian masters. It wasn’t because they were RAPED, oh heck nooooo!

      Yes. Mutual respect.
      “I respect you because you make me rich and are slightly more valuable than my horse.”
      “I respect you because if I do not you will torture and/or kill me.”

    • ghostwriter
      October 29, 2011

      “they treated their slaves with respect” LOL! What an idiot.

    • Erdman West III
      August 18, 2012

      She did not say something “in bad taste”. That would be like saying the Holocaust was an “unpleasant event”. I don’t think you get how serious and sick the Republiterrorist’s are and how they are to being able to carry out an Agenda which destroy american bring on Civil War. To say “It can’t happen here” is a serious mistake and we may pay dearly.

    • Erdman West III
      August 18, 2012

      She did not say something “in bad taste”. That would be like saying the Holocaust was an “unpleasant event”. I don’t think you get how serious and sick the Republiterrorist’s are and how close they are to being able to carry out an agenda which will destroy American and bring on Civil War. To say “It can’t happen here” is a serious mistake and we may pay dearly.

  11. Justin
    August 10, 2011

    At least this season’s nutcase Republican has read a book.

  12. Allie
    August 10, 2011

    Truly, this year’s SNL episodes will be awesome. Tina Fey! Throw off your Bump-It wig and and get our your crazy eyes!

  13. MRuss
    August 9, 2011

    I thought the scariest quote in Lizza’s interview came from a law professor of Bachmann’s: (paraphrase by me) ‘If an American law disagrees with Biblical law, what would be the proper course of action? The proper thing would be to try your best to change the American law to conform to Biblical law.’ That would explain a lot.

  14. Tom Wylie
    August 9, 2011

    The fact is that some of the African people sold into slavery were already Christians when they arrived on our shores. And slavery was not uncommon in the North. Still, J. Steven Wilkins’ history IS flawed (twisted logic really), and Michele Bachmann’s knowledge of American history is so thin it is perforated.

  15. gary
    August 9, 2011

    Palin/Bachmann ticket would be most benificial– to the Democratic party that is. Slavery wasn’t so bad after all? Come on now, beating people to their death, hearding human beings like cattle, taking them from their homeland to be shoved into wooden built compartments below ships like sardines with disease run amuck, throwing the dead off ships to feed the sharks, seperating children from mothers and enslave their children as they are being enslaved themselves (can you imagine?), raping them, stripping them of all dignity, completely taking away their humanity, keeping them in shackles bounded to walls, tree’s and the ground, shooting them, murdering them in an array of different ways, starving them, hanging them by the neck until their death in the middle of a town and setting them on fire, while their wives and kids watched in astounding horror, tarring them, burning them alive, not to mention a hundred ways they were dehumanized, hunting them– ALL BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN– that isn’t so bad at all, not a big deal, we all have been through similar situations… I’d like to see Bachmann in shackles and beaten, starved, and made to work like a horse, for JUST ONE DAY, JUST ONE, I’m not asking her to be a slave for a lifetime until her death, like many slaves suffered, but just ONE DAY Michelle Bachman, I’d like to hear what you think, after suffering, FOR JUST ONE DAY, the degregation and torture they suffered. How in the hell does anyone with Michele Bachmanns ignorance move up the ranks of the political world and have an opportunity to run for president and make the cover of newsweek. There is something terribly wrong with that….

  16. Mike
    August 9, 2011

    You allowed this, but wouldn’t publish my first comment. Wow…

    Jack Kraft on August 9, 2011 at 9:57 AM
    This absolutely proves that the Tea Party and GOP is the KKK, and the first thing they will do when they steal the 2012 elections is to restore slavery. These people make Idi Amin and Hitler look like good guys.

  17. Paul Simmons
    August 9, 2011

    How did the Jews feel about being slaves to the Egyptians? Perhaps she feels Moses should have left the Jews in Egypt also. If slavery is such a good thing perhaps she would like to become a slave herself! And just who is she speaking for?

    • Clifford Marcus
      August 10, 2011

      Many Russians were happy to be serfs….. read Marquis de Custine….

      • Eirik
        August 10, 2011

        Serfs were different from slaves. Serfs had rights and reasonable expectations of defense and assistance from the nobility. Slaves of the American south had no rights other than what their owner chose to afford them.

      • nosferotica
        August 10, 2011

        Serfs had some rights. They had to feel free in order to be blind of their slavery. Better yet, they had to “understand” that they couldn’t have many of their rights. Better yet, they had to understand so many different things were privileges that come with being good slaves.

        You could say the difference between serfs and slaves are one group has literal chains, whereas the other group has metaphorical ones.

  18. missshalon
    August 9, 2011

    I can totally see why slaves grew to love their captors…. It’s called STOCKHOLM SYNDROME. Doesn’t make it right. And Yes, They were more likely to have both parents then than now. And more likely to know the value of a dollar. But also more prone to death and disease and had far more scars from tragic injuries, and more crippling injuries. So, does anyone really think that’s better?

  19. MRSB
    August 9, 2011

    I CAN’T BELIEVE THAT IN THIS DAY AND AGE THIS STUPID BITCH IS ALLOWED TO BE ON THE COVER OF A MAGAZINE SUCH AS NEWSWEEK WITH THIS GARBAGE. IN THIS DAY AND AGE SLAVERY OF AFRICAN AMERICANS WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN. BLACK FOLK ARE NOT SCARED OF MASSA ANYMORE. WOULD WHITE FOLK LIKE IF THE TABLES WERE TURNED? I THINK NOT!!!!! WE NEED TO BE MINDFUL AND COGNISANT OF WHAT COMES OUT OF OUR MOUTHS IN REFERENCE TO PEOPLE OF OTHER RACES AND EHTNICITIES.

    • ghostwriter
      October 29, 2011

      I CAN’T BELIEVE THAT IN THIS DAY AND AGE SOME PEOPLE STILL TYPE IN ALL CAPS!

  20. Mike
    August 9, 2011

    Fucking coward. Have fun with your pathetic little exercise in censorship.

    • Justin “Filthy Liberal Scum” Rosario
      August 10, 2011

      What are whining about?

  21. Madelyn Writer
    August 9, 2011

    I admit I have as much respect for MB as I do VD, but this article is way off the mark. I mean, I enjoyed ‘Tom Sawyer’, but I don’t really you could conclude that I support calling people ‘niggers.’

    And as for the pledge, that offensive language was removed. Yes, she signed it when it was in there, but it’s out now.

    This is a very, very poor story.

    • Kevin
      August 9, 2011

      *sigh* for the THIRD time today…

      TOM. SAWYER. IS. NOT. SELLING. ITSELF. AS. REVISIONIST. HISTORY. It’s a fiction story…which, come to think of it, so is this Robert E. Lee book she’s plugging. Quit trying to create parallels where there are none. I know you said you care for her as much as something like syphilis, so it seems like you’re trying to at least sympathize with her a little. However, she (in this case) is completely indefensible.

      And if she signed the pledge when that wording was in there…yes, it IS still a problem. Actually, even without the offensive language, it’s a problem.

      The article is on the mark.

  22. Fred Smith
    August 9, 2011

    BEAT YOUR SLAVES, BUT DON’T KNOCK OUT THEIR EYES OR TEETH. “A servant will not be corrected by words: for though he understand he will not answer” (Proverbs 29:19). “And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake” (Exodus 21:26-27).

    It’s about time we get our slaves back! Glory to God!

    • MRSB
      August 9, 2011

      “WE GET OUR SLAVES BACK” BASTARD TRY IT!!!! YOU WILL REGRET IT. BETTER YET I WANT TO SEE WHAT IT IS LIKE TO HAVE A “WHITE” SLAVE!!!!! BLACK PANTHER’S WILL COME BACK IN FULL EFFECT!!!!!!

      • cheyenne
        August 10, 2011

        @MRSB: I think Fred was being sarcastic, and please quit shouting. You’re making us look bad!

      • nosferotica
        August 10, 2011

        satire: wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

        How were your grades in English class, MRSB?

  23. Kevin
    August 9, 2011

    What gets me is that at least one person on here is claiming that they’re twisting her words and that she’s not actually promoting the idea by labeling the book as a “must-read.”

    Uh…actually, she IS promoting the idea by doing that. Unless you’re doing a research project on the author or discussing the negative effects of revisionist history, it’s a “must-avoid” not a “must-read.”

  24. Bocefus
    August 9, 2011

    I can see how a slave grow to love and respect his hard-working plantation owner. And if leading by example isn’t enough, there’s the constant physical and psychological abuse, the starvation, the chains, the rape and sodomy.

    Just because you can write a book doesn’t mean you should.

    And personally, I’d love to see that nutjob Bachmann in a debate. Only the debate would not be broadcast live, but each statement by the candidate would be checked for accuracy by an independent panel, with the results shown below the candidates.

  25. Kathie
    August 9, 2011

    For the record slaves were forcibly taken from Africa. It was not their choice. Family were split up in the most terrible way during slavery. Very rarely were families kept together. Any student of history at an university will tell you this. A person running for the presidency should be more educated on basic American History than this. I have a BA in History and have studied American, Russian, Chinese, Indian and British History, besides Native American History and Biblical Archeology.

  26. RepublicanTrying To RescueSanity
    August 9, 2011

    Register Republican, nominate those who aren’t insane, thieves, compulsive liars, criminals, or bought lapdogs of the ultra-rich, and vote only for someone (any party) who DOESN’T pose a threat to our country’s or planet’s safety. They exist in small numbers. Perhaps you are one of them. (Or even me.)
    1- If Bachmann is sincere, we should be VERY frightened (if we’re sane and have any projective intelligence)-I certainly am, will never vote for her or any philosophic associate of hers, and will try to convince as many as I can of the same.
    2- If she is not sincere (what, a politician espousing an insane and controversial philosophy and political stance might not be sincere?)- my advice is the same- we should be equally as frightened, as she could easily be co-opted by the highest bidder(s)

    • ghostwriter
      October 29, 2011

      Pretty disingenuous to decry Bachmann and her ilk as some sort of fringe element of the Repugnicant Party. The entire party has been poisoned by rabidly radical ideologies. Candidates at every tier are tripping over each other as they race to take the most extreme positions. Your party is ant-logic, anti-science, anti-reason, anti-religious freedom, anti-Black, anti-Latino, anti-Muslim, anti-environment, and anti-progress (and that’s just for starters).

      The funny thing is that your Patron Saint Ronald Reagan wouldn’t even be able to capture a nomination in today’s Repugnicant Party, as he was far too “liberal” by contemporary standards.

  27. Snooze Hamilton
    August 9, 2011

    “If you are even contemplating voting for this woman, you are a goddamn idiot.”

    Thank you. (bows with forehead to floor)

    If I get one more stupid bimbo playing the Palin card and telling me that I’m anti-woman if I don’t support this rabid pestilential bucket of bilge, there will be horrible, horrible amounts of GBH.

    • Justin “Filthy Liberal Scum” Rosario
      August 10, 2011

      “rabid pestilential bucket of bilge” = Daaaaaaaammmnnnnnnn!!!

  28. Cameron Black
    August 9, 2011

    ALL Christians should be supporting slavery, or at least the literalists among them should, because their bible endorses it right along with the rape of female prisoners of war. Mmmm, gimmesummadat goodole religious morality.

    • Chris
      August 9, 2011

      Cameron: To say that a literalist should interpret the Bible as endorsing slavery is the height of ignorance and ahistoricity. No sane Ancient Near Eastern historian would consider Israelite slavery in the Old Testament as anything other than servants who put themselves in a contractual situation to pay off debts. All slaves held by Israelites, of course, were COMMANDED to be freed and relieved of their debt every 7 years, with non-Israelites being the only ones required to pay their remaining debts. It was far more similar to, for example, people traveling to early colonial American and contracting themselves with others would would pay for their ship fare, rather than the deplorable Southern type of slavery.

      And, no, I don’t support Bachman in any capacity. I’m not defending her book recommendation here either.

      • Rich
        August 9, 2011

        If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6)- Hmmm… it says BUY a slave in that passage.

        When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11) – Selling your daughter is not indentured servitude. You guys really make me laugh with your apologetics.

        Let’s not forget this tender nugget “When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)

        Yeah… sounds just like paying off a debt doesn’t it?

      • MRSB
        August 9, 2011

        I KNOW IN THIS DAY AND AGE THAT WOULD NEVER EVER HAPPEN.

      • Carol
        August 9, 2011

        I think I would need to know a little more about this contractual labor for paying off debts. For example, how were these debts accrued? Were the slave owners playing fair, as did the factory owners in the 1800’s who operated stores for the employees and then gouged them so that they could never pay off their “debts” and be free? This went on as well with the indentured servants who got manipulated into signing contracts they didn’t fully understand and which were as fair as the chances of winning at Vegas. This still goes on today, but now it’s sex trade with girls being enticed with promises of a job and then are instead sold into prostitution.

    • Chris
      August 9, 2011

      My apologies for a couple of noticeable grammatical errors in the last one… anyway, I just felt compelled to address the supposed “rape of female prisoners of war” issue as well. Because, honestly, if you look at the text in question (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 is probably what you intended), there is no “rape” present in the passage, unless you think that an Israelite here is commanded to premeditate rape for an entire month before finally being allowed to act on it. On the contrary, the entire measure strongly affirms the personhood of a captured woman. She’s treated with total dignity, even being given an entire month to mourn the loss of her parents.

      Sorry, but your claim is just ridiculous.

      • anon
        August 9, 2011

        Chris, you do realize you’re justifying slavery, don’t you? Life’s too short, don’t waste it reading fairy tales.

  29. C2H4n
    August 9, 2011

    The sincerity just shines forth from those eyes does it not? Another proponent of the Milton Friedman school of monetarism along with our non lamented leaderine Margaret Thatcher. The same Milton Friedman who was ultimately responsible for the terminal decline in industry both in the US & the UK. Remembering that under his influence the rich fell heir to huge tax cuts making them richer than before and in the interim the less well off including the middle earners and the poor became even worse off. Still believe in “trickle down”?

    • cheyenne
      August 10, 2011

      I recall the appropriate proverb: “Shit runs downhill.”

  30. RENEE
    August 9, 2011

    Hey, all of you, remember we need to Vote these people OUT OF OFFICE, EST TEA PARTY , AND MORONS LIKE HER!!!!

  31. Jack Kraft
    August 9, 2011

    This absolutely proves that the Tea Party and GOP is the KKK, and the first thing they will do when they steal the 2012 elections is to restore slavery. These people make Idi Amin and Hitler look like good guys.

  32. tapatia
    August 9, 2011

    This is an interesting piece on NPR’s website–it’s basically excerpts from an interview with a correspondent who spent four days with Bachmann and her staff on the campaign trail (interview will be broadcast today on “Fresh Air”):
    http://www.npr.org/2011/08​/09/139084313/the-books-an​d-beliefs-shaping-michele-​bachmann?sc=fb&cc=fp

    The stuff he says about Wilkins–who wrote the book she recommends, as discussed in the article linked above–is a bit, um, disturbing:
    ” ‘Wilkins has combined a Christian conservatism with neoconservative views and developed what is known as the theological war thesis. This is an idea that says the best way to understand the Civil War is to see it in religious terms, and [that] the South was an Orthodox Christian nation attacked by the godless North and that what was really lost after the Civil War was one of the pinnacles of Christian society. This insane view of the Civil War has been successfully injected into some of the Christian home-schooling movement curriculums with the help of [Wilkins]. My guess is this is how she encountered the guy at some point. … She recommended this book on her website for a number of years. It is an objectively pro-slavery book and one of the most startling things I learned about her in this piece.’ “

  33. Kevin
    August 9, 2011

    Um…I’m pretty sure that suggesting that book as a “must-read” is a massive problem. It’s like suggesting that Mein Kampf or The Turner Diaries are “must-reads;” unless you’re doing research on the people who wrote them or studying about paranoia and xenophobia, you need to be thrown off the stage and laughed at for suggesting it. Not only that, but how many families were broken apart by buying and purchasing slaves? Even after the Missouri Compromise banned the importation of slaves

    This is the woman who believed that Obama was going to realign districts to ensure a Communist revolution…the woman who believed that 3% of our atmosphere was carbon dioxide…the woman who said “Hoot-Smalley” instead of “Smoot-Halley”…the woman who suggested climate control bills were a sign of tyranny…and the woman who got into Congress in the first place mainly due to criticizing Aladdin as promoting paganism. All this “must-read” suggestion does is further solidify her status as an insane, incompetent person.

    • nosferotica
      August 10, 2011

      Maybe they are must-reads because of how they inspired the world in which they live and the mark they left upon the world in which such pieces were created.

      With all the emphasis of learning in which you placed the purpose of reading such books, perhaps you should learn of the mind-frame of which created such works, so you can learn to identify the next Hitler or the next Pierce. You can do that by reading, you know.

      I suggest growing more intellectually, or at least employing a bit more abstract thought.

  34. MsAnonymous2U
    August 9, 2011

    I’m an African American Republican and Michelle Bachmann you should be ashamed of yourself for even making a statement like that and the Republican Party should also be ashamed of themselves for endorsing this Bs in the first place. Michelle Bachmann has no idea what the life of an African slave life was about, she can only imagine and that is even flawed, because she was not even born at that time and these history book are full of lies and delusions regarding African slaves. All Republicans should be quite upset that Michelle Bachmann has even rose to prominence as she has. It also amazes me how ignorant many Republican are and the fact that White Supremacy (Racism) still exists in both political parties. Especially the ‘white’ Republicans who support the Tea Party, which we all know that the Tea Party is not a legitimate party but a racist association/organization parading around as undercover white racists.

    The Republican Party will never turn around if it does not practice diversity and multiculturalism, honest, integrity, character, peace, professionalism, and accept change in the party and stop attacking African Americans to win brownie points with the white racists in our society. The Republican Party should not associate themselves with religion and white racists, they should stick to the facts of resolvement and restoration of the American society, African Americans and all other ethinic groups, which is diverse. Unfortunately, like Eckhart Tolle says, most can’t go beyond thought, many are stuck in their head.

    • John
      August 10, 2011

      Sounds like you might want to find a political party that’s a tad more accepting, huh?

  35. Brerlou
    August 9, 2011

    FORGET YOU, Michele Bachman, and all evil people who cling, in this more enlightened age, to the DEPRAVED ETHOS that supported slavery, and modern day divisions of class and color. People with pitifully weak egos need to prove to themselves that there are those others who can’t possibly compare with whatever group they identify with, because they are afraid to be judged on their own individual merits.

    That’s the appeal of the Tea Party, and why they will do ANYTHING to achieve the ascendancy of their group, including the falsification of fact; because the identity of the group is EVERYTHING to them. They need it, unfortunately. It’s a very powerful dynamic.

  36. lizgwiz
    August 9, 2011

    And, let’s remember, she also had no problem signing a pledge that stated that slavery was good at keeping families together.

    Woman’s a loon. A dangerous loon.

    • shawmellis
      August 9, 2011

      “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.”

      What part of that statement is not true?

      • TooManyJens
        August 9, 2011

        Just for a start:

        * Slaves couldn’t legally be married;
        * A lot of the children of women in slavery were biologically the offspring of the masters who had raped their mothers;
        * The statistics they used to come up with that statement were for African-American households in 1880, after slavery had ended.

      • Nan C
        August 9, 2011

        “What part of that ststement is not true?”

        For starters, “2-parent household” is a pipe dream. In a slave owning household, the only “house holder” was the master. Period. Slaves had no “house” to “hold” and were lucky if the chinking in the cabins held through the winter.

        For that matter, even “two parent” is iffy. In too many cases, one of the two parents was the slave owner.

        …shouldn’t even have dignified that statement with a reply, really.

      • PS
        August 9, 2011

        very well said!!!

      • Eirik
        August 10, 2011

        Also slave children are commodities. Too many boys, sell them down the river to work at the plantations. Daddy gettin too uppity? Sell him down river.

        Also where is the evidence supporting that statement? Where are the numbers of slave born children with 2 parents vs modern children with 2 parents? This is a throwaway “Factoid” that is hard to prove or disprove.

        Also does this take into account the instances of Non slave children born in the early 1800’s with 2 parents or single parents? What’s the percentage then vs now?
        What about Asians? Native Americans? The Irish? This whole statement is subjective. I could just as easily say that life was better for African-American people under the yoke of slavery because childhood obesity and obesity in general was less than today.

  37. Stephanie
    August 9, 2011

    Bachmann supports her husband’s therapy quack business with therapy “changing” homosexuality that isnt approved by either the APA or AMA or NASW. …Nor is the diagnosis in the DSM-iV…As a retired therapist working 20 years in the filed, I am insulted and appalled that this kind of quackery is harming people who are coming to help…Ignorance isnt bliss, wake up people…Shes a fraud.

  38. Corey
    August 9, 2011

    I can’t stand Michelle Bachmann any more than the average progressive, but your assertion that she is sympathetic to slavery is tenuous at best. Until she comes right out and says it, you have no argument. Making inflammatory accusations like this just gives conservatives more reasons not to listen to us when we actually have reason and facts to back us up.
    Besides, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel to find something crazy that Michelle Bachmann actually believes.
    Cheers!

    • Ed
      August 9, 2011

      I agree completely. While obviously the connection makes me slightly wary one must wonder if there isn’t a historical or academic reason why that’s on her list. Making this type of connection is very similar to the Obama/Ayers connection the GOP kept harping on before last election..

      …that being said, there are plenty of reasons to dislike Bachmann based on things she has actually said!

    • Confused
      August 9, 2011

      …Well there’s actually that pledge she signed too saying black family’s were better off under slavery….

      • Ed
        August 9, 2011

        While I see how that might show a pattern of thinking…she actually affixed her name to that pledge which gave explicit endorsement…and I definitely showed my outrage when that happened.

        I’m definitely not trying to defend her but I think we need to let a few implicit things slide so we can nail her on her explicit actions. If we as a community are selective about our assaults they will hold more weight.

    • Justin “Filthy Liberal Scum” Rosario
      August 9, 2011

      Again, I must point out that this book was on her “must read” list for some time. One does not endorse a book like this unless one endorses its message. And it’s not like it was a book of historic interest like “Mein Kampf” or “The Communist Manifesto” which one might recommend despite being opposed to its message.

    • Mykelb
      August 9, 2011

      You are deluded if you think conservatives listen to anyone but the crazy man in their own heads, their pastors, or their KKK leaders.

    • John
      August 10, 2011

      Then why did she sign a pledge that reads:

      “Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born in to 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.”

      This may not be a ringing endorsement but it ostensibly supports a view that blacks were better off as slaves than they are now.

  39. Reality
    August 9, 2011

    Bachman and all the rest of the Republicans are morons who should never hold the Presidential office.

  40. George Kerr
    August 9, 2011

    Although she did not say she believed the passage of the book, saying it is a must read is a little disarming. I would never vote for a turtle or would I vote for her. She has lived in a shell all of her life and has no idea what the real world looks like. Her ability to redefine events and twist the reality of every day life is troubling enough, but to relate to a book that is revisionist of the way we treated fellow human beings and the rights of those states that endorsed this behavior is incredible in itself.

  41. Thomas Auzinger
    August 9, 2011

    WHAT A PIECE OF CRAP BY ADDICTINGINFO.ORG. That is such a stretch. Michele Bachmann said no such thing. She said that Wilkins’ Biography of Lee was a must-read. That’s it. If you read the New Yorker (NOT Newsweek) piece they only write that Wilkins “approvingly quotes Lee”, who in turn writes “Slavery, as it operated in the pervasively Christian society which was the old South, was not an adversarial relationship”. So Lee says something, Wilkins quotes him in a book, and Bachmann says that book is a must read. You have to turn three corners, yet addictinginfo makes it sound like Bachmann herself had said the offending passage.

    This is almost worse than Fox News style reporting. Bachmann and the Tea Party are bad enough as they are, we don’t need to make stuff up and grasp for straws and risk our own credibility. Shame on them. When will we stop linking their shit?

    • Jtxd
      August 9, 2011

      “She said that Wilkins’ Biography of Lee was a must-read. That’s it.”

      Um, yeah. That’s the issue.

    • Justin “Filthy Liberal Scum” Rosario
      August 9, 2011

      I do? Really?! Then you can quote me the line in this VERY short article that says that? Where does it say “Michelle Bachmann is quoted as saying…”? Anywhere?

      Ah, I thought not. Do you have some evidence she included this book on her “must read” list because she thought it was wrong or misguided. Shockingly, you don’t.

      People do NOT put books on a “must read” list because they want to call attention to its inaccuracies. They put them there because they think it offers something worthwhile to the reader. She had it there because it appealed to her. She AGREES with the author and since you so kindly pointed out that the author “approvingly quotes Lee”, is there some OTHER conclusion you would like to draw about Bachmann and this book?

      Just because you don’t like the implications of her reading choices, don’t come whining to me about it. Go take it up with bat-shit crazy Bachmann (whose Newsweek cover shows her just as she is, insane, which why I used it genius).

      Thanks for stopping by and making a fool of yourself. Have a nice day.

      • John Swoap
        August 9, 2011

        Thanks for making a fool of yourself and all progressives every time you post…

      • Justin “Filthy Liberal Scum” Rosario
        August 10, 2011

        That was the best put down EVER!

      • Justin “Filthy Liberal Scum” Rosario
        August 10, 2011

        Also, thank you for failing to “refudiate” a single thing I’ve written. Protests without basis are always the best way to waste everyone’s time.

      • Destiny Richardson
        August 29, 2011

        Here’s the thing, Justin – the headline says that “Bachmann supports view…” – although we are given no evidence of this. I’ve read many books which I’ve enjoyed and/or recommended although I didn’t agree with everything in their pages. What you’re doing here is called “guilt by association” and it doesn’t wash in professional journalism. I am not a Bachmann fan at all – in fact, I think she’s an insane individual – but I am not going to attribute views to her unless they are directly quoted. That’s simply the ways things work.

    • Antoine McGill
      August 9, 2011

      So, It’s OK to endorse a book that’s not factually correct? If I endorse anything, it’s because believe in its content. Would that not be a reasonable assertion?

    • Antoine McGill
      August 9, 2011

      WOW! You are, what you read!

    • Some Guy
      August 9, 2011

      I’d agree the reasoning is disappointing. It feels like fighting fervor with fervor. I’d love to see some intellectual rather than moral high ground on display. I do enjoy seeing that such displays are not the sole domain of any particular group or affiliation.

      1. She’s attributed with the line that the black family unit was more robust under slavery than under the Obama administration. I would expect that this was meant to suggest an ironic failing of the Obama administration, not to suggest that slavery is good. If there is evidence to the contrary, it needs to be brought out.

      2. I am not familiar with Lee’s autobiography. I suspect pretty much no one here is. In my experience, however, I have often found books to contain many sentences. I would hate to be held accountable for all of the ideas within any book. If you are able to say that 300 pages of text written by any individual is wholly consistent with your beliefs I find that rather odd. I would guess that there is a message, theme, or other attribute to the text that she is endorsing, and would wonder what that is. I am guessing that the story of Lee’s life is not one of how he would sit around admiring slavery, and that perhaps there are other lessons there.

      I think it is an important lesson for everyone that everyone is susceptible to “us and them” thinking. It is something to be on guard for. When you find that the answers come easy, its probably because you’ve stopped asking good questions.

  42. illuminati
    August 9, 2011

    So what she owns the book, you can own the bible does not mean your a chrisitian, or the Tibetan book of the dead and not be a Buddhist The passage is from the book not her mouth, this article is clearly flawed.

    • J.
      August 9, 2011

      There is a difference between OWNING a book and personally putting that book on a must-read list in the New Yorker. One possibly exercises bad judgement; the other is a ringing public endorsement of that book. Couple that with the pledge she signed and you start to have a disturbing pattern.

      Okay… I meant THE REST of us have a disturbing pattern. YOU have a reason to see the world picking on her unfairly. For things SHE personally SAID and SIGNED. Because… ummm… she’s a GIRL… and stuff.

      I will forever be amazed at how much the Neo-Right is willing to overlook for this whack-job, but I guess that is par for the course. Great whack-jobs think alike.

  43. ROFL
    August 9, 2011

    She has the appearance of a demon-possessed individual. There is a vacant look in her eyes, and no sincerity in her smile. I get the impression that sometimes when she speaks, it is not her voice, but those of the demons that torture her soul. Maybe that’s the source of her migraines…. She is, in any case, truly a frightening specter as a potential president.

  44. Laura
    August 8, 2011

    This is what is so scary about the tea party. These people really believe the crap they are selling! At least the Republican party that is not associated with these quacks only uses religion to harness votes! I will take the old republicans to this group any day!

    • Lola
      August 9, 2011

      True, but it shows the depth of Old Republican greed, corruption and self-interest. The same way they are willing to manipulate the evangelicals (blatently lie and pretend they share their family values, anti-abortion agenda) to secure their vote, they are willing to capitulate to the Tea Baggers… Make no mistake, the GOP has indeed associated themselves with the Tea Party, they did so the minute they endorsed the first TP candidate. They did it again when they let them run the vote. John McCain is the first old-line Rep to call them out. Nope, the GOP has no morals or principals. It’s about winning at any cost… Remember the Bush vs McCain primary, where they accused McCain of having a black love child, which we later found was a child adopted by he and Cindy? Nothing is too low or off limits!

  45. David Levine
    August 8, 2011

    In Michelle’s world, slaves loved their masters in the old south, Auschwitz was a summer camp for happy Jews and Jesus wrote the Constitution in between bashing fags and cleaning his gun.

    • Louisville Dude
      August 9, 2011

      LOL, good one!!

    • All Politicians are Worthless
      August 9, 2011

      Very nice, I think I peed a little. Unfortunately the sad truth is that she has followers. I don’t know how many-but I do know that if we don’t somehow stop all the money addiction bullshit in DC, we are all going to be very screwed, very soon! This country is obviously already owned by corporations (run by blind greedy EVIL men and women). I do hope we can cooperate long enough to take back this country (by any means necessary).

  46. Kenneth Noisewater
    August 8, 2011

    An article ends with an interviewer askin four evangelical church leaders if their intent of using violence to force Christianity on Americans was tantamount to the Taliban in Afghanistan. They replied that, ‘yes, they were the same as the Taliban except they were better armed, better organized, and had the full support of conservatives in positions of power’.

  47. Kenneth Noisewater
    August 8, 2011

    lolol the simple fact that we are still at a point where we can’t collectively say “No, we know that is morally incorrect, and because we know that and because we know you are on the other side of the fence, you have been disqualified from society” is an issue.

  48. merrybee
    August 8, 2011

    That she can doubledown on one of the darkest aspects of our history and trivialize it, tells me that Bachmann is fully supporting the evil of revisionist, Dominionist Christianity — which sure the heck is not good for this country and will bring us do ruin.

    • Marcie
      August 8, 2011

      ok, we all know, there are stupid holocaust deniers, but seriously? this crazy cow wants to downplay/eradicate the FACT of the slavery this country was FOUNDED on, that created MANY of the WEALTHY dynasties that prevail today, and are STILL screwing the rest of us over???? she may be “an evangelical christian”, BUT if one believs in such things, there’s a special place in hell for her…

  49. kumar
    August 8, 2011

    why would anyone want this god damn dumbfuck as our president? what happens if god tells her to send a missile at one of our cities? or something like that

    • AR
      August 21, 2011

      They are brainwashed by Murdoch’s “news” source. She is like Palin. sexy but in a pre-sexual revolution way, show a bit of leg but not too much to be called a whore. Be smart but not too smart to be called bookish as people are threatened by smart women, etc.

      • Elva
        August 28, 2011

        Well, she doesn’t look sexy in that picture. More like a robot on extacy.

Leave a Reply

You must be to post a comment.

Back to top
mobile desktop