The titans of the porno industry are shaking in their glittery boots as pretend presidential candidate Michele Bachmann (R-Mars) takes the pledge to protect America from adult entertainment by working as president to ban it.
And that's not all she's sworn to.
The vow was written by an Iowa group and asks Republican candidates to agree that being gay is a choice, sex is inherently better after marriage, and makes them promise they’ll provide “humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy... from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion, and other types of coercion or stolen innocence.”
So far, only Bachmann has signed.
Industry lobbyists reacted predictably, Friday. The Seduction Into Promiscuity Institute (SIPI) issued a terse statement, "We're not willing to debate such basic, precious rights and freedoms as those to beguile, inveigle and debauch."
(photo: Rep. Michele Bachmann)
"Jobs would be killed," said "Choch" Mañana, spokesman for the Exploitation Guild of Louisiana, "Good jobs. Naked jobs."
The Anti-Conjugal Relations League and The Club for Infants withdrew previous endorsements of Bachmann. The White Slavers Council (SSC) stated, "Rep. Bachmann seems ignorant of the jobs that the adult mandatory volunteerism industry gives this country."
As always, the Bachmann campaign did not return BlatherWatch calls.
Thats "Sincerity".
Posted by: ProgBlogJunky | July 09, 2011 at 07:29 PM
The crisis has been the excuse and the smoke screen for implementation of not only Wall St’s deregulation agenda, but the right-wing’s anti-New Deal agenda, and they aren’t going to stop until they put the last nails in both those coffins.
There’s also the immense political value that Republicans can make out of financial collapse, which is the part of the picture that gives us the timing.
This has the same exact effect as the deliberate shut-down of power plants by operators at the behest of Enron traders, that drove the price of electricity through the roof during the California ‘energy crisis’.
In the same way that the willfully fabricated California ‘energy crisis’ drove Enron stock upwards, the next economic down-turn will be deliberately triggered in an effort to simultaneously help the Republicans in the 2012 election cycle and help the banksters cement their absolute control of the nation’s economy.
Posted by: Coiler | July 09, 2011 at 07:37 PM
Alpha Joanie cant spare $350 for a bottle of wine but when it comes to buying a computer, she goes and buys a MAC which cost more and produces more global warming gases than any other computer on the market. 2 for 2 on being a hypocrit today.
Posted by: ProgBlogJunky | July 09, 2011 at 07:12 PM
Actually, ph(J)oanie is 3 for 3 on the hypocrisy front. Despite much wailing and gnashing of teeth about the environment, this same so called 'environmentalist' maintains two homes. An ecological crime as she maintains a footprint out of line with a single human being.
Maybe she'll buy some of those equally ph(J)oanie carbon offsets that Al Gore's company use to hawk.
LMAO. And Sparkles worries about someone paying for his own bottle of wine...oh the hypocrisy. No doubt Duffman is shedding a tear over this.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | July 09, 2011 at 08:06 PM
God, why do you two embarrass yourselves so much that you are reduced to holding up each other's ignorant posts?
Reread the quote, junkie (such an appropriate name for the junk you post), and you'll see I said "without sparing somewhere else." Yes, because I do not buy $350 bottles of wine, I can afford a good computer.
Find a brain or quit posting please.
And gnu, you are sounding more and more like KS who suffers from Sorositis and Algoreum. Can you talk about anything except posting stupid neener neener remarks to Sparky and I? And shouting out to Duffman for help is the most pathetic of all.
Posted by: joanie | July 09, 2011 at 08:30 PM
Your values will never equal the values of the left and you will never hear a liberal defend $350 bottles of wine over a safety net for the poor and elderly. That's what makes us different.
Posted by: joanie | July 09, 2011 at 05:56 PM
I'm interested in the Pewget's response to this.
Posted by: jonathan | July 09, 2011 at 08:49 PM
Progressives on this blog had no problems with John Edwards dropping hundreds of dollars on a haircut.
You'll recall him, the 'Two Americas' fella who thought it was okay to engage in an affair because his wife was in remission for cancer.
So it's a little weak to hear them wail about someone spending their own money to buy a bottle of wine.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | July 09, 2011 at 09:02 PM
Your values will never equal the values of the left and you will never hear a liberal defend $350 bottles of wine over a safety net for the poor and elderly. That's what makes us different.
Posted by: joanie | July 09, 2011 at 05:56 PM
I'm interested in the Pewget's response to this.
Posted by: jonathan | July 09, 2011 at 08:49 PM
Just the facts:
Hey ph(J)oanie, how about that $399 a bottle wine served by Pres Obama -at Taxpayer expense!
Jeez
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/01/sacrifice-is-for-the-little-people-obama-white-house-serves-199-bottles-of-wine-at-state-dinner/
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers facts | July 09, 2011 at 09:08 PM
From Joanie's original post:
Thanks for leading me to The Atlantic where I found a little something about every elderly person's best friend, Paul Ryan: The Atlantic Home
Friday, July 8, 2011
Paul Ryan's $350 Bottle of Wine
Politics Jul 8 2011
excerpted
"If there's any justice in the world, Ryan ought to get at least as much grief for this as Edwards got."
John Edwards wasn't taking a social safety away from the poor and elderly. Talk about hypocrisy. Is that all you can come up with?
Try again.
Posted by: Jonathan | July 09, 2011 at 09:08 PM
Im BACK where the weather is decent for living of all living things. Why do people live in the desert anyway?
Took the long way home up the coast since we had to bypass New Mexico because of the fires.
So Im reading the stuff I have missed and I have a question for Mr. Sound why are you ignoring Sparky's message? Yeah Edwards wasted money on an expensive haircut but I dont recall him saying he was going to cut the rest of us off too. Its the difference between how these two guys wanted to treat retired folks like me. Either you dont get that, or you do and you just like playing an ass to irritate these fine ladies. I bet its the last one.
Posted by: Jovita is FRIED | July 09, 2011 at 09:14 PM
yes, John Edwards was taking campaign money to pay off his mistress.
C'mon, it's Ryan's own dough.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers facts | July 09, 2011 at 09:15 PM
You continue to miss the point, Puget Sound. That's because you really don't have a response.
BTW, in case you haven't read the blogs reently, Edwards is being indicted. Stick with haircuts and wine which is more honorable and more analogous. No wonder Joanie has such an easy time with you.
Posted by: Jonathan | July 09, 2011 at 09:21 PM
dont recall him saying he was going to cut the rest of us off too. Its the difference between how these two guys wanted to treat retired folks like me. Either you dont get that, or you do and you just like playing an ass to irritate these fine ladies. I bet its the last one.
Posted by: Jovita is FRIED | July 09, 2011 at 09:14 PM
hey Jovita, you must be one of those who don't care too much about the folks who you are sticking the bill. you know, the children who are being passed the bill with no say in the matter.
paul ryan is trying to keep an unsustainable program based in reality.
but if the best you all can do is wallow in the mud about him having some wine, then wallow in the mud.
what an selfish ass you are.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers facts | July 09, 2011 at 09:22 PM
Paul Ryan is a fucking tool of ALEC. Selfish ass? You, who are fine with millions of people unemployed and out of benefits who have children to feed? HYPOCRITE! HOW DARE YOU CALL ANYONE ELSE SELFISH. HOW DARE YOU.
PEWGET SOUND AS POLLUTED AS THE DUWAMISH.
Posted by: Jonathan | July 09, 2011 at 09:27 PM
If joanie owns two homes, it would equal Mitt Romney's basement apartment in his "sons" house, so don't try to give false equivalencies, PU Git
Posted by: Johnny Sombrerro | July 09, 2011 at 09:29 PM
Puget since you seem to only pay attention when someone calls you names-- Hey ya snot nosed kid I dont know how old you are but someday you will retire too. I hope when you do, some little snot nosed tyke like you begrudges you wanting to live a decent life. I bet you think you will be all set when you retire because you aren't relying on anything from the government at the moment. I sure wish I could be around to see your face when reality sets in, son.
Posted by: Jovita is FRIED | July 09, 2011 at 09:46 PM
Well, PS, I see you've been all over the map again. "Doesn't cost that much". . . "it's his money"..."John Edwards did it too" . . . and now "it's unsustainable?" What's unsustainable - buying a bottle of $350 wine while eliminating the safety net for the poor and elderly? Well, I would agree with that. And it will not continue. People with better brains and much better hearts will eliminate Paul Ryan. You just wait and see.
Like I've always said: discourse with the Sound is like chasing your tail.
Posted by: joanie | July 09, 2011 at 10:07 PM
Hood - I just did some simple googling and there is no such organization as Club for Infants or the Exploitation Guild of Louisiana, or The Anti-Conjugal Relations League. More liberal lies. Do you expect anyone to give you any credibility at all?
Posted by: Kramer | July 09, 2011 at 10:38 PM
err Joanie, the current Medicare deficit projections are unsustainable. not sure what you mean by 'eliminate paul ryan' but lets hope you are not threatening him. it's that kind of talk that has led to earlier tragedies. so tamp down your rhetoric. funny how all of you progressives have no problem with others spending so much for a bottle of wine, ie our President. oh wait, that's different...
jovita, two words: greece and portugal.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers whilst Usual Suspects scamper away | July 10, 2011 at 03:14 AM
Kramer, if "Choch" Mañana says it's so, then it's so!
Posted by: StarTheWonderDog | July 10, 2011 at 06:27 AM
And Alpha Joanie, i'm sure there are alot of people who cant afford a $1500 dollar computer without sparing somewhere else. More hypocrisy.
Posted by: Progblogjunky | July 10, 2011 at 09:55 AM
Yes Puget Sound. Just like theprogressive have no problem with Obama swing a golf clup but made loud noises when the Shrub swung his axe.
Posted by: ProgBlogJunky | July 10, 2011 at 10:02 AM
Yes, Puget, I am aware that those who make high salaries have no dog in this fight. No need to worry about going on Medicare, no need to worry about collecting Social Security. Able to work until age whatever because one sits on one's fat ass in a chair all day. I know your kind. Always an excuse in support of those who dont need your support. That is called "being a lackey" so, I think I will call you Puget Lackey from now on.
Posted by: Jovita is enjoying the cool air | July 10, 2011 at 10:09 AM
but lets hope you are not threatening him. it's that kind of talk that has led to earlier tragedies.
I must have really defeated you for you to reach so low. You're an idiot.
And junkie, at least try to make sense when you post. K?
Posted by: joanie | July 10, 2011 at 11:28 AM
More name calling huh Puget Sound. Funny though that she got confused with her support for Alpha Joanie and your opinion of what the rich can do with thier money. Never gets old following the hypocrisy here on Blatherwatch.
Posted by: ProgBlogJunky | July 10, 2011 at 11:28 AM
So Alpha, are you saying your post didnt make any sense? To much wine already today. I just followed your line of thinking there.
Posted by: ProgBlogJunky | July 10, 2011 at 11:35 AM
I repeat: try to make sense or quit posting.
Posted by: joanie | July 10, 2011 at 11:45 AM
Drive for mandatory sick leave in Seattle: Paid Sick Leave Now Law in Conn.; Drives Under Way in Denver, Seattle
I wonder if the city council has the courage to do it? Hope so.
Posted by: joanie | July 10, 2011 at 12:59 PM
And gnu, you are sounding more and more like KS who suffers from Sorositis and Algoreum. Can you talk about anything except posting stupid neener neener remarks to Sparky and I? And shouting out to Duffman for help is the most pathetic of all.
Posted by: joanie | July 09, 2011 at 08:30 PM
Joanie You must get off the bottle - you have obviously been imbibing again with your incoherent bluster as usual.
It would stand to reason that a nutburger hypocrite like yourself would defend the likes of tyrants like Gore and Soros. The sad fact is that you and Sparky are only deserving of neener neeners and no serious argument since you are incapable of being honest. Spare us your insanity and go out and bark at the moon.
Posted by: KS | July 10, 2011 at 05:38 PM
An op-ed piece from John Berlau;
"Progressive constitutionalists argue that the term “public debt” embraces every transfer payment of every spending program under the sun. But the Supreme Court has already shot down the argument that government benefits — even if they are labeled “entitlements” — represent contractual obligations. In Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960), the court ruled that a deported member of the Communist party did not have any “earned rights” to his Social Security benefits, and neither did other recipients. Calling benefits a “noncontractual interest,” the Court declared, “To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of ‘accrued property rights’ would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands.”
Ironically, proposals for personal accounts championed by center-right groups would give recipients a contractual interest in some of the taxes they pay, but the Left shot this down in favor of keeping Social Security as a pay-as-you-go Ponzi scheme with “guarantees” not worth the paper they are written on.
Despite the obvious hypocrisy of these newfound defenders of constitutional limits, they have the chutzpah to attempt to tar the tea-party movement with hypocrisy if conservatives and libertarians don’t profess absolute fealty to this new constitutional theory. But genuine constitutionalists should respond simply that all parts of the Constitution should be honored, and that Article I and the 14th Amendment do not conflict with each other.
The Constitution places a burden both on borrowing and on default of valid existing debt. As difficult as they may make the legislative process, both provisions serve to prevent short-term and long-term fiscal catastrophe.
— John Berlau is director of the Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. CEI counsel for special projects Hans Bader provided invaluable insights and assistance with this article.
A picture of what the progressives are all about, who live in a continual fantasyland when it comes to interpreting the US constitution.
Disclaimer: Consider the source when fantasy land Joanie comes out with her phony talibanesque rebuttal...
Posted by: KS | July 10, 2011 at 05:59 PM
For the entire article, go to;
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271329/constitutional-nonsense-debt-john-berlau?page=1
Posted by: KS | July 10, 2011 at 06:02 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/
articles/271329/constitutional-nonsense
-debt-john-berlau?page=1
Posted by: KS | July 10, 2011 at 06:05 PM
spot on, KS and PBJ
when Joanie walks her talk on the environment, then she'll have credibility.
judging by her lack of coherency, she would have trouble walking a straight line.
and Jovita, it's all about me me me, to hell with the next generation.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | July 10, 2011 at 06:18 PM
PS - when Joanie coherently walks her talk on the environment, that will be the day pigs fly. That's rich when she has drunk too much wine and tells PBJ to make sense while posting.
Yeah, Jovita enjoying the cool air because he has sucked up all of the hot air from the surroundings.
Posted by: KS blathering for the halibut | July 10, 2011 at 07:39 PM
to hell with the next generation.
The next generation is sitting at empty dinner tables and sleeping in cars. Work on your math.
I see one of Roger Ailes' "lazy" clowns is back as funny as ever.
Posted by: joanie | July 10, 2011 at 08:28 PM
The next generation is sitting at empty dinner tables and sleeping in cars. Work on your math.
I see one of Roger Ailes' "lazy" clowns is back as funny as ever.
Posted by: joanie | July 10, 2011 at 08:28 PM
You quoted Jovita. Just one more incoherent post from you to add to the collection. Talk about working on math, when are you going to work on that moronic math of yours ?
Posted by: KS blathering for the halibut | July 10, 2011 at 09:20 PM
Quoting Jovita? You better go back on vacation. You still don't make sense.
And so, for another chapter in the $350 wine saga:
It didn't take long for TPM readers to identify the two likeminded conservatives with whom Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) shared two pricey $350 bottles of Pinot Noir Wednesday night.
The two names repeatedly flooded into TPM's e-mail since our story on Ryan's big spending night first ran Friday, and we spent the next 24 hours trying to reach the pair to confirm their identities and get their side of the story.
The three men were spotted ordering the $700 worth of wine at Bistro Bis on Capitol Hill by an associate professor of business at Rutgers University named Susan Feinberg. After dining in the same restaurant with her husband, Feinberg confronted Ryan and his pals about the high-end wine. The exchange became contentious. Ryan professed not to know the price of the wine, and one of his buddies responded to Feinberg's chastisement by loudly saying, "Fuck her," Feinberg told TPM.
...Asness, who ordered the wine and who, according to Feinberg was the one who said "Fuck her," is better known as a high-profile hedge fund manager. Asness founded and runs AQR Capital...
...ABC's Jake Tapper ran an illuminating piece on Asness in May of 2009, describing him as having "a name and occupation straight out of Dickens"...
Wanna bet the hedge fund guy was paying? That may let Ryan off the hook for me.
You got to hand it to liberal women. They are savvy, smart and unafraid of barbaric neanderthals like Asness.
Posted by: joanie | July 10, 2011 at 09:58 PM
Hedge fund "economists"...
Posted by: Coiler | July 11, 2011 at 08:36 AM
"to hell with the next generation."
That is Jovita's sentiments and it also seems like yours, as you talk out of both sides of your mouth, Joanie.
You are trying to emulate Obama for being the biggest trash talker and hypocrite. I respect someone who backs up their talk with action, which eliminates you, the usual suspects and President from those who I can respect. You or anyone else is a moron if they think I was elevating you with that comparison.
"That may let Ryan off the hook for me."
HA ! You realized that you had nothing left. Liberal women have chronic PMS borderlining on dementia.
Posted by: KS blathering for the halibut | July 11, 2011 at 10:38 AM
Ks it sounds like women have not treated you kindly in your life. You sound bitter and angry toward them. Im sorry to hear that. It appears to cloud your judgement and attitude.
Posted by: Jovita is enjoying the cool air | July 11, 2011 at 12:09 PM
She have to pry my porn out of my warm, lubed hand.
Posted by: Dori Monson | July 11, 2011 at 01:55 PM
No anger here jovita, just stating my observations.
Your protege Joanie is an angry and mentally unbalanced one and Sparky also shows flashes of unleashed anger.
I don't have a problem with middle-of-the road or conservative women, moreover the ones who have open minds and are honest, like Radio Queen. Some liberals are open minded and honest also, but they are scarce as hen's teeth on this blog.
Posted by: KS blathering for the halibut | July 11, 2011 at 02:45 PM
Included in the pledge: "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." Michelle, you are NOT smarter than a 5th grader. They could explain to you how families were torn apart and the children sold to slave owners who took them away, never to see their family again. Jesus Christ what an idiot.
Posted by: sparky | July 08, 2011 at 11:56 AM
Sparky, looks like the press has finally caught onto your little nugget…only 3 days late. Better late than never I guess.
Don’t ya love it when you’re right?
Posted by: excessive moderate | July 11, 2011 at 04:41 PM
You know, when I skimmed the pledge, I noticed that but it didn't strike me as the worst. What are the stats on black families and single parents today? I'm curious and not arguing. Wondering.
What I disliked most in the pledge was the diminishment of women to near chattel. I had the feeling that was the underlying message more than any other. Very biblical. And now they've unfunded Planned Parenthood in New Hampshire. Teachers and service workers? Mostly women.
I sure don't want to go back to pre-civil rights or pre-war conditions at all. And I doubt any black does either. It's like the Sadaam question: are Iraqis better off today? Depends I guess on your station in life. Maybe?
Posted by: joanie | July 11, 2011 at 05:34 PM
Joanie;
The way I read it, “Family Leader” wants to save black people from the outrageousness of black people. Therefore they need to be enslaved and owned by us. This way none of them can be president, ever!
I’m sure you are correct about the rest, I didn’t read past the first part due to my laughing fit.
Posted by: excessive moderate | July 11, 2011 at 05:48 PM
Didn't it make you consider how much the right and evangelicals resemble the Taliban? They are becoming the thing they hate. Amazing.
Posted by: joanie | July 11, 2011 at 07:39 PM
John Curley is on the air right now, discussing the Casey Anthony trial, repeating over and over "a jury has to find you guilty 'beyond a shadow of a doubt'". A blatantly incorrect statement, as the legal standard is only "beyond a reasonable doubt", much different than a "shadow" of a doubt. This mistake was much more common years ago, among the uneducated classes, but now , with all the courtroom shows and dramas, even most of those folks know what the legal standard is. John Curley, the would be local Republican office holder, doesn't know this, however. Not really a big surprise to many of us. His lack of educaton is obvious, and, in this case, rather shameful.
Posted by: Dr. McCormick | July 11, 2011 at 07:42 PM
Snark off.
Yes, Joanie anyone who can’t see the radical right wing swing is a part of the problem. It seems as if the conspiracy theorists have taken over their party.
Snark on.
Yo won’t beliveMichele Bachmann’s former job.
Posted by: excessive moderate | July 11, 2011 at 08:52 PM
opps...
Snark off.
Yes, Joanie anyone who can’t see the radical right wing swing is a part of the problem. It seems as if the conspiracy theorists have taken over their party.
Snark on
You won’t believe Michele Bachmann’s former job.
Posted by: excessive moderate | July 11, 2011 at 08:54 PM
Yes, I knew that. You should read her bio. Can't remember where I read it but will try to find it. She went to a Christian college and I think met her husband there. I think she may have gone on to Oral Roberts for her law degree. The article was in a piece that explained why she says these things. They fit with the ideas of one of her professors who manages to make these "factoids" fit his history and politics. In his mind and hers, they all make sense. He is her mentor. Got to find it so you can read it for yourself. I'll go looking.
Posted by: joanie | July 11, 2011 at 09:42 PM
Hey thanks, I’ll be looking forward to it.
Posted by: excessive moderate | July 11, 2011 at 09:51 PM