As someone who liked & admired him as a child because he seemed so likable & charming this is disappointing AND infuriating.

Quote :

Michele Bachmann At CPAC: Former GOP Candidate Slams Prop 8 Ruling, Meets Chuck Woolery


Former presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann accused the 9th Circuit court of Appeals of “trying to undermine the will of the people” after its decision this week ruling the ban on marriage for gays and lesbians in California to be unconstitutional. And she predicts the case will go before the Supreme Court.

"The people of the state of California have the right to vote on the laws that they living under," she told HuffPost Gay Voices shortly after she gave a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington on Thursday.

"They made a vote in 2008," she said. "That's when Barack Obama was running for president. And it's amazing, really, what a decisive outcome it was, so it's interesting, that now you find federal judges trying to undermine the will of the people. That's what federalism is about, and that’s why you'll see this case go to the Supreme Court."

Bachmann, while doing radio interviews on "radio row" at CPAC, met up with Chuck Woolery, the former TV game show host, most notably of the "Love Connection," and they shared a warm embrace as Bachmann giddily called out, "Chuck! Chuck!"

Woolery is promoting "Reset Congress," a project that he outlines on his web site, Save Us Chuck Woolery. He, too, slammed the Prop 8 ruling, and said gays don’t need civil rights. In fact, he believes African-Americans need no civil rights.

"Majority rules," he said, dismissing the idea that minorities need protections. "We were born with natural rights. We don't need civil rights. [African-Americans] don't need civil rights. They don't need them. They have inalienable rights granted by God in the Constitution. I mean, I'm discriminated against all the time. I don't care. It doesn't bother me. [I'm discriminated against] because I'm old. I'm too old to get a job as a game show host. They say, well, the guy's 71 and in five years he'll be 76. And I’m a one per center, and I'm absolutely discriminated against as a one per center."

Friday, day two at CPAC, strongly highlighted the conservative moral agenda, including attacks on marriage equality, amid the noticeable absence of the conservative gay group, GOProud, which had been banned this year. Before Rick Santorum's speech, a panel that included Focus on the Family’s Tom Minnery, who’d been accused during the Defense of Marriage Act repeal hearings of distorting studies, focused on what it perceived as the dangers of gay marriage. Jordon Sekulow, son of the crusading antigay attorney Jay Sekulow (who later spoke), attacked President Obama for allowing for gay marriage by supporting civil unions, which he said would lead to same-sex marriage.

Full interviews and full coverage of CPAC on Monday on "The Michelangelo Signorile Show" on SiriusXM OutQ 108, 2-6.




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/10/michele-bachmann-cpac-prop-8_n_1268627.html

Those inalienable rights didn't seem to work so well before the civil rights movement and act. Why the hell wasn't god making sure they had inalienable rights then?

MB wasn't my top pick but I think she was a lot better of a candidate than the Tweedle bros, or the current Tweedle king. lol

Suzi wrote:

Those inalienable rights didn't seem to work so well before the civil rights movement and act. Why the hell wasn't god making sure they had inalienable rights then?

Because Chuck Woolery is a phucking FOOL that's why! But then again, anyone who jumps on Michelle Bachman's bandwagon is, so that's no real surprise there.

Bachmann: "They made a vote in 2008," she said. "That's when Barack Obama was running for president. And it's amazing, really, what a decisive outcome it was, so it's interesting, that now you find federal judges trying to undermine the will of the people.

-if by decisive she means that the vast majority of people voted in favor of it, she's WRONG. It passed by the very slim margin of 52.1% to 47.9%. Essentially, half the people who voted voted against it!

-if by decisive she means that laws cannot be overturned by higher courts, she's WRONG. That's why we have that thing called the constitution. It's meant to protect people from unjust laws, which is exactly what happened in this case.

I know there are some fools in our country who think that as long as a majority votes for it, then that's the way it should be. But the reality of the situation is that the majority is not RIGHT by virtue of being a majority. If that was the case, then blacks may not have rights today and women could still be second class citizens. What if a there was a vote to bring back slavery and it passed? Does that me we slavery should be reinstated as the will of the people?

captainbryce wrote:

I know there are some fools in our country who think that as long as a majority votes for it, then that's the way it should be. But the reality of the situation is that the majority is not RIGHT by virtue of being a majority. If that was the case, then blacks may not have rights today and women could still be second class citizens. What if a there was a vote to bring back slavery and it passed? Does that me we slavery should be reinstated as the will of the people?

This is the craziest mindset some of these people have & the idea that the RIGHTS of any group of people should even be put to a popular vote is disgusting. This mantra of "the people have spoken" is absolute bullshit. "The people" have no right to speak in those instances. The Constitution applies to everyone, not a select few. And yes, I whole heartedly believe that some people would attempt to do that very thing. And not all of them wear sheets. Bigotry is on open display.

Suzi wrote:

Those inalienable rights didn't seem to work so well before the civil rights movement and act. Why the hell wasn't god making sure they had inalienable rights then?