Whether the kid wants to or not, or is "OK" with it, is beside the point. Using children to promote any type of movement or agenda is sickening. Leave that shit to the Michigan Militia or religious nut jobs like Westboro Baptist Church. Or those Toddlers & Tiaras monsters mothers.

And it's not about smothering the kids "new found morals" so much as it is about advertising them. They shot video of him and put it on the internet. That's using the child to promote your agenda. And that's gross negligence, imo.

I think that if they had made a video of this kid by himself, addressing Michelle Bachmann and saying what he has to say while looking directly at the camera, it would have been a lot more powerful than him looking all meek and mumbling to himself about something some adult most likely told him to say.

@ Bruti79 I hear what you're saying but when your parent is LGBT, people often treat you differently and just "being a child" is something you're rarely afforded. Michelle Bachmann just got a visit from reality and it is unfortunate that she had to be ambushed to see it. It's more unfortunate that this will undoubtedly galvanize her resolve to "save" this boy and other children like him. I'm just glad she has no shot at being the president.

I'm all for gay rights, I think Michelle Bachmann is a moron, and I think the parent of this kid just exploited her own son for her own agenda.

Michelle Bachmann is simply another deluded christian bigot.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/12/01/michele-bachmann-thinks-gay-men-should-marry-women

Wish I could copy this picture directly in here. Anybody know how?

>> ^Morganth:

Pouring water is hardly a form a servitude. It's polite.
I'm actually more weirded out by the fact that they're debating around a Thanksgiving table on a stage.


No, it's not a form of servitude, but she is being servile.

Why did it take a year to bring forward the lawsuit if it was such a religious reason? I'd say he's looking to sue because he couldn't hop to another job after being terminated, but it still shouldn't have taken him a year to bring the lawsuit if he felt so strongly and truly believed that was the sole reason for his firing. I don't think his case is without merit, but I think his point is weakened by the long delay and that the full truth is being masked in this reporting.

And I seriously doubt this reporter looked at every possible document on this situation, ya know....since the company wouldn't even speak with him.


Guy bringing lawsuit has that lispy sound I associate with gay men. IE If you ever listen to michelle bachmann's husband that guy has it and a lot of really blatant gay men have it. Side note, but probably has a lot of bearing on his "religious fervor".

>> ^Barseps:

I'm tempted to downvote this 'cos I didn't see her make ONE sandwich


Just cause you didn't see it....

Tags for this video have been changed from 'republican debate, michelle bachmann, jon stewart, foreign policy' to 'republican debate, michele bachmann, jon stewart, foreign policy' - edited by xxovercastxx

Not true. Venture capital is not necessary for businesses to exist. How do I know? Many businesses began without investments of the size that require venture capitalists. Parents give their children money to start businesses, or people find work to do that others want done and save and re-invest. Before capitalism, just about every business started without capital investment.

And yes I do believe that. I'm not at all in favour of redistribution of wealth. I'm in favour of fair distribution of wealth. To me, that means people earning whatever they can within the law, and not using their wealth to create legal conditions that favour their making money at the expense of those without as much money. Such a system keeps the rich rich, and makes it nearly impossible for the lower and middle classes to become rich. In fact, it erodes the middle class because doing more work than before only keeps you level, not going higher. It used to be that a household only needed one breadwinner. You'd think with all our new time-saving technology we'd need even less labour, but no, it now takes two breadwinners.>> ^quantumushroom:

Without investors (and capital) laborers have nothing to build or create. Without biz leaders, laborers build products no one wants and go out of business.
And the rich who earn their money honestly and keep it without manipulating Congress etc. are entitled to enjoy it, in my books.
You don't really believe this.

>> ^messenger:
You mean that all profits should go to the labourers (literally, the productive), and that those who have lived off the riches created by labour merely by being investors should die?
That's a startling new stance for you QM, and I'm starting to warm to your philosophy, but I don't think lazy rich should die. And the rich who earn their money honestly and keep it without manipulating Congress etc. are entitled to enjoy it, in my books.>> ^quantumushroom:
Death to parasites, wealth to the productive who created it.

Without investors (and capital) laborers have nothing to build or create. Without biz leaders, laborers build products no one wants and go out of business.

And the rich who earn their money honestly and keep it without manipulating Congress etc. are entitled to enjoy it, in my books.

You don't really believe this.


>> ^messenger:

You mean that all profits should go to the labourers (literally, the productive), and that those who have lived off the riches created by labour merely by being investors should die?
That's a startling new stance for you QM, and I'm starting to warm to your philosophy, but I don't think lazy rich should die. And the rich who earn their money honestly and keep it without manipulating Congress etc. are entitled to enjoy it, in my books.>> ^quantumushroom:
Death to parasites, wealth to the productive who created it.

You mean that all profits should go to the labourers (literally, the productive), and that those who have lived off the riches created by labour merely by being investors should die?

That's a startling new stance for you QM, and I'm starting to warm to your philosophy, but I don't think lazy rich should die. And the rich who earn their money honestly and keep it without manipulating Congress etc. are entitled to enjoy it, in my books.>> ^quantumushroom:

Death to parasites, wealth to the productive who created it.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^alcom:

Settle down, everyone. No, she's not talking about the world[sic]. Being poor in the USA is still better than being poor in Somalia. But one is painting with an absurdly broad brush by stating that a significant majority of people struggling to make ends meet can simply get a job to satisfy their luxurious eating needs. A 9% unemployment rate isn't self-inflicted.
>> ^bobknight33:
Don't be so stupid. She is not talking about the wold.
She is talking about lazy people who would rather collect the 99 weeks then magically find a job.
What a great straight talking American. >> ^Peroxide:
Almost a billion or more people in the world today face starvation.
So, Michelle, is a whole 1/7th of the world's population just too darn lazy to punch in their time-cards?
What a stupid, selfish, disgusting human being.




Aye, and that figure is only the number of Americans who have sought work in the past 4 weeks, the real unemployment figure if measured by Western European/Japan/Canada standards is 16.6%.

That's over 50 million people.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/learn-how-to-invest/The-real-unemployment-rate.aspx