Michele Bachmann

blackredyellow

inlet13 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i don't think you are right about obama losing if unemployment is still at 8%.

i think if given the choice between obama with an 9% unemployment rating and this loon, i think obama still takes it in a landslide. the majority of the country is not anti gay, not for intelligent design, and not for the free market determining everything, and definitely not for tea party ideals. if they were the tea party would not be in the republican party, rather it would be it's own formidable party. unfortunately it compromised and was swallowed up by the gop.

Economics are what will decide the election. If liberals try to run on social issues they will get destroyed. People want to talk jobs. They don't give a crap about all that other stuff.

You can say that works both ways... People like Bachmann have to run on social issues to a point to get her base fired up, and that will kill any chances she has with moderates. Every candidate is going to have an economic plan, and while it's the big issue, it's a boring one. Social issues raise campaign money.

JonnyPistachio

inlet13 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i don't think you are right about obama losing if unemployment is still at 8%.

i think if given the choice between obama with an 9% unemployment rating and this loon, i think obama still takes it in a landslide. the majority of the country is not anti gay, not for intelligent design, and not for the free market determining everything, and definitely not for tea party ideals. if they were the tea party would not be in the republican party, rather it would be it's own formidable party. unfortunately it compromised and was swallowed up by the gop.

Economics are what will decide the election. If liberals try to run on social issues they will get destroyed. People want to talk jobs. They don't give a crap about all that other stuff.

But they actually DO give a crap about all the other stuff if it is a reflection of their thinking and ability to incorporate their plans into society. I don't know much about Bachmann, but if I hear a person is pushing to incorporate "intelligent design" into schools, it makes me wonder about their competency.

inlet13

JonnyPistachio wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i don't think you are right about obama losing if unemployment is still at 8%.

i think if given the choice between obama with an 9% unemployment rating and this loon, i think obama still takes it in a landslide. the majority of the country is not anti gay, not for intelligent design, and not for the free market determining everything, and definitely not for tea party ideals. if they were the tea party would not be in the republican party, rather it would be it's own formidable party. unfortunately it compromised and was swallowed up by the gop.

Economics are what will decide the election. If liberals try to run on social issues they will get destroyed. People want to talk jobs. They don't give a crap about all that other stuff.

But they actually DO give a crap about all the other stuff if it is a reflection of their thinking and ability to incorporate their plans into society. I don't know much about Bachmann, but if I hear a person is pushing to incorporate "intelligent design" into schools, it makes me wonder about their competency.

When I hear Keynesian economics discussed as a solution to the problems Keynesian economics caused, it makes me wonder about a candidates competency.

Although the general public may not know the word Keynesian, they aren't dumb. We will be Greece, if we're not careful. We need to stop spending and this President came in and immediately setup another entitlement, when we can't afford the ones we have.

If you owed money on your credit card, you wouldn't be saying "let's bring in more money, that will solve the problem." Because there's no guarantee you can. Instead a rational person would say, "I need to stop spending on my credit card until it becomes manageable." The average voter has had to cut back, they understand this. The government does not. Democrats will lose on the economy for this reason and the fact that close to 20% of our population is out of work.

blackredyellow

inlet13 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Economics are what will decide the election. If liberals try to run on social issues they will get destroyed. People want to talk jobs. They don't give a crap about all that other stuff.

But they actually DO give a crap about all the other stuff if it is a reflection of their thinking and ability to incorporate their plans into society. I don't know much about Bachmann, but if I hear a person is pushing to incorporate "intelligent design" into schools, it makes me wonder about their competency.

When I hear Keynesian economics discussed as a solution to the problems Keynesian economics caused, it makes me wonder about a candidates competency.

Although the general public may not know the word Keynesian, they aren't dumb. We will be Greece, if we're not careful. We need to stop spending and this President came in and immediately setup another entitlement, when we can't afford the ones we have.

If you owed money on your credit card, you wouldn't be saying "let's bring in more money, that will solve the problem." Because there's no guarantee you can. Instead a rational person would say, "I need to stop spending on my credit card until it becomes manageable." The average voter has had to cut back, they understand this. The government does not. Democrats will lose on the economy for this reason and the fact that close to 20% of our population is out of work.

The problem for me is their track records... I was born in 1974, and not once in my lifetime has a republican president ever cut spending... never once... So as a party, their empty promises of fixing our economy fall on deaf ears.

It's easy to campaign on cutting spending, but it's nearly impossible to do because we can never have consensus on what to cut. Not even us and the general public, but politicians never will be able to either, because each program or subsidy cut, or closed tax break will take money out of their pocket depending on their state or district.

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

I'm not sure where the notion that Democrats/liberals are afraid of Bachmann (same said of Palin) came from. Why wasn't the same thing said of McCain or now Romney. I guess it's because people who say that think that a female Republican will steal votes of female Democrats. Am I the only one insulted by that (and I'm a guy)? To think that liberal or leaning liberal women would give up their beliefs/values/preferences in a candidate because the challenger has a vagina is ridiculous and reflects someone who lives in an insulated world. Bachmann stand for nothing outside of the status quo. Penis or vagina, all the Republican candidates are essentially the same. Bachmann getting elected would say that a woman could be president. Is that what feminists are supposed to rally around? I think everyone knows by now that a woman can be president, and probably in the next 2 or 3 elections one will, but she wont be Republican.

I already covered that. The left wants certain Republican candidates to do well. They don't really have a deep-seeded hatred for McCain or Romney. Why? Because they are closer to their ideology. The left hates people on the right. They particularly hate psuedo-libertarian types.... am I saying Bachmann is a libertarian? No. But, is she on a lot more issues than Romney? Yes.

As for your other points.... do you think more African Americans voted for President Obama than they would have if a Caucasian was running as the Democratic candidate? Did I live in a insulated world when there was record African American turnout? I don't think so.

Go Beavers wrote:

You think Obama is a disaster because you're intake is solely from conservative media. I do give you some credit that a lot relies on employment, but not Obama's whole historical judgement. In a year the unemployment rate will be around 8% which will likely make the election a lock. You think Bachmann proposing tax cuts is new and exciting? Keep grasping on that notion, it's done wonders with the budget.

No, my intake is not from conservative media. Thanks for the blanket statement acting like you know me or what I choose to watch/read. You're 100% dead wrong. Is your intake solely from liberal media?

I think Obama is a disaster because he has the worst economic record of a President in modern times. Name one statistic that has gotten better under his administration? He's a failure. A horrid, horrid failure. He may be worse than Carter when all is said and done.

Are you an economist? How do you know that the unemployment rate will be around 8%? How? Our President said it would never go above 8.5% during his Presidency and it has remained there his entire Presidency.

Also, our corporate tax rate is the highest in the industrialized world. Lower costs, and you may ramp up employment. Grasping at straws is tying our economic future into green jobs and government stimulus, while China, India and the like produce jobs based on supply and demand.

Go Beavers wrote:

Your numbers are wrong on abortion, too. Women are 50% to 44% pro-choice to anti-abortion (maybe I'm nitpicking, though).

You're wrong:

Here's a quote from gallup:

"A year ago, Gallup found more women calling themselves pro-choice than pro-life, by 50% to 43%, while men were more closely divided: 49% pro-choice, 46% pro-life. Now, because of heightened pro-life sentiment among both groups, women as well as men are more likely to be pro-life."

Statistics on this issue are dependent on the source.

I appreciate you responding to everyone. I think you're overgeneralizing about liberals and their "hatred" of Bachmann. If I can give my theory that overgeneralizes liberals response to Bachmann, it's this: She says completely ridiculous, uninformed, and ignorant things, and then people cheer her on. It's frustrating to see someone get support for being a complete kook. Do these supporters not understand what her policies would look like if played out on a national level? Personally, I'm not afraid of her at all. The further she goes in the primaries, the better. I would have to thing GOP higher ups in D.C. want her to be the last person to get the nomination.

You're stretching to think that a Bachmann nomination will inspire women non-voters the same way Obama did with African-Americans. Besides, most non-voters are younger and lean democrat and aren't going to relate to Bachmann.

The whole idea of liberals "hating" Bachmann is straight out of conservative media. You didn't come up with it on your own.

It's my prediction that unemployment will be near 8% a year from now, and no, I'm not an economist. I do read what other economists think, though.

My reference to abortion numbers is accurate. Here's the link (scroll about 2/3rds of the way down):

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147734/Americans-Split-Along-Pro-Choice-Pro-Life-Lines.aspx

mikepegg44

blackredyellow wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

But they actually DO give a crap about all the other stuff if it is a reflection of their thinking and ability to incorporate their plans into society. I don't know much about Bachmann, but if I hear a person is pushing to incorporate "intelligent design" into schools, it makes me wonder about their competency.

When I hear Keynesian economics discussed as a solution to the problems Keynesian economics caused, it makes me wonder about a candidates competency.

Although the general public may not know the word Keynesian, they aren't dumb. We will be Greece, if we're not careful. We need to stop spending and this President came in and immediately setup another entitlement, when we can't afford the ones we have.

If you owed money on your credit card, you wouldn't be saying "let's bring in more money, that will solve the problem." Because there's no guarantee you can. Instead a rational person would say, "I need to stop spending on my credit card until it becomes manageable." The average voter has had to cut back, they understand this. The government does not. Democrats will lose on the economy for this reason and the fact that close to 20% of our population is out of work.

The problem for me is their track records... I was born in 1974, and not once in my lifetime has a republican president ever cut spending... never once... So as a party, their empty promises of fixing our economy fall on deaf ears.

It's easy to campaign on cutting spending, but it's nearly impossible to do because we can never have consensus on what to cut. Not even us and the general public, but politicians never will be able to either, because each program or subsidy cut, or closed tax break will take money out of their pocket depending on their state or district.

seemed like both sides did it in the 90's ... the balanced budget wasn't because clinton wanted it that way.
but you are right, the republicans are no different in the amount they want to spend most of the time...they just want it spent on different things...

blackredyellow

mikepegg44 wrote:

blackredyellow wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

When I hear Keynesian economics discussed as a solution to the problems Keynesian economics caused, it makes me wonder about a candidates competency.

Although the general public may not know the word Keynesian, they aren't dumb. We will be Greece, if we're not careful. We need to stop spending and this President came in and immediately setup another entitlement, when we can't afford the ones we have.

If you owed money on your credit card, you wouldn't be saying "let's bring in more money, that will solve the problem." Because there's no guarantee you can. Instead a rational person would say, "I need to stop spending on my credit card until it becomes manageable." The average voter has had to cut back, they understand this. The government does not. Democrats will lose on the economy for this reason and the fact that close to 20% of our population is out of work.

The problem for me is their track records... I was born in 1974, and not once in my lifetime has a republican president ever cut spending... never once... So as a party, their empty promises of fixing our economy fall on deaf ears.

It's easy to campaign on cutting spending, but it's nearly impossible to do because we can never have consensus on what to cut. Not even us and the general public, but politicians never will be able to either, because each program or subsidy cut, or closed tax break will take money out of their pocket depending on their state or district.

seemed like both sides did it in the 90's ... the balanced budget wasn't because clinton wanted it that way.
but you are right, the republicans are no different in the amount they want to spend most of the time...they just want it spent on different things...

That's why I said republican president. The republican controlled congress during Clinton did cut spending on somethings (not overall I don't believe), and combined with Clinton raising taxes, it worked to balance the budget and give us a nice surplus.

But maybe it's the cynic in me, but I think congress made those cuts because of a spending democrat in office... if Bob Dole was the president, they would have probably kept spending like drunken sailors and lining their pockets.

inlet13

Go Beavers wrote:

I appreciate you responding to everyone. I think you're overgeneralizing about liberals and their "hatred" of Bachmann. If I can give my theory that overgeneralizes liberals response to Bachmann, it's this: She says completely ridiculous, uninformed, and ignorant things, and then people cheer her on. It's frustrating to see someone get support for being a complete kook. Do these supporters not understand what her policies would look like if played out on a national level? Personally, I'm not afraid of her at all. The further she goes in the primaries, the better. I would have to thing GOP higher ups in D.C. want her to be the last person to get the nomination.

No problem. I think liberals paint who they fear as dumb, to be honest. For instance, I think Bush was easy to pick on because of his accent. But, was he dumb? I'd say no. He was not dumb. He wasn't incredibly eloquent, I'd agree with that. But, dumb? No.

This woman is eloquent. Also, I don't think she says ridiculous, uninformed and ignorant things... at least from what I've heard. I've read a hell of a lot more uninformed/ignorant things in these pages. Liberals, in my opinion, start this trend that a person's uninformed, blah blah blah.... if you really look at who's saying that, it's liberal blogers, liberal hosts, liberal newspapers. They are painting her in the way they see fit.

It comes down to this in my opinion, liberals don't understand why anyone would ever disagree with them. They can't understand how someone see the world in a different light. So, immediately, they cast that person as being "uninformed, ignorant and so on". That, in and of itself, is uninformed and ignorant behavior. I, for one, understand the economy and completely disagree with the leftist take on the economy. I'm not uninformed, I just see the world differently and can back up my opinion with facts. From what I've seen so far, Bachmann can do the same.

Go Beavers wrote:

You're stretching to think that a Bachmann nomination will inspire women non-voters the same way Obama did with African-Americans. Besides, most non-voters are younger and lean democrat and aren't going to relate to Bachmann.

I think that young voters are turning on the Democratic party. It's not cool to be an Obama supporter now. It was 3 years ago though.

Go Beavers wrote:

The whole idea of liberals "hating" Bachmann is straight out of conservative media. You didn't come up with it on your own.

I'd disagree, it was my opinion and I did come up with it on my own. I could argue back that the reason liberals "hate" her is straight out of liberal media.

Go Beavers wrote:

It's my prediction that unemployment will be near 8% a year from now, and no, I'm not an economist. I do read what other economists think, though.

I actually work as an economist, and I'd disagree with you. Not saying my guess is any more credible than yours though. Because I honestly am just guessing. But, I think it won't go below 8%.

Go Beavers wrote:

My reference to abortion numbers is accurate. Here's the link (scroll about 2/3rds of the way down):

This switches so often, I'd say it remains a 50/50 issue with a growing disdain for the abortion procedure in general.

Prince Of Dorkness

Jason P wrote:

I don't know too much about Bachman, except that liberals really hate her. The fact that she has won six congressional races in a state known to lean left speaks for something on her ability to get votes.

Um... She's won twice. Not six times.

And at what point did Minnesota lean left?

Jason P

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Jason P wrote:

I don't know too much about Bachman, except that liberals really hate her. The fact that she has won six congressional races in a state known to lean left speaks for something on her ability to get votes.

Um... She's won twice. Not six times.

And at what point did Minnesota lean left?

Well, shows you how much I know about her.

I think the moment Al Franken is elected as your state's senator, you are officially a left-leaning state.

Who Princess

inlet13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

I'm not sure where the notion that Democrats/liberals are afraid of Bachmann (same said of Palin) came from. Why wasn't the same thing said of McCain or now Romney. I guess it's because people who say that think that a female Republican will steal votes of female Democrats. Am I the only one insulted by that (and I'm a guy)? To think that liberal or leaning liberal women would give up their beliefs/values/preferences in a candidate because the challenger has a vagina is ridiculous and reflects someone who lives in an insulated world. Bachmann stand for nothing outside of the status quo. Penis or vagina, all the Republican candidates are essentially the same. Bachmann getting elected would say that a woman could be president. Is that what feminists are supposed to rally around? I think everyone knows by now that a woman can be president, and probably in the next 2 or 3 elections one will, but she wont be Republican.

I already covered that. The left wants certain Republican candidates to do well. They don't really have a deep-seeded hatred for McCain or Romney. Why? Because they are closer to their ideology. The left hates people on the right. They particularly hate psuedo-libertarian types.... am I saying Bachmann is a libertarian? No. But, is she on a lot more issues than Romney? Yes.

As for your other points.... do you think more African Americans voted for President Obama than they would have if a Caucasian was running as the Democratic candidate? Did I live in a insulated world when there was record African American turnout? I don't think so.

Go Beavers wrote:

You think Obama is a disaster because you're intake is solely from conservative media. I do give you some credit that a lot relies on employment, but not Obama's whole historical judgement. In a year the unemployment rate will be around 8% which will likely make the election a lock. You think Bachmann proposing tax cuts is new and exciting? Keep grasping on that notion, it's done wonders with the budget.

No, my intake is not from conservative media. Thanks for the blanket statement acting like you know me or what I choose to watch/read. You're 100% dead wrong. Is your intake solely from liberal media?

I think Obama is a disaster because he has the worst economic record of a President in modern times. Name one statistic that has gotten better under his administration? He's a failure. A horrid, horrid failure. He may be worse than Carter when all is said and done.

Are you an economist? How do you know that the unemployment rate will be around 8%? How? Our President said it would never go above 8.5% during his Presidency and it has remained there his entire Presidency.

Also, our corporate tax rate is the highest in the industrialized world. Lower costs, and you may ramp up employment. Grasping at straws is tying our economic future into green jobs and government stimulus, while China, India and the like produce jobs based on supply and demand.

Go Beavers wrote:

Your numbers are wrong on abortion, too. Women are 50% to 44% pro-choice to anti-abortion (maybe I'm nitpicking, though).

You're wrong:

Here's a quote from gallup:

"A year ago, Gallup found more women calling themselves pro-choice than pro-life, by 50% to 43%, while men were more closely divided: 49% pro-choice, 46% pro-life. Now, because of heightened pro-life sentiment among both groups, women as well as men are more likely to be pro-life."

Statistics on this issue are dependent on the source.

Well, speaking as a woman, I find it pretty insulting to suggest that we're all so shallow that we'll vote for her just because she's a successful woman. If that were the case, the Mondale/Ferraro ticket would have been successful, not to mention McCain/Palin. It reminds me of when we were all supposed to be swooning over GHW Bush's choice of Dan Quayle as a running mate because he supposedly looked like Robert Redford. (He didn't BTW.)

And even if women are supposedly split 50-50 on abortion and will make their voting choices on that factor, we comprise half the population, meaning 25% of the country will vote against her solely because they're pro-choice. However, us wimmin-folk aren't the Borg all thinking identically. We actually spend some time in thought and evaluate our candidates on many factors. To suggest that I might support someone simply because of her gender is, as I said, pretty insulting.

The analogy of blacks supporting Obama because of race is equally ludicrous. If that were the case, Jesse Jackson (or Al Sharpton!) would have been electable.

mikepegg44

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Jason P wrote:

I don't know too much about Bachman, except that liberals really hate her. The fact that she has won six congressional races in a state known to lean left speaks for something on her ability to get votes.

Um... She's won twice. Not six times.

And at what point did Minnesota lean left?

move here. It is left all the way.

not even reagan got minnesota in 1984...in fact 3 times since 1932 we have gone republican...
this state goes left...the laws and tax rates are enough to tell you that...there are republicans here, but that doesn't mean the majority in this state don't support the dfl. Two Liberal senators right now in fact could tell you that...the fact that the republicans took the legislative branch for the first time in 40 years might tell you that it leans left as well.
We have had republican governors but that was more to check the fully DFL legislative branch...now the that branch switched we have a democrat in office...we also elected possibly the most liberal senator ever in Paul Wellstone.
So yeah...we are left here.

do you not think we lean left here?

Prince Of Dorkness

inlet13 wrote:

First, anyone who doesn't agree with you is stupid, right? If so, that, right there, shows a lack of intelligence.

Don't be silly. Where did I say that?

This is even funnier. All the information you've gathered on this woman could easily be considered a "internet rumor, a paranoid conspiracy theory or even a crazy thing written in a blog". Ironic, no

The information I've gathered about her comes from actual video of her talking... telling us very convincingly about things but getting all her facts wrong, repeating made-up garbage like "Obama's trip to India is costing $200 million a day" and 34 war ships."

There was ZERO truth to that, she got it from an independent blog with no backing facts from a website hosted in Mumbai.

IF you want to look into it... here's a video of Anderson Cooper ripping her to shit for intentionally spreading rumors she KNEW were false.

No, she actually does appear to know her stuff. Next time try to use some facts behind blanket statements like this one.

Oh I KNOW that she "appears" to know her stuff. But she doesn't. And that is why she's so dangerous.

I heard her during the debate address a question in this arena and I thought she did well.

She did very well. I didn't say she wasn't a great communicator. Not that I'm comparing her to Hitler... but he was a great communicator, too. But being able to sell an idea is very dangerous when the idea itself is dangerous.

Regardless, if you have an issue with her on something, spell it out, blanket statements do nothing.

Well ok... she also believes in a "gay cure" and thinks that we should force gay teenagers into Christian Treatment camps. In an interview with her and her husband on the "gay cure," she nodded along as he said "Barbarians need to be Educated." THAT is something I have an issue with.

I also have an issue with her encouraging people to assassinate the president when she said "I want Americans Armed And Dangerous" about the health care law.

All I am saying is Obama will lose if unemployment is above 8% and Bachmann could steal some female votes along the way. We'll see who's right later.

Yes. We will.

Prince Of Dorkness

Jason P wrote:

Well, shows you how much I know about her.

I think the moment Al Franken is elected as your state's senator, you are officially a left-leaning state.

She was first elected in 2006. Unless you have an election every year, that's not being elected 6 times.

As far as being "left-leaning," I'll give you that. (Being Canadian, California is an extreme right-wing state to me)

Prince Of Dorkness

inlet13 wrote:

This woman is eloquent. Also, I don't think she says ridiculous, uninformed and ignorant things... at least from what I've heard.

Here's a list of 10 Ridiculous, uninformed, ignorant and just bat-shit Crazy things Michelle Bachmann has said. If you don't think theses are ridiculous, uninformed or ignorant, we must have different definitions of the words...


1. "I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out under another, then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence." -Rep. Michele Bachmann, on the 1976 Swine Flu outbreak that happened when Gerald Ford, a Republican, was president, April 28, 2009

2. "I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out: Are they pro-America or anti-America?" -Rep. Michelle Bachmann, calling for a new McCarthyism, Oct. 2008

3. "Take this into consideration. If we look at American history, between 1942 and 1947, the data that was collected by the Census Bureau was handed over to the FBI and other organizations at the request of President Roosevelt, and that's how the Japanese were rounded up and put into the internment camps. I'm not saying that that's what the Administration is planning to do, but I am saying that private personal information that was given to the Census Bureau in the 1940s was used against Americans to round them up, in a violation of their constitutional rights, and put the Japanese in internment camps." -Rep. Michele Bachmann, June 2009

4. "During the last 100 days we have seen an orgy. It would make any local smorgasbord embarrassed … The government spent its wad by April 26." -Rep. Michele Bachmann, accusing the Obama administration of premature fiscal ejaculation, May 2009

5. "That's why people need to continue to go to the town halls, continue to melt the phone lines of their liberal members of Congress, and let them know, under no certain circumstances will I give the government control over my body and my health care decisions." -Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), a pro-lifer who completely missed the irony of using the same slogan as the pro-choice movement in arguing against health care reform

6. "Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas." -Rep. Michelle Bachmann, April, 2009

7. "There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design." -Rep. Michele Bachmann, Oct. 2006

8. "I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,' and the people -- we the people -- are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country." -Rep. Rep. Michele Bachmann, March 2009

9. "Does that mean that someone's 13-year-old daughter could walk into a sex clinic, have a pregnancy test done, be taken away to the local Planned Parenthood abortion clinic, have their abortion, be back and go home on the school bus? That night, mom and dad are never the wiser." -Rep. Michele Bachmann, on health care reform's potential to dupe parents, October 2009

10. "I don't know where they're going to get all this money because we're running out of rich people in this country." -Rep. Michele Bachmann, accusing the Obama administration of plotting to divert money from Republican to Democratic districts and planning to tax the wealthy to fund the windfalls, Feb. 2009

Who Princess

inlet13 wrote:

No problem. I think liberals paint who they fear as dumb, to be honest. For instance, I think Bush was easy to pick on because of his accent. But, was he dumb? I'd say no. He was not dumb. He wasn't incredibly eloquent, I'd agree with that. But, dumb? No.

I agree that Bush wasn't as stupid as many people believed but he's no rocket scientist. I'm a Texan and trust me, nobody in this state singled him out because of his accent. After enduring 8 years of him as governor, I feel safe in saying that he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer. But he didn't do a lot of damage because in Texas governors are essentially figureheads with very little power. Bush was fortunate enough to have a savvy, experienced state comptroller named Bob Bullock who pretty much ran things.

markin ball

Jason P wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Jason P wrote:

I don't know too much about Bachman, except that liberals really hate her. The fact that she has won six congressional races in a state known to lean left speaks for something on her ability to get votes.

Um... She's won twice. Not six times.

And at what point did Minnesota lean left?

Well, shows you how much I know about her.

I think the moment Al Franken is elected as your state's senator, you are officially a left-leaning state.

By about 6 votes.

inlet13

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Here's a list of 10 Ridiculous, uninformed, ignorant and just bat-shit Crazy things Michelle Bachmann has said. If you don't think theses are ridiculous, uninformed or ignorant, we must have different definitions of the words...

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

1. "I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out under another, then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence." -Rep. Michele Bachmann, on the 1976 Swine Flu outbreak that happened when Gerald Ford, a Republican, was president, April 28, 2009

She said she's not blaming it on Obama. This is making something out of nothing.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

2. "I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out: Are they pro-America or anti-America?" -Rep. Michelle Bachmann, calling for a new McCarthyism, Oct. 2008

What exactly is wrong with this statement? Do you want people in Congress to be anti-American? That's ridiculous!

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

3. "Take this into consideration. If we look at American history, between 1942 and 1947, the data that was collected by the Census Bureau was handed over to the FBI and other organizations at the request of President Roosevelt, and that's how the Japanese were rounded up and put into the internment camps. I'm not saying that that's what the Administration is planning to do, but I am saying that private personal information that was given to the Census Bureau in the 1940s was used against Americans to round them up, in a violation of their constitutional rights, and put the Japanese in internment camps." -Rep. Michele Bachmann, June 2009

This is a libertarian stance. It's for privacy. The analogy may not have been great, but I 100% agree with her. Anyone who doesn't want the government in their personal life... SHOULD... agree with her underlying point here.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

4. "During the last 100 days we have seen an orgy. It would make any local smorgasbord embarrassed … The government spent its wad by April 26." -Rep. Michele Bachmann, accusing the Obama administration of premature fiscal ejaculation, May 2009

Little dirty-mouthed, but absolutely true. I have no problem with this.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

5. "That's why people need to continue to go to the town halls, continue to melt the phone lines of their liberal members of Congress, and let them know, under no certain circumstances will I give the government control over my body and my health care decisions." -Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), a pro-lifer who completely missed the irony of using the same slogan as the pro-choice movement in arguing against health care reform

Once again, I completely agree with her here too. You see, pro-abortion folks don't consider a fetus to be "alive". She does. Here she was talking about Obamacare. She also used the words "my" and "I". She believes in individual choice. Her belief if that the fetus is alive and therefore deserves the same rights. You may not agree, but there's no contradiction here.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

6. "Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas." -Rep. Michelle Bachmann, April, 2009

We breathe out CO2 and plants breathe/inhale it.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

7. "There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design." -Rep. Michele Bachmann, Oct. 2006

I agree with this.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

8. "I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,' and the people -- we the people -- are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country." -Rep. Rep. Michele Bachmann, March 2009

Semantics, I suppose are your concern. I guess you'd get upset with every football coach in America who uses military terms to talk about football. This is reaching.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

9. "Does that mean that someone's 13-year-old daughter could walk into a sex clinic, have a pregnancy test done, be taken away to the local Planned Parenthood abortion clinic, have their abortion, be back and go home on the school bus? That night, mom and dad are never the wiser." -Rep. Michele Bachmann, on health care reform's potential to dupe parents, October 2009

Don't have an issue with this. I explained earlier, she believes abortion is wrong and effectively murder. Obviously, you don't agree. But, I don't understand why her position, which is identical to the Republican platform, is being tossed around as crazier than the Republican platform.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

10. "I don't know where they're going to get all this money because we're running out of rich people in this country." -Rep. Michele Bachmann, accusing the Obama administration of plotting to divert money from Republican to Democratic districts and planning to tax the wealthy to fund the windfalls, Feb. 2009

This is true.

inlet13

whoprincess wrote:

Well, speaking as a woman, I find it pretty insulting to suggest that we're all so shallow that we'll vote for her just because she's a successful woman. If that were the case, the Mondale/Ferraro ticket would have been successful, not to mention McCain/Palin. It reminds me of when we were all supposed to be swooning over GHW Bush's choice of Dan Quayle as a running mate because he supposedly looked like Robert Redford. (He didn't BTW.)

And even if women are supposedly split 50-50 on abortion and will make their voting choices on that factor, we comprise half the population, meaning 25% of the country will vote against her solely because they're pro-choice. However, us wimmin-folk aren't the Borg all thinking identically. We actually spend some time in thought and evaluate our candidates on many factors. To suggest that I might support someone simply because of her gender is, as I said, pretty insulting.

The analogy of blacks supporting Obama because of race is equally ludicrous. If that were the case, Jesse Jackson (or Al Sharpton!) would have been electable.

My wife is also a woman, and she really liked her after the debate. That's one example.

Anyway, no offense, but you're putting words in my mouth. I am not saying women will vote for a woman just because they are a woman. I am saying some may be inclined to take her side because of their similarities.

My original point was, in general, woman politicians have been treated unfairly relative to men. From Hillary to Palin. In my opinion, they are tossed around a bit worse than male politicians (particularly Obama who in my opinion has gotten a free pass with the media) ...and feminists, I believe, are starting to take notice. If it's racist to be anti-Obama, then it's sexist to be anti-Bachmann or anti-Hillary or anti-Palin. Clearly, it shouldn't be that way. But, the game was already set up with Obama and the pounding Palin took has made this issue real now. I'm no Palin fan, but she was attacked by the media and treated unfairly.

Regardless of whether you agree with that or not, President Obama received record African American votes. I'm not being racist in saying "some" of these votes were based on a societal linkage to him, via skin color. Did all African Americans vote for Obama based on his skin color? Absolutely not! But, did some? Yes.

I believe, on net, there would be a few women who maybe slightly indifferent between the two candidates now that may make their linkage to one based on a societal linkage, in this case, it would be their sex. In the other case, it may be race. Would all women do this? Absolutely not. But, could some? Yes.

To deny that is to deny reality. People like people who are similar to them. Then their defense of that candidate will grow from there. But, the societal link started it. That's what I am saying in a nutshell.

inlet13

whoprincess wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

No problem. I think liberals paint who they fear as dumb, to be honest. For instance, I think Bush was easy to pick on because of his accent. But, was he dumb? I'd say no. He was not dumb. He wasn't incredibly eloquent, I'd agree with that. But, dumb? No.

I agree that Bush wasn't as stupid as many people believed but he's no rocket scientist. I'm a Texan and trust me, nobody in this state singled him out because of his accent. After enduring 8 years of him as governor, I feel safe in saying that he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer. But he didn't do a lot of damage because in Texas governors are essentially figureheads with very little power. Bush was fortunate enough to have a savvy, experienced state comptroller named Bob Bullock who pretty much ran things.

No offense, but I don't care if you're a Texan or not. It's not relevant. I was not talking about him as governor. I was talking about him as President and his treatment during that time.

Bush ran against Kerry, and one could argue Bush was more intelligent than Kerry. He received higher grade point average at the same school. But, Bush was help up as stupid and Kerry was held up as an intellectual. It's a game. That's the point. The media (which is still liberal, outside of a few sources - like Fox, wsj) put labels on candidates. They do it over and over again, and ironically, it's always the same label. According to them,... Reagan was dumb, so was Bush Sr., so was Quayle, so was Dole, so was Bush Jr., so was Palin, now Bachmann is dumb. It's getting old. Is Obama dumb? Was Gore? Because if all it takes is eloquence to be considered smart, I'd be worried about for Bachmann... she's pretty good there.