Rolling Stone Eviscerates Michelle Bachmann
Prince Of Dorkness
Posts: 3,763
"Bachmann's entire political career has followed this exact same pattern of God-speaks-directly-to-me fundamentalism mixed with pathological, relentless, conscienceless lying. She's not a liar in the traditional way of politicians, who tend to lie dully, usefully and (they hope) believably, often with the aim of courting competing demographics at the same time.
That's not what Bachmann's thing is.
Bachmann lies because she can't help it, because it's a built-in component of both her genetics and her ideology. She is at once the most entertaining and the most dangerous kind of liar, a turbocharged cross between a born bullshit artist and a religious fanatic, for whom lying to the infidel is a kind of holy duty."
Full Article, "Bachmann's Holy War." http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... r-20110622
That's not what Bachmann's thing is.
Bachmann lies because she can't help it, because it's a built-in component of both her genetics and her ideology. She is at once the most entertaining and the most dangerous kind of liar, a turbocharged cross between a born bullshit artist and a religious fanatic, for whom lying to the infidel is a kind of holy duty."
Full Article, "Bachmann's Holy War." http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... r-20110622
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Godfather.
But they really let her have it and it's a pretty fair article. Although they do call her "bat shit crazy," they lay out a very convincing argument as to why she is.
Liberals, like obviously this guy, will attack her. They will do so because they are scared of her. Santorum, for instance, is a hell of a lot more "religious" than Bachmann. But, you won't see a recent article on Santorum. Why? Because he doesn't matter and won't win.
This guy threw slander all over the place in the first three paragraphs and was cruel throughout. So, much so, I couldn't keep reading it. This won't work anymore. It's been tried before and now, to their credit, the conservatives are ready this time.
They have armed themselves with feminists, who are going to call people like this out. Just wait... you'll see what I'm talking about. I've already seen MSNBC change how they cover Bachmann because they were called out on the unfair treatment.
Rolling Stone will soon learn that in the PC society that media like theirs helped to create, they can't pick and choose what grouping is okay to pick on. It's not ok to slander a woman like that, even if you don't agree with their politics.
But, seriously, keep it up... I hope to see more and more of this stuff. It shows who these types of people really are.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I did read it and I wouldn't necessarily call it fair, although they did at least acknowledge the fact that she has 23 foster kids...It is however pretty easy to read past the colorful words the writer chose. I think his message is spot on though, as I took the article to be a warning to liberals and democrats not to discount her even though she may seem crazy. That I agree with, I couldn't for the life of me figure out how she got elected here. It seems as though the press, and all those that continue to give her a spot light will be continually amazed as she gets elected...even though they attack and attack and call her crazy. It is almost as if people vote for her because she seems unflapped by the criticism...they seem to vote for her to stick it too the liberal biased media they see...and that is why the real way to kill this liberal boogeyman is to simply not pay attention to her, do not attack her personality, just point out the faults in her postitions, and the untruth but do it with respect and she will no longer have the us against them vote.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I don't necessarily agree with your analysis of her, but I agree with what you said about the way to beat her. I just don't see that ever happening. I mean, look around here. Do you think some of these people could actually not try to slander and defame her and actually stick to the issues without getting their panties in a wad and start name calling? I've only been active here for a few days, and I already no the answer is no. The media is just as bad. Just like some people in forums like these, the media is too narrow-minded to understand a common person who actually dislikes how the media treats a seemingly nice person (regardless of that person's political ideals). To the common person, this isn't a football game where if you wear the Republican jersey you're a lunatic,... they think people should be treated fairly. The media doesn't behave that way, as seen in this article.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Not totally useless...it could probably serve as toilet paper in an emergency situation...just take out the perfume sample pages.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
hay in a pinch it'll will work right !
Godfather.
I really hope she gets the nomination. It would assure that the GOP loses all credibility. Scared of Michelle Bachmann?? Not in the slightest. Mitt Romney on the other hand is someone liberals can be worried about.
That's true. Mitt Romney is a Republican who managed to get elected in Massachusetts. He's not insane and he's almost likable.
the difference is......people who read rolling stone don't go there for serious political news/insight anymore. it's more entertaining reading. people still believe Fox news, unfortunately.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
unfortunately there is no media out there you can trust 100% ...tamato tamauto.
I noticed your sig "vinyl wanted" do you collect old vinyl ?
Godfather.
not a whole lot. what do you mean by "old"? my Dad just gave me a bunch of his Guess Who records, but my main priority is "grunge" and some current stuff.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I get that, I'm just saying that people who are passionate about politics don't generally read RS for their information. But people do listen to and believe Fox for their "news".
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I probably have just about anything important to rock n roll from Buddy Holly all the way to Guns n Roses.
Godfather.
Are you not just a little bit scared that an ultra-Conservative, born-again idiot like her is running for President?
Would you be happy to have someone like her at the helm?
No, I don't judge people based on their religion.
I much prefer her viewpoint on economics to Obama, she clearly has read on the subject. I don't think our very eloquent President is very intelligent or well read when it comes to that issue. I honestly don't believe he's read at all on the subject. I'd love to see Katie Couric ask Obama, what economics-related books have you read and enjoyed? Or who's your favorite historical economist? Would be awesome to hear that. I'm betting it would cause a Sarah Palin-like moment.
So, anyway, yes, I'd rather have her at the helm any day relative to Obama.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
That is delusional...
That's the Tea Party.
they'll take a clearly mentally ill self-centered ego-maniac over a smart black man any day.
Ya, and the scariest part is he may actually believe that Bachmann knows anymore about economics than Obama. Or that it even matters in the grand scheme of things.
Neither do I. I judge people on what they say.
And you have no problem with her anti-Gay, anti-environmental protection, pro-Israel, and Macarthyist paranoia? You think with all of her wacky, and bigoted ideas, she'd be a better leader of your country than Obama?
Or does this just come down to the fact that she's a Conservative, and that therefore you'd defend her even if she claimed that all brown-skinned people are alien invaders from another planet, and that she is Jesus re-incarnated as a woman, here to save the Earth from a black, Communist, Satanic conspiracy to make people read books and educate themselves?
It does matter in the grand scheme of things. We're in an economic mess. I'd rather have a President who knows a bit about economics, than one that does not.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
She didn't say the things in your later paragraph... you did.
I'll touch on one issue in your first paragraph because I don't have time to cover them all:
I don't really care if a person is for or not for Gay-marriage. To me, it's a ridiculously unimportant issue. I don't consider it to be even 1/1,000,000,000th the problem the civil rights movement dealt with. It's probably the smallest issue in terms of importance in the whole Presidential debate. For this issue, if I was President, I probably would side with Ron Paul and get the government out completely of marriage. Why is it involved to begin with? If the argument of government involvement in marriage is to incentivize procreation and future tax payers, then yes, I actually would be against gay marriage because, gays can't have children with their partner. Alternatively, why not just give gay partners the funds that are given with marriage and keep the word marriage for heterosexual partners? I tell you why, because those who are angry now in the gay community wouldn't be satisfied with that. This is about forcing acceptance of a certain behavior, not money They want to be equated with the term marriage. And the reality is, you can't do that. Since it's origin the term has meant a union between a man and a woman. You can try to change that, and obviously that's being attempted, but it won't necessarily work. I say live and let live. They want monetary benefits, give it to them. But, first I would answer why the governments involved to begin with.
I thought Bachmann did a great job of fielding a question on this during the debate. She said she would let states decide. Yet, she also provided a caveat, that she was against gay marriage (as is our President) and may be for a constitutional amendment (like pretty much every other Republican). The difference was she was OK with states deciding where some Republican candidates were not.
All in all though, this issue is so unimportant relative to what should be discussed in the Presidential debate, that I can't believe I typed all that.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
To be fair, in my extended circle of friends, we have 5 gay couples who are raising children. One of them is a lesbian couple who went with Artificial Insemination. One is a gay couple where one of them was a father before he came out and when his wife died, he came out and married a man and they're raising his daughter together.
The other three couples all adopted children that straight people had but didn't want. Gay couples are much more likely to take the "kids nobody will take." The children with HIV or crack babies, children who are orphaned at 5 (many people only want to adopt a baby), children with developmental problems. Two of our friends adopted a baby girl from India who was abandoned because she was a girl.
Far be it from me to point this out... and I know I'm going to sound like a colossal douche... but you straight people don't NEED any incentive to keep popping out unwanted and unplanned babies. But you DO, apparently, need us gays to help you clean up your mess and take your "less than perfect" kids off your hands.
So get off your high horse when it comes to the idea that straight people have the monopoly on parenting.
We also pay taxes and so do our kids. If we pay the same taxes (and gay people pay slightly more on average), we should have access to all the same rights, protections and resources.
Or do you not believe in equality for all?
The whole 'let the states decide' is a cop out and a way to avoid the question and at the same time please all the 'government needs to get out of the way' people. You don't see the contradiction in letting states decide vs. "may be for a constitutional amendment"? Or would that be a constitutional amendment that states don't need to follow?
Although Mitt has nice hair, I'm not worried about him. There's already a large chunk of people who wont vote for him because he's Mormon, and that number will grow the more people learn about LDS.
I think you may be surprised how many "christians" would vote for a Mormon over "the black guy" with the middle name Hussein.