Rolling Stone Eviscerates Michelle Bachmann

2

Comments

  • brandon10
    brandon10 Posts: 1,111
    Prince Of Dorkness wrote:
    brandon10 wrote:
    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.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    inlet13 wrote:
    No, I don't judge people based on their religion.

    Neither do I. I judge people on what they say.

    inlet13 wrote:
    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.

    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?
  • inlet13
    inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    brandon10 wrote:
    Prince Of Dorkness wrote:
    brandon10 wrote:
    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.


    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.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <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&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • inlet13
    inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    Byrnzie wrote:

    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?

    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.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <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&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • Prince Of Dorkness
    Prince Of Dorkness Posts: 3,763
    inlet13 wrote:
    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.


    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.
    I can't drive without Pearl Jam
  • Prince Of Dorkness
    Prince Of Dorkness Posts: 3,763
    And just in case it hadn't occurred to you...

    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?
    I can't drive without Pearl Jam
  • shadowcast
    shadowcast Posts: 2,384
    inlet13 wrote:
    The guy who wrote this is doing exactly what I was trying to say would be done in the beginning of the other Bachmann thread. She'll benefit from these sorts of attacks in the end.

    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.
    They are not scared of Bachman. She will do herself in and they know that. I'll tell you one thing; I really enjoy watching both parties go at each other during these debates. Back to Bachman, she is to Ra-Ra for America. She sounds silly and banks too much on religion which has been in decline since 2008. She uses old clichés that sound so 1950 that I actually get embarrassed for her. Kind of like when American Idol does the audition shows
  • Go Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,704
    inlet13 wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:

    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?

    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.

    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?
  • Go Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,704
    Prince Of Dorkness wrote:
    brandon10 wrote:
    We slander her and call her names not to belittle her or because we are scared of her. We call her those names because that is who she is exactly. She is a lunatic. She is uninformed. She is very right wing. "Bat shit crazy" is a great descriptor for her.

    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.

    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.
  • brandon10
    brandon10 Posts: 1,111
    Go Beavers wrote:
    Prince Of Dorkness wrote:
    brandon10 wrote:
    We slander her and call her names not to belittle her or because we are scared of her. We call her those names because that is who she is exactly. She is a lunatic. She is uninformed. She is very right wing. "Bat shit crazy" is a great descriptor for her.

    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.

    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.
  • Prince Of Dorkness
    Prince Of Dorkness Posts: 3,763
    brandon10 wrote:
    I think you may be surprised how many "christians" would vote for a Mormon over "the black guy" with the middle name Hussein.


    Hm... too bad we've never had an election where a black man with the middle name "Hussein" has run against a white Christian man before. Maybe we'd have a better idea on how that would work out.
    I can't drive without Pearl Jam
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,436
    brandon10 wrote:

    I think you may be surprised how many "christians" would vote for a Mormon over "the black guy" with the middle name Hussein.
    I think you would be surprised how many Christians voted for the black guy with the middle name of Hussien over the decorated white war hero who spent six years as a P.O.W. in the last election.

    If every W.M.A. was as racist as this board makes them out to be, McCain would be president right now.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • Godfather.
    Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    bla bla ba bla......bla bla....bla bla bla ? white Christain ?...black man?..hussian?...bla bla bla ?
    :lol::lol: ......... :o .... :shock: ....bla bla ?


    Godfather.
  • Newch91
    Newch91 Posts: 17,560
    I first learned about Michele Bachmann after flipping through channels the day after the election when she was on Anderson Cooper. I realized she couldn't answer a simple question.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY-6ltu4oAQ

    Then I realized she had to go back to school to learn her American history another night I was flipping through channels.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnQ3kvrIRVs

    And then she didn't really know anything about Planned Parenthood.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbGZAb0wvpc
    Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
    "Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
  • brandon10
    brandon10 Posts: 1,111
    Jason P wrote:
    brandon10 wrote:

    I think you may be surprised how many "christians" would vote for a Mormon over "the black guy" with the middle name Hussein.
    I think you would be surprised how many Christians voted for the black guy with the middle name of Hussien over the decorated white war hero who spent six years as a P.O.W. in the last election.

    If every W.M.A. was as racist as this board makes them out to be, McCain would be president right now.


    From what I see on this board.....people can't even admit when Barack has done something positive. They are so hell bent in hating him that they disagree with his policies even when they agree 100% with his policies. Just read the thread about troop removal. Or many many others.

    It's not all because of racism. But there is plenty of racism in America...and on this board. All kinds of bigotry on this board. Just read some of the posts concerning gay peoples rights. I would bet my last dollar that most of the homophobes are also racist.
  • Godfather.
    Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    brandon10 wrote:
    Jason P wrote:
    brandon10 wrote:

    I think you may be surprised how many "christians" would vote for a Mormon over "the black guy" with the middle name Hussein.
    I think you would be surprised how many Christians voted for the black guy with the middle name of Hussien over the decorated white war hero who spent six years as a P.O.W. in the last election.

    If every W.M.A. was as racist as this board makes them out to be, McCain would be president right now.


    From what I see on this board.....people can't even admit when Barack has done something positive. They are so hell bent in hating him that they disagree with his policies even when they agree 100% with his policies. Just read the thread about troop removal. Or many many others.

    It's not all because of racism. But there is plenty of racism in America...and on this board. All kinds of bigotry on this board. Just read some of the posts concerning gay peoples rights. I would bet my last dollar that most of the homophobes are also racist.

    sounds like you have it all figured out young man,may life treat you well. ;)

    Godfather.
  • Electric_Delta
    Electric_Delta Posts: 977
    Godfather. wrote:
    bla bla ba bla......bla bla....bla bla bla ? white Christain ?...black man?..hussian?...bla bla bla ?
    :lol::lol: ......... :o .... :shock: ....bla bla ?


    Godfather.

    Tea Party...racist...blah, blah, blah...those with a free will who criticize Obama...racist...blah, blah, blah

    BORING!

    :lol::lol::lol:
    Bristow, VA (5/13/10)
  • Electric_Delta
    Electric_Delta Posts: 977
    If the Republican news outlets criticized a Democratic female they would be called sexist pigs and be ripped to shreds. I'm not a fan of Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, but the character hits being done to them are absurd.

    More liberal media hypocrisy. There's one side and they're always right, end of story. Anyone who disagrees is an intolerant moron.
    Bristow, VA (5/13/10)
  • Prince Of Dorkness
    Prince Of Dorkness Posts: 3,763
    brandon10 wrote:
    From what I see on this board.....people can't even admit when Barack has done something positive. They are so hell bent in hating him that they disagree with his policies even when they agree 100% with his policies. Just read the thread about troop removal. Or many many others.

    It's not all because of racism. But there is plenty of racism in America...and on this board. All kinds of bigotry on this board. Just read some of the posts concerning gay peoples rights. I would bet my last dollar that most of the homophobes are also racist.


    I need to get my assistant to send you a muffin basket.
    I can't drive without Pearl Jam
  • Who Princess
    Who Princess out here in the fields Posts: 7,305
    Electric_Delta wrote:
    If the Republican news outlets criticized a Democratic female they would be called sexist pigs and be ripped to shreds. I'm not a fan of Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, but the character hits being done to them are absurd.

    More liberal media hypocrisy. There's one side and they're always right, end of story. Anyone who disagrees is an intolerant moron.
    Srsly? I seem to recall Hillary Clinton getting criticized for nearly everything she did or said while running for prez and nobody got too bent out of shape about it. Most people laughed and said she should have known what she was getting into.
    But of course, she wasn't young and pretty so she could take it. :roll:
    "The stars are all connected to the brain."

Categories