Michelle Bachmann (2 Viewers)

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Seems like small government is a ways down the list:

When you have a big tent, there's a lot of big voices in the room. Doesn't shake the core message.

Big tents also attract clowns, strange animals, and grotesque human specimens.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

But number 3 is all I need to know that the tea party DOES NOT in fact believe in leaner, more efficient government.

That's why that list is bunk. It's a very loud Tea Partier that means well, but doesn't have a grasp of the core principles.

Thats the whole problem: too many freaking loudmouths, not enough direction. That's why the party is so fractured and seems to flit from one set of principles to the next every time you read about one of the chapters/groups.Here is what I hear from the Tea Party:

They hate government entitlement programs and want to stop those. They don't think anyone should be living off their dollar without pitching in. I get that.

They have no problem with spending huge amounts of money on a world-police size force.

They oppose foreign wars under Barack Obama. They had no opposition to them under GWB.

They "want their country" back from forces conspiring to take it away from them, loosely assembled from the ranks of the liberals, gays, communists, intellectuals, democrats, welfare recipients (read blacks), illegal aliens (read hispanics legal or not), and ACORN.

They had no interest in politics before the election of Barack Obama.

They believe that lower taxes and deregulation of the nation's industries will stimulate the economy. The see no irony in this and the economic collapse that spurred their interest in economics.

They believe that a document penned 200+ years ago is all we need for governance.

They believe in government interference if it reinforces conservative values and right-wing social positions.

Similarly, they have no problem with a police state so long as they cracking down on the druggies, regardless of whether constitutional rights are routinely trampled in the process.

So what you essentially have is a collection of political neophytes who are pissed off and listening to people whose only intention is to get them even madder. And these people are not particularly well-informed themselves, either about the current, past, or future state of our nation and economy. Thus the whole is no more than the sum of its parts, which don't add up to anything remotely coherent that could be called a platform or a strategy.

This is the one that makes the least sense to me. If you are in favor of smaller government you should want cut spending in an area that is also infringing personal freedom. For the Tea Party to be taken seriously then decriminalization of drugs needs to be a part of their platform.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

But number 3 is all I need to know that the tea party DOES NOT in fact believe in leaner, more efficient government.

That's why that list is bunk. It's a very loud Tea Partier that means well, but doesn't have a grasp of the core principles.

It's from teaparty.org

 

[Statorama]

So what you essentially have is a collection of political neophytes who are pissed off and listening to people whose only intention is to get them even madder.

I find it ironic that you would say that, given all of the falsehoods and misstatements you made above concerning the Tea Party movement.You people that think it's just a bunch of racist crackers are the hardest to inform. You've already let the mainstream media write the narrative for you.If anyone wants a true perspective from someone that's actually been to a Tea Party, go ahead and ask me. I hear a lot of backbiting from people that have never attended a rally. It's kind of sad that a grassroots movement to have a smaller, leaner, more efficient government is being portrayed as a bunch of banjo thumping rednecks. Sadder yet is that people actually buy that crap.

 

[Statorama]

But number 3 is all I need to know that the tea party DOES NOT in fact believe in leaner, more efficient government.

That's why that list is bunk. It's a very loud Tea Partier that means well, but doesn't have a grasp of the core principles.

It's from teaparty.org

FINALLYI served that softball up a half an hour ago

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

So what you essentially have is a collection of political neophytes who are pissed off and listening to people whose only intention is to get them even madder.

I find it ironic that you would say that, given all of the falsehoods and misstatements you made above concerning the Tea Party movement.You people that think it's just a bunch of racist crackers are the hardest to inform. You've already let the mainstream media write the narrative for you.

If anyone wants a true perspective from someone that's actually been to a Tea Party, go ahead and ask me. I hear a lot of backbiting from people that have never attended a rally. It's kind of sad that a grassroots movement to have a smaller, leaner, more efficient government is being portrayed as a bunch of banjo thumping rednecks. Sadder yet is that people actually buy that crap.

Then you should find some different figureheads.

 

[Statorama]

This is the one that makes the least sense to me.

Good call. You know why that doesn't make sense to you? Because it's a media driven talking point that is not reflective of the views of the Tea Party movement.Good instincts there.

 

[urbanhack]

So what you essentially have is a collection of political neophytes who are pissed off and listening to people whose only intention is to get them even madder.

I find it ironic that you would say that, given all of the falsehoods and misstatements you made above concerning the Tea Party movement.You people that think it's just a bunch of racist crackers are the hardest to inform. You've already let the mainstream media write the narrative for you.If anyone wants a true perspective from someone that's actually been to a Tea Party, go ahead and ask me. I hear a lot of backbiting from people that have never attended a rally. It's kind of sad that a grassroots movement to have a smaller, leaner, more efficient government is being portrayed as a bunch of banjo thumping rednecks. Sadder yet is that people actually buy that crap.

Yes...because you were completely silent all the years when Bush was POTUS even though many of the policies between these two have been very similar. Where was the outrage then?

 

[Statorama]

Then you should find some different figureheads.

As the tent grows, the ability to present candidates that the majority of the tent agree with becomes tougher.

 

[Orange Crush]

I'm so glad we've got Statorama here to tell us what the true guiding principles of the Tea Party are, as opposed to every other person who claims to speak for the Tea Party and 99.9% of its self-identifying members.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Then you should find some different figureheads.

As the tent grows, the ability to present candidates that the majority of the tent agree with becomes tougher.

Gibberish.

 

[Statorama]

Yes...because you were completely silent all the years when Bush was POTUS even though many of the policies between these two have been very similar. Where was the outrage then?

For most of the Bush years, things seemed fine. Obviously things weren't. There was a lot of smoke and mirrors thrown at the public to let them think the American Dream was alive and well. Housing was going up up up with seemingly no end in sight. Democrats and Republicans alike took part in the charade. But when the curtain came down and showed that there were some serious issues, we needed leadership in reversing that. We needed a president to have a fiscally sound plan to get us out of the situation that a Democratic Congress and a Republican President put us in. The incoming President had the luxury of an unbreakable supermajority at all levels of federal legislative government, so whatever plan he laid out was going to get passed.When that President thumbed his nose at the American populace that was suffering through economic hardship, many of us arose to highlight the enormity of the problem and the need to have some kind of fiscal responsibility during these times.President Bush awoke the sleeping bear of the American populace. Obama kicked it in the nuts. I do not defend President Bush. But I will not give Obama a "pass" simply because "a Republican President did it too". If he were elected I'd have my boot on McCain's throat too if he had been so violently cavalier with the American economy as Obama has.As for the Bush years, I wish there had been someone posting about our national troubles as much as I am today. I wish there had been someone starting a national mail in campaign to urge Barney Frank to allow regulatory audits at Freddie/Fannie (even though his boyfriend worked there). But those days are over. I can only concentrate on the here and now and helping save America.

 

[Statorama]

I'm so glad we've got Statorama here to tell us what the true guiding principles of the Tea Party are

Me too.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

She was a single bad interview from becoming Vice President, even though she was dragging the McCain campaign carcas toward the finish line. He would have lost by Mondalian numbers had he not had Governor Palin with him.

I can count at least 25 close friends and colleagues who voted for Obama because they were scared silly by the idea of Palin being one heartbeat from the presidency.

 

[Statorama]

Then you should find some different figureheads.

As the tent grows, the ability to present candidates that the majority of the tent agree with becomes tougher.

Gibberish.

With the Tea Party movement being a true grassroots movement, it's short on titular leadership. There isn't any one person that "heads up" the Tea Party or gave birth to the movement. So there's no real "promotion" of specific candidates like the Democrats or Republicans enjoy.

 

[Statorama]

She was a single bad interview from becoming Vice President, even though she was dragging the McCain campaign carcas toward the finish line. He would have lost by Mondalian numbers had he not had Governor Palin with him.

I can count at least 25 close friends and colleagues who voted for Obama because they were scared silly by the idea of Palin being one heartbeat from the presidency.

Hello, exactly. Due to one bad interview.(please don't make me pull the old Palin coat out of the closet. I'm begging you)

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Yes...because you were completely silent all the years when Bush was POTUS even though many of the policies between these two have been very similar. Where was the outrage then?

For most of the Bush years, things seemed fine. Obviously things weren't. There was a lot of smoke and mirrors thrown at the public to let them think the American Dream was alive and well. Housing was going up up up with seemingly no end in sight. Democrats and Republicans alike took part in the charade. But when the curtain came down and showed that there were some serious issues, we needed leadership in reversing that. We needed a president to have a fiscally sound plan to get us out of the situation that a Democratic Congress and a Republican President put us in. The incoming President had the luxury of an unbreakable supermajority at all levels of federal legislative government, so whatever plan he laid out was going to get passed.When that President thumbed his nose at the American populace that was suffering through economic hardship, many of us arose to highlight the enormity of the problem and the need to have some kind of fiscal responsibility during these times.President Bush awoke the sleeping bear of the American populace. Obama kicked it in the nuts. I do not defend President Bush. But I will not give Obama a "pass" simply because "a Republican President did it too". If he were elected I'd have my boot on McCain's throat too if he had been so violently cavalier with the American economy as Obama has.As for the Bush years, I wish there had been someone posting about our national troubles as much as I am today. I wish there had been someone starting a national mail in campaign to urge Barney Frank to allow regulatory audits at Freddie/Fannie (even though his boyfriend worked there). But those days are over. I can only concentrate on the here and now and helping save America.

So just to be clear: you missed the boat for 8 consecutive years, but now we're all suddenly supposed to listen to your ideas because "this time you've seen the light and know the answer?"Sorry, I'll stick to trusting my own judgment.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

She was a single bad interview from becoming Vice President, even though she was dragging the McCain campaign carcas toward the finish line. He would have lost by Mondalian numbers had he not had Governor Palin with him.

I can count at least 25 close friends and colleagues who voted for Obama because they were scared silly by the idea of Palin being one heartbeat from the presidency.

Hello, exactly. Due to one bad interview.(please don't make me pull the old Palin coat out of the closet. I'm begging you)

Uh, no. Not because of one bad interview. Not even close. But don't let reality get in the way of your fantasy.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

She was a single bad interview from becoming Vice President, even though she was dragging the McCain campaign carcas toward the finish line. He would have lost by Mondalian numbers had he not had Governor Palin with him.

I can count at least 25 close friends and colleagues who voted for Obama because they were scared silly by the idea of Palin being one heartbeat from the presidency.

Hello, exactly. Due to one bad interview.(please don't make me pull the old Palin coat out of the closet. I'm begging you)

Right, because in the last three years she has done so much to change the public's opinion of her.

 

[Statorama]

She was a single bad interview from becoming Vice President, even though she was dragging the McCain campaign carcas toward the finish line. He would have lost by Mondalian numbers had he not had Governor Palin with him.

I can count at least 25 close friends and colleagues who voted for Obama because they were scared silly by the idea of Palin being one heartbeat from the presidency.

Hello, exactly. Due to one bad interview.(please don't make me pull the old Palin coat out of the closet. I'm begging you)

Right, because in the last three years she has done so much to change the public's opinion of her.

My Sarah arsenal is ready for war if that's what you guys want. I'd rather not, but I'd do it for the ools.

 

[Statorama]

So just to be clear: you missed the boat for 8 consecutive years, but now we're all suddenly supposed to listen to your ideas because "this time you've seen the light and know the answer?"Sorry, I'll stick to trusting my own judgment.

Revolutions aren't fought by people with full bellies. Times looked good. Future looked bright. Once the shell game was exposed I started kicking the table over. Obama's solution was to replace the shell game with three card monty and that's when I lost it.Hooray to all of you that knew it was a shell game and couldn't last. Bravo. It's not easy to say that I was bamboozled. Won't happen again though. It took a recession to open the eyes of millions of Americans. Now we're here and ready to fight. We won't just idly sit by and let another President do to us what Bush did (or worse: what Obama is doing to us) without making a stink about it.And by all means follow your own judgement. All I'm doing is presenting another side for you to base those judgements on. If my presentation doesn't sway you on Monday, tune in on Tuesday and I'll try again.

 

[Clifford]

So what you essentially have is a collection of political neophytes who are pissed off and listening to people whose only intention is to get them even madder.

I find it ironic that you would say that, given all of the falsehoods and misstatements you made above concerning the Tea Party movement.You people that think it's just a bunch of racist crackers are the hardest to inform. You've already let the mainstream media write the narrative for you.If anyone wants a true perspective from someone that's actually been to a Tea Party, go ahead and ask me. I hear a lot of backbiting from people that have never attended a rally. It's kind of sad that a grassroots movement to have a smaller, leaner, more efficient government is being portrayed as a bunch of banjo thumping rednecks. Sadder yet is that people actually buy that crap.

If I lack understanding its because I've been listening too closely. All of that comes from the mouths of activists I have seen interviewed.

 

[timschochet]

I really don't care about Bachmann's inaccuracies, except to the extent that many of them represent evangelical conservative teaching over the last several years. These people really don't believe in evolution, they don't believe in global warming, they think homosexuality is evil, they believe the government and media is lying to them. Master of Orion is a poster in this forum who is probably the most representative of Michele Bachmann's essential viewpoints. If you find Master of Orion's posts to be credible and agreeable, then you probably should cast your vote for Bachmann.

Please stop speaking for me because you always distort my POV. For example, I do not hate Homosexuals and I don't think government is always lying to me. Please link or respond to a specific post. You do this often and I find it a rather shady debate tactic.

I didn't write that you hate homosexuality. What I wrote is that a significant portion of evangelical Christians, including Michele Bachmann, believe that the act of homosexual sex is an evil act, because Scripture teaches this. That does not mean they hate homosexuals. Based on your various postings in this forum, I suggested that you among most of the posters here best represent this belief system, along with other beliefs that match Bachmann's thinking on social issues. No offense was intended. If you believe I have mistated your beliefs in anyway, then I apologize and please correct me.

 

[FavreCo]

Members of the Tea Party movement feel that all aspects of the Government are bloated and wasteful. They belive that ALL departments could continue to provide quality output with a 6% trim of their budgets. Military or Social, doesn't matter.

Will that get us to a balanced budget?

I need some numbers. If 6% cuts across the board equates to a yearly deficit of $400 billion, then that's a big who cares. What's the difference between 400 billion and a trillion a year. Not much when you can't pay it back. If you can't run a surplus, you can never pay it back. On top of that, any cuts hit the economy. They should have been making cuts out the ### when Bush was in office and the housing bubble was still in action.

 

[mcintyre1]

So Stat, would you mind summarizing why we should believe that your opinion of what the "core principles" of the Tea Party are is more valid than the official Tea Party website, as well as the opinions expressed by the vast majority of those who have called themselves Tea Partiers?

 

[Statorama]

So Stat, would you mind summarizing why we should believe that your opinion of what the "core principles" of the Tea Party are is more valid than the official Tea Party website, as well as the opinions expressed by the vast majority of those who have called themselves Tea Partiers?

First off your statement about opinions expressed by the "vast majority" are media spin. They cherrypick a few idiots and say they represent the Tea Party movement.To your first point, I wish I had better web skills. I'd put together a more coherent Tea Party website. Someone with a social conservative mindset had more initiative and webpage creation ability than I had. Maybe it's funded through a George Soros group to make members of the Tea Party movement look like something they're not.The Tea Party movement is about smaller, leaner, more effective government. Plenty of people will try to co-opt that and make it something that it's not. The core Tea Partiers know this. That's why I'm trying to pass along the meaning of the Tea Party movement from an insider's perspective. People on this board know I'm not an operative. I'm not getting paid to push these opinions. So to answer your main question of why you should believe me? Because I have no reason to lie. There's no motivation for me to say I'm something that I'm not. Does it make me a board hero to be the sole defense of the Tea Party? I don't think so. But it's important to me personally that people understand the Tea Party movement isn't what the media portrays it to be.I've said this before, I urge people to actually attend just one rally. Just one. Judge for yourself. Don't let the media dictate what you should believe. Don't let me dictate what you should believe. Get out and judge for yourself. I think you'll be very surprised. I also think it won't be the last Tea Party rally you attend.

 

[Statorama]

Members of the Tea Party movement feel that all aspects of the Government are bloated and wasteful. They belive that ALL departments could continue to provide quality output with a 6% trim of their budgets. Military or Social, doesn't matter.

Will that get us to a balanced budget?

I need some numbers.

They said there would be no math.

 

[mcintyre1]

So Stat, would you mind summarizing why we should believe that your opinion of what the "core principles" of the Tea Party are is more valid than the official Tea Party website, as well as the opinions expressed by the vast majority of those who have called themselves Tea Partiers?

First off your statement about opinions expressed by the "vast majority" are media spin. They cherrypick a few idiots and say they represent the Tea Party movement.To your first point, I wish I had better web skills. I'd put together a more coherent Tea Party website. Someone with a social conservative mindset had more initiative and webpage creation ability than I had. Maybe it's funded through a George Soros group to make members of the Tea Party movement look like something they're not.The Tea Party movement is about smaller, leaner, more effective government. Plenty of people will try to co-opt that and make it something that it's not. The core Tea Partiers know this. That's why I'm trying to pass along the meaning of the Tea Party movement from an insider's perspective. People on this board know I'm not an operative. I'm not getting paid to push these opinions. So to answer your main question of why you should believe me? Because I have no reason to lie. There's no motivation for me to say I'm something that I'm not. Does it make me a board hero to be the sole defense of the Tea Party? I don't think so. But it's important to me personally that people understand the Tea Party movement isn't what the media portrays it to be.I've said this before, I urge people to actually attend just one rally. Just one. Judge for yourself. Don't let the media dictate what you should believe. Don't let me dictate what you should believe. Get out and judge for yourself. I think you'll be very surprised. I also think it won't be the last Tea Party rally you attend.

Thanks for the response. Just FYI, I have attended a rally. It was filled with people holding signs reflecting everything the "media spin" lead me to expect.I will not be attending again.

 

[FavreCo]

In Waterloo, Iowa on Monday, Bachmann erroneously said the late actor John Wayne was from the town, mixing him up with mass murderer John Wayne Gacy.

What a moron.

 

[jamny]

In Waterloo, Iowa on Monday, Bachmann erroneously said the late actor John Wayne was from the town, mixing him up with mass murderer John Wayne Gacy.

What a moron.

Yeah, John Wayne was born in Winterset, Iowa not Waterloo, Iowa. Only a complete idiot could make that mistake.

 

[Statorama]

Thanks for the response. Just FYI, I have attended a rally. It was filled with people holding signs reflecting everything the "media spin" lead me to expect.I will not be attending again.

That's all I can ask. Sorry my brothers and sisters let you down.That hasn't been my experience in Wisconsin at all, so I was pretty confident it would be in your wheelhouse.Are you sure it wasn't a pro-union democratic rally? Those guys are nuts.

 

[Orange Crush]

So Stat, would you mind summarizing why we should believe that your opinion of what the "core principles" of the Tea Party are is more valid than the official Tea Party website, as well as the opinions expressed by the vast majority of those who have called themselves Tea Partiers?

First off your statement about opinions expressed by the "vast majority" are media spin. They cherrypick a few idiots and say they represent the Tea Party movement.To your first point, I wish I had better web skills. I'd put together a more coherent Tea Party website. Someone with a social conservative mindset had more initiative and webpage creation ability than I had. Maybe it's funded through a George Soros group to make members of the Tea Party movement look like something they're not.

The Tea Party movement is about smaller, leaner, more effective government. Plenty of people will try to co-opt that and make it something that it's not. The core Tea Partiers know this. That's why I'm trying to pass along the meaning of the Tea Party movement from an insider's perspective. People on this board know I'm not an operative. I'm not getting paid to push these opinions. So to answer your main question of why you should believe me? Because I have no reason to lie. There's no motivation for me to say I'm something that I'm not. Does it make me a board hero to be the sole defense of the Tea Party? I don't think so. But it's important to me personally that people understand the Tea Party movement isn't what the media portrays it to be.

I've said this before, I urge people to actually attend just one rally. Just one. Judge for yourself. Don't let the media dictate what you should believe. Don't let me dictate what you should believe. Get out and judge for yourself. I think you'll be very surprised. I also think it won't be the last Tea Party rally you attend.

Sarah Palin tried to claim the mantle of head of the Tea Party movement. Should her platform be used to define the Tea Party?Michele Bachmann heads the Tea Party Caucus in Congress. Should her platform be used to define the Tea Party?

Herman Cain is generally thought of as the Tea Party candidate in the GOP presidential race. Could we use his platform (including his statement that he wouldn't have a muslim in his cabinet, even though that appears to be a clear violation of Article 6, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution)?

I've seen several self-proclaimed Tea Partiers state that the movement wants nothing more than small government. But I've seen many, many others state that the Tea Party is a grassroots, anti-establishment movement resisting the monied elites of the Republican party in an attempt to force the party to remain true to conservative principles (so as not to get another George W. Bush as the head of the party). The latter group embraces Christian fundamentalism as a core Tea Party tenet. And I think Palin, Bachmann, and Cain all belong to this latter group.

Stat, you appear to be in the first group. But your claim that the latter group is not a true measure of Tea Party principles seems more like a refusal to engage with political reality than an insistence on the truth.

 

[joffer]

Stat, from your perspective, what are the main differences between what you believe to be the Tea Party views and what (at least on this board) would be called Libertarian views.

 

[NCCommish]

Then you should find some different figureheads.

As the tent grows, the ability to present candidates that the majority of the tent agree with becomes tougher.

Right now the people in the tent are about 90% white making the GOP look diverse. They are also nearly 50% Christian conservative. This tent isn't getting bigger and it is very concerned with abortion, gay rights, all those things you say it doesn't care about. You are wrong.

 

[NCCommish]

Ouch. Not off to a great start

This is a big deal? She claimed John Wayne was from the place that his parents met and lived for a time, but it wasn't where he was born.Wow, nice nitpicking.

How about outright lying? That do anything for you?

Bachmann's had her share of government aid

Reporting from Washington—

Rep. Michele Bachmann has been propelled into the 2012 presidential contest in part by her insistent calls to reduce federal spending, a pitch in tune with the big-government antipathy gripping many conservatives.

But the Minnesota Republican and her family have benefited personally from government aid, an examination of her record and finances shows. A counseling clinic run by her husband has received nearly $30,000 from the state of Minnesota in the last five years, money that in part came from the federal government. A family farm in Wisconsin, in which the congresswoman is a partner, received nearly $260,000 in federal farm subsidies.

Yet despite her broadsides against "socialized medicine," Bachmann's husband, Marcus, applied for public funds for his counseling clinic, Bachmann & Associates. Since 2006, he has received nearly $30,000, according to Minnesota state records. The bulk of the money — $24,041 — came in the form of grants from the state Department of Human Services to train staff how to deal with clients suffering from chemical dependency and mental illness. That program was financed in part by the federal government.

Another of Bachmann's assets — a family farm owned by her late father-in-law, Paul Bachmann — received nearly $260,000 in federal money between 1995 and 2008, largely from corn and dairy subsidies, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data compiled by the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research organization that scrutinizes such subsidies. Paul Bachmann died in May 2009, but the congresswoman retains a partnership in the farm.

Bachmann said in December that the subsidies went to her in-laws and she never received "one penny" from the farm, according to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. However, in financial disclosure forms, she reported receiving between $32,503 and $105,000 in income from the farm, at minimum, between 2006 and 2009.

Publicly, Bachmann has objected strongly to federal farm payments.

LA Times

She lied right to Chris Wallace's face. And now she won't accept his apology?

I would like you to place the same standard on Obama as you do Bachman.

So now a gaffe is the same as an outright lie? Got it, thanks.

 

[NCCommish]

Her latest flub is insisting the founders fought slavery, they didn't. And she added to it by insisting the John Quincy Adams was a founding father, he wasn't. His father was but he wasn't. And of course just like Palin she's right and history is wrong. Again. Darn history.

Do some research on the writings of Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson, Gadsden and Mather. Then look into the debates that had A1S9 written into the constitution.

Franklin the slave owner? Jefferson the slave owner? Maybe we should look to Washington. Oh yeah he had teeth pulled from slaves mouths and implanted in his as he was nearly toothless. Now Franklin eventually came around and released his slaves as did Washington in his will, better late then never. And Franklin went on to found the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society. Nice change for him and I applaud it. But to claim that the founders fought slavery when they were pretty much all slave owners and they signed off on a document that dehumanized a race for profit is ridiculous.

You're wrong here NCC. Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and others all tried to get slavery banned right from the beginning of the Republic. Jefferson's ideals were always beautiful, even though he was a wreck when it came to living up to those ideals. A more accurate statement from Bachmann would have been that "some" or even "several" Founding Fathers fought the institution of slavery.

Yeah and Michael Vick was fighting against dog fighting rings. You can't own slaves and make the case you are all that against it. I'll give you Hamilton and Jay. They were the only non-owners and they worked hard against slavery. The others paid lip service but in the end we still had a race enslaved. I'm sorry if you tell me you are fighting something it is much more believable if you aren't benefiting from it.

 

[clampino]

I'm not a Bachman fan, but if it keeps Palin out of the race I am fine with her running.

 

[NCCommish]

I'm not a Bachman fan, but if it keeps Palin out of the race I am fine with her running.

Palin was never running. She was just building her entertainment brand.

 

[clampino]

I'm not a Bachman fan, but if it keeps Palin out of the race I am fine with her running.

Palin was never running. She was just building her entertainment brand.

I keep hearing that........but just in case.

 

[wikkidpissah]

dont matter - Kristen Wiig has a Michell Bachman at the ready that will marginalize her almost as much as Tina Fey's impression did to Palin.

 

[NCCommish]

dont matter - Kristen Wiig has a Michell Bachman at the ready that will marginalize her almost as much as Tina Fey's impression did to Palin.

I like Wigg she is a bright spot on SNL. I can see her doing Bachmann very well.

 

[wikkidpissah]

dont matter - Kristen Wiig has a Michell Bachman at the ready that will marginalize her almost as much as Tina Fey's impression did to Palin.

I like Wigg she is a bright spot on SNL. I can see her doing Bachmann very well.

She's done Bachman in small roles in skits already - manic & robotic at the same time. With a whole summer for Jim Downey - the only guy who's been with the show longer than Lorne Michaels & who writes 90% of SNL's political stuff (btw, his sympathies are right wing all the way but he never lets it get in the way of the funny) - and Wiig to work on her, I expect a savaging of the first order.

 

[Soonerman]

Yes, lying bothers me. The problem is that if we only vote for people who have never lied, we won't have anyone to vote for.

Great logic. Let's accept the lies that allow politicians to personally profit...

I long for the good old days when politicians just concentrated on personal enrichment and not on destroying the constitution.

 

[badmojo1006]

Tom Petty demands she stop playing "American Girl" at her rallies

 

[datonn]

Isn't Bachmann the politician who once said, upon learning that Melissa Ethridge had cancer:

"Unfortunately she is now suffering from breast cancer, so keep her in your prayers. This may be an opportunity for her now to be open to some spiritual things, now that she is suffering with that physical disease. She is a lesbian." And, continuing with the train of thought of Ethridge being a lesbian, said "almost all, if not all, individuals who have gone into the lifestyle have been abused at one time in their life, either by a male or by a female."

I can barely believe she was elected to the Minnesota State Legislature...much less elected as a representative on the national scene. And now she's running for President?! Seriously?!

I still blame my wife's former roommate for not "slaying the beast" before she had a chance to make America just a little less-intelligent and intolerant via all the air-time and press she gets. AKA her State district's Democratic Party chair...who couldn't find a shiny turd to run against her and secure about 85% of the vote.

 

[Orange Crush]

Her latest flub is insisting the founders fought slavery, they didn't. And she added to it by insisting the John Quincy Adams was a founding father, he wasn't. His father was but he wasn't. And of course just like Palin she's right and history is wrong. Again. Darn history.

Do some research on the writings of Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson, Gadsden and Mather. Then look into the debates that had A1S9 written into the constitution.

Franklin the slave owner? Jefferson the slave owner? Maybe we should look to Washington. Oh yeah he had teeth pulled from slaves mouths and implanted in his as he was nearly toothless. Now Franklin eventually came around and released his slaves as did Washington in his will, better late then never. And Franklin went on to found the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society. Nice change for him and I applaud it. But to claim that the founders fought slavery when they were pretty much all slave owners and they signed off on a document that dehumanized a race for profit is ridiculous.

You're wrong here NCC. Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and others all tried to get slavery banned right from the beginning of the Republic. Jefferson's ideals were always beautiful, even though he was a wreck when it came to living up to those ideals. A more accurate statement from Bachmann would have been that "some" or even "several" Founding Fathers fought the institution of slavery.

Yeah and Michael Vick was fighting against dog fighting rings. You can't own slaves and make the case you are all that against it. I'll give you Hamilton and Jay. They were the only non-owners and they worked hard against slavery. The others paid lip service but in the end we still had a race enslaved. I'm sorry if you tell me you are fighting something it is much more believable if you aren't benefiting from it.

Adams owned slaves?And Jefferson savaged the institution of slavery in the draft of the Declaration he presented to the Continental Congress. Was he a hypocrite? That, and more. But I have to give him a modicum of credit for this act. He's one of those historical figures that I just can't view two-dimensionally.

 

[NCCommish]

Her latest flub is insisting the founders fought slavery, they didn't. And she added to it by insisting the John Quincy Adams was a founding father, he wasn't. His father was but he wasn't. And of course just like Palin she's right and history is wrong. Again. Darn history.

Do some research on the writings of Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson, Gadsden and Mather. Then look into the debates that had A1S9 written into the constitution.

Franklin the slave owner? Jefferson the slave owner? Maybe we should look to Washington. Oh yeah he had teeth pulled from slaves mouths and implanted in his as he was nearly toothless. Now Franklin eventually came around and released his slaves as did Washington in his will, better late then never. And Franklin went on to found the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society. Nice change for him and I applaud it. But to claim that the founders fought slavery when they were pretty much all slave owners and they signed off on a document that dehumanized a race for profit is ridiculous.

You're wrong here NCC. Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and others all tried to get slavery banned right from the beginning of the Republic. Jefferson's ideals were always beautiful, even though he was a wreck when it came to living up to those ideals. A more accurate statement from Bachmann would have been that "some" or even "several" Founding Fathers fought the institution of slavery.

Yeah and Michael Vick was fighting against dog fighting rings. You can't own slaves and make the case you are all that against it. I'll give you Hamilton and Jay. They were the only non-owners and they worked hard against slavery. The others paid lip service but in the end we still had a race enslaved. I'm sorry if you tell me you are fighting something it is much more believable if you aren't benefiting from it.

Adams owned slaves?And Jefferson savaged the institution of slavery in the draft of the Declaration he presented to the Continental Congress. Was he a hypocrite? That, and more. But I have to give him a modicum of credit for this act. He's one of those historical figures that I just can't view two-dimensionally.

No Adams did not. My bad that's 3. As for Jefferson at times he was the biggest slave owner in the state of Virginia. And when he died he didn't even free his mistress.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Her latest flub is insisting the founders fought slavery, they didn't. And she added to it by insisting the John Quincy Adams was a founding father, he wasn't. His father was but he wasn't. And of course just like Palin she's right and history is wrong. Again. Darn history.

Do some research on the writings of Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson, Gadsden and Mather. Then look into the debates that had A1S9 written into the constitution.

Franklin the slave owner? Jefferson the slave owner? Maybe we should look to Washington. Oh yeah he had teeth pulled from slaves mouths and implanted in his as he was nearly toothless. Now Franklin eventually came around and released his slaves as did Washington in his will, better late then never. And Franklin went on to found the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society. Nice change for him and I applaud it. But to claim that the founders fought slavery when they were pretty much all slave owners and they signed off on a document that dehumanized a race for profit is ridiculous.

You're wrong here NCC. Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and others all tried to get slavery banned right from the beginning of the Republic. Jefferson's ideals were always beautiful, even though he was a wreck when it came to living up to those ideals. A more accurate statement from Bachmann would have been that "some" or even "several" Founding Fathers fought the institution of slavery.

Yeah and Michael Vick was fighting against dog fighting rings. You can't own slaves and make the case you are all that against it. I'll give you Hamilton and Jay. They were the only non-owners and they worked hard against slavery. The others paid lip service but in the end we still had a race enslaved. I'm sorry if you tell me you are fighting something it is much more believable if you aren't benefiting from it.

Adams owned slaves?And Jefferson savaged the institution of slavery in the draft of the Declaration he presented to the Continental Congress. Was he a hypocrite? That, and more. But I have to give him a modicum of credit for this act. He's one of those historical figures that I just can't view two-dimensionally.

No Adams did not. My bad that's 3. As for Jefferson at times he was the biggest slave owner in the state of Virginia. And when he died he didn't even free his mistress.

The Constitution and Slaveryrovisions in the Original Constitution

Article I, Section. 2 [slaves count as 3/5 persons]

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [i.e., slaves].

Article I, Section. 9, clause 1. [No power to ban slavery until 1808]

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Article IV, Section. 2. [Free states cannot protect slaves]

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Article V [No Constitutional Amendment to Ban Slavery Until 1808]

...No Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article.

 

[timschochet]

Tom Petty demands she stop playing "American Girl" at her rallies

Love this quote:

If those of us following the Bachmann campaign everyday instead have to hear Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the U.S.A." 500 million times over the next year, then THANKS, TOM PETTY.

 

[FavreCo]

In Waterloo, Iowa on Monday, Bachmann erroneously said the late actor John Wayne was from the town, mixing him up with mass murderer John Wayne Gacy.

What a moron.

Yeah, John Wayne was born in Winterset, Iowa not Waterloo, Iowa. Only a complete idiot could make that mistake.

....and a complete idiot did.