Forum: pol
Page 3554
Subject: The Real Michelle Bachmann

  Posted by: Perm Dude - [5510572522] Wed, Jun 29, 2011, 15:47
As the next non-cream rises toward the top of the GOP Presidential pile, might as well collect the stories in one place.

A number of Andrew Sullivan readers taking Bachmann down on her clinging to the religion of Originalism. Some good stuff here.

Factchecking her announcement speech and Sunday talk show followups.

Jeffrey Lord, in trying to defend her, starts with a sigh and doesn't get any better after that. He seems to be seeking a fight in which the GOP entry wins big. Keep looking, Jeffrey.

FactCheck.org weighs in with their own analysis of Bachmann's fictions.
 
1weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Wed, Jun 29, 2011, 21:21 		From the first link:
They have to overlook that in order to get the Constitution out of the Convention, the abolitionists (and there were some, Franklin and Hamilton among them) had to agree that the issue of the trans-Atlantic slave trade couldn't be touched for twenty some years.
Which more or less supports what Lord is saying in the 3rd link.

Regarding the 2nd link:
In both of these cases, Bachmann could have made valid points about gasoline prices and the debt without resorting to using out-of-context figures.
How dare she use and distort figures....who does she think she is? A Democrat?
The fact that our debt has skyrocketed from 55% of GDP to 96% (fully adjusted for growth and inflation) is something we should all be concerned about, not something we should be trying to nitpick.
Didnt read the rest of the hitpiece.

Regarding link #4:
Bachmann, June 26: … regarding the farm, the farm is my father-in-law's farm. It's not my husband and my farm. It's my father-in-law's farm. And my husband and I have never gotten a penny of money from the farm.
She and her husband are partners in the farm and it is highly probable that they have NOT received anything from the farm other than a K-1 that requires to report passed through income.
If Factchecks has a copy of a check shoing they received money they should post the evidence "without resorting to using out-of-context figures".
Didnt read the rest of the hitpiece.







 
2Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Jun 29, 2011, 22:10 		Lord's point was that there is plenty of evidence that some of the Founding Fathers wanted to abolish slavery. Which wasn't, of course, George S' point.

It is easy to have a good essay on politics when you misconstrue the person's point and try to prove something else.

Michelle Bachmann wants all the Founding Fathers to have consistently opposed slavery, beginning the JQA who was not, in fact, a Founding Father. Her religion (Originalism) demands that the Founding Fathers be consistently good and correct in order for all the good things to flow from them.

#4: FactCheck is looking at the Bachmann's disclosure, in which the Bachmann's themselves said that they received income from the farm. I suppose that was a point you refused to read, eh? So either the Bachmann's are claiming they got money they actually didn't (and, presumably, paying income taxes on income not received), or they did receive income and Bachmann's claim to "have never received a penny" from the farm is the biggest hairsplitting point you'll ever see. According to her own disclosure forms, the Bachmann's have received tens of thousands of pennies in income from that farm.
 
3weykool
      ID: 18510301
      Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 02:14 		Do you not understand the difference between getting income in the form of a K-1 and paying taxes and actually getting paid money/cash?
That is the whole point of partnerships and Sub-S corps.
You may or may not get paid but the income is still taxed.
I suppose they are trying to make the point that she benefited from a farm subsidy while not supporting them.
I see zero difference between that and every Democrat who thinks we should raise taxes but then proceeds to itemize their deductions on their tax returns so they can pay less taxes.
If they really feel that strongly about their position then they should stop taking advantage of the loopholes they created.
 
4Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 02:35 		Do you not understand the difference between getting income ...

You're missing the point. She claims they never got a penny from the farm (i.e., that she never received income). But she has, for years, in fact.

This has nothing to do with how she received it. Or whether some Democrat has done the same thing. Or her taxes (which I never said anything about whether she deserves to have a tax benefit or not).

This is like you arguing that I'm complaining about her mortgage interest deduction but I shouldn't because some Democrats also claim that deduction (when I am actually arguing that Bachmann is claiming not to have a mortgage).


You seem to be arguing, as Jeffrey Lord did, some point which you find it is easy to make, rather than do the hard work of arguing the actual point being made.
 
5Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 02:37 		You are going to find, I believe, that some of these people you jump to defend are not worth your considerable brainpower, wk. My suggestion is to save your strength for candidates who are more worthy.
 
6Boldwin
      ID: 25530309
      Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 10:30 		I rather think she will be facing Obama next year and PD's dismissal in #5 will look mighty silly.
 
7sarge33rd
      ID: 5950308
      Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 10:55 		Unless the GOP wakes up and realizes they are on an island alone, being as far right as they are, they will lose in the national election. They MUST nominate someone more centric, in order to have a realistic shot at winning the WH in 2012/
 
8Great One
      ID: 574139
      Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 10:55 		I hope she does, cause she won't beat him.
 
9Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 11:05 		#6: Actually, it will be Bachmann who will look silly should that occur. We both know it won't--both establishment Republicans as well as the vast (relatively) moderate wing of the GOP won't let themselves be represented by such a flake, and her surge in the polls is a result of there being few good choices.

She is only the Flavor of the Week.
 
10sarge33rd
      ID: 5950308
      Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 11:19 		I thought B had recently declared Cain as the great hope of the GOP. What happened there B?
 
11Boldwin
      ID: 25530309
      Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 11:39 		No, I said Allen West was my favorite.

But Bachman looks like the presumptive winner at this time.

And here's one for the vault! the vast (relatively) moderate wing of the GOP - PD

Funniest thing I've read all day.
 
12Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 11:44 		Those look like some pretty weenie reasons not to vote for someone. Are you suggesting she's stupid? Please review her resume before answering.
 
13Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 12:12 		I rather think she will be facing Obama next year and PD's dismissal in #5 will look mighty silly.

i hope you are right. and i'm sure that PD will accept looking silly if she is the Republican nominee.

But Bachman looks like the presumptive winner at this time.

and eight weeks ago it was Allen West. and six weeks ago it was Donald Trump. and four weeks ago it was Herman Cain. and two weeks ago it was Mitt Romney.

spin the wheel, who's next?



 
14sarge33rd
      ID: 5950308
      Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 12:15 		spin the wheel, who's next?

You wont believe it Tree!! I spun the wheel, and YOUR name came up!! You get to be next weeks GOP candidate of the week!!
 
15Boldwin
      ID: 25530309
      Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 12:28 		I never said Allen West would win. I said he was my favorite of the bunch. Still is tho maybe she has a better launch pad and so is more viable.
 
16Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 12:43 		But Bachman looks like the presumptive winner at this time

Well, back at ya--funniest thing I've read myself. Your ability to self-delusion is legendary.

The last three polls I've seen show her at about even favorable/unfavorable among the GOP and her polling average is at 7% (just below Cain). Sure, she's almost tied with Romney in Iowa but she's down to Romney in NH 36% to 11% (the state where they'll actually start counting primary votes).

We're in the middle of the Michelle Bachmann bubble. And she's not even close to leading.

I am happy, however, to take your money if you want to lay it on the table...
 
17Boldwin
      ID: 25530309
      Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 13:45 		She was beating Romney [and the rest of the pack] by more than 10pts before she announced in one poll. I'll lean on that more than how Romney does in his backyard.
 
18Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 13:53 		Link?

Since the debate, the highest I've seen her in any nationwide poll is Rasmussen in which she was down 33% to 19%.

I have seen no reputable poll where she is leading by 10 points at any point, pre- or post-announcement.

If true, then she is fading, not gaining.
 
19Boldwin
      ID: 25530309
      Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 16:05 		PD

It was within the last three days and this just isn't the wild-goose chase I care to spend the next couple hours on. It's a fact and if you can't credit my honesty you can't have my time.
 
20Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 16:26 		...you can't credit my honesty ...

Hahaha. So, "if you don't believe me and ask for proof I will just refuse."

Nice. Your standards are in name only, at this point.

Look, you obviously won't or can't back up your point. So erase it until you can or will.
 
21Boldwin
      ID: 25530309
      Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 16:28 		Published in the Huffington Post before she declared.



Des Moines Register Iowa Poll
 
22Boldwin
      ID: 25530309
      Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 16:32 		Huffington post too conservative for you, PD? I figured that would have been on your daily route right after TPM.
 
23biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 16:38 		Caucus goers
 
24biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 16:42 		There is no greater hive of scum and villai... er...mental illness than likely caucus goers.
 
25Boldwin
      ID: 25530309
      Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 16:44 		Uh...yeah, the people she needs to be impressing right now are the people she is impressing. T-Paw and Romney, not so much.

Despite the vaaaast moderate wing of the R party. bwahhhahhah
 
26Boldwin
      ID: 25530309
      Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 17:05 		Waiting for anyone to concede my point finally.
 
27Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 17:13 		#21: Those are favorable/unfavorable ratings. They are a "how much to you like candidates A through Z?" poll. This isn't the same as a poll asking "who would you vote for?" In that kind of poll, Bachmann is consistently polling under Romney, even in the very poll you are citing third-hand.
 
28Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 17:22 		As for a concession, I'm happy to concede that you've brought a very sharp knife to this gunfight.

Probably also worth noting that Huckabee kicked ass in the Iowa caucus last time around.
 
29Boldwin
      ID: 25530309
      Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 17:27 		I see, so your theory is that they are going to vote for the person they don't like most.

I never claimed to understand the mind of a liberal, if you can call it that.
 
30Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 17:34 		I don't have a theory. Just pointing to the data. The very same poll you are citing as proof of Bachmann "beating Romney [and the rest of the pack] by more than 10pts" shows that she's losing to Romney as the "first choice for President."

So yes: The poll you are citing shows both that she has higher favorability ratings than Romney but still isn't winning the vote. And these are the hardest of the hardcore: People saying they will definitely attend the GOP caucus (which is a pretty big commitment).
 
31Razor
      ID: 33520166
      Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 18:12 		We don't have to have a pissing content over poll numbers 7 months before primaries. Bacchman is not going to win the nomination. She will be a sideshow and will not be a big factor. A moderate like Romney or Pawlenty will likely win. That will bode well for the GOP. The Tea Party will cry about it, but they will vote along the party line that they claim to not be a part of.
 
32Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Thu, Jun 30, 2011, 19:48 		Right now I'd say Bachman has as good a shot at the nomination as anyone else currently in the fold except Romney.
 
33Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 16:51 		Awesome news: Bachmann pulls ahead in Iowa.
 
34sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 16:57 		that is awesome, given that has been how long, since my home state correctly polled the winning candidate?
 
35sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 17:08 		10 of the craziest things Micehelle Bachmann has said/claimed

(1) BACHMANN WARNED ‘THE LION KING’ WAS GAY PROPAGANDA:

goes downhill from there
 
36Boldwin
      ID: 426151116
      Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 17:34 		Analogy and metaphor are wasted on you, eh Sarge?
 
37sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 18:28 		No B. I simply do not see where her drawn conclusion holds any more water than a sieve would.
 
38Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 22:52 		Friedersdorf
But the bigger story here is the fact that Bachmann, who is rising in the Iowa polls, does in fact have a resume that's absurdly thin for someone seeking the White House. Ponder its shortcomings: she has no foreign policy experience, no executive experience, has never sponsored or co-sponsored a bill that became law, has never chaired a committee or subcommittee, and cannot even claim notable success outside the public sector like Mitt Romney.

Surely the media is a big part of the answer. I don't mean the way that it covers Bachmann, so much as the way it covers all politics. Watching cable news, or listening to talk radio, or reading Politico, you'd think that the qualities most important to a politician's success are charisma, an ability to win news cycles, adeptness at formulating sound bytes, and success zinging rivals.

In fact, the GOP argued four years ago that Barack Obama was too inexperienced for the Oval Office. By their lights, they've been vindicated: his performance is almost universally panned within the party. Is the partisan mind so powerful that they're now prepared to elevate someone based on the strength of her TV interviews and floor speeches?
Consider how well Bachman stands up to all the 2008 criticism from the right regarding candidate Obama's experience as a suitable resume for the White House.
 
39Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Jul 11, 2011, 23:29 		C'mon, MITH. The GOP dropped that meme about 5 minutes after Palin was selected by McCain.
 
40Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Tue, Jul 12, 2011, 00:07 		True, just like they only cared about political flip-flopping for the duration of John Kerry's presidential candidacy.
 
41Razor
      ID: 31610612
      Tue, Jul 12, 2011, 04:44 		That's actually not entirely true. In some GOP circles, Palin was thought to be MORE qualified and experienced than Obama by virtue of having served in the executive role in Wasilla and the state of Alaska. Granted, they were the only ones who believed this farce (the same gang who trumpeted Palin's foreign policy cred as legit because Alaska is near Russia) but it was believed by some.
 
42Boldwin
      ID: 426151116
      Tue, Jul 12, 2011, 05:35 		Seeing the noose from your house focuses the mind.
 
43Boldwin
      ID: 426151116
      Tue, Jul 12, 2011, 05:42 		Is the partisan mind so powerful that they're now prepared to elevate someone based on the strength of her TV interviews and floor speeches?

'Powerful minds' on the left dumped Howard Dean because the media focused on one meaningless whoop.

Forgive the right if they are thru letting the media 'Dan Quayle' them anymore. They've gotten that treatment too often and see thru it by now. 'Powerful minds' indeed.
 
44Razor
      ID: 33520166
      Tue, Jul 12, 2011, 08:15 		Re: 42 - Thanks for the reinforcement.
 
45Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Jul 12, 2011, 08:52 		Heh.

Hard to tell, exactly, what the job of a Member of Congress is when Bachmann is paraded around as an example of a good one.

I suspect that they will defensively play the mommy card, as if any of them really cared about the plight of moms beforehand. Its all they have.
 
46sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Tue, Jul 12, 2011, 11:27 		She has sponsored h0ow many bills that became law? None...right?

She has CO-sponsored how many bills that became law? Oh yeah, the same...none.

Given that a member of Cingress' JOB, is to "write legislation that becomes law"....one must ask; WTF has she been doing?
 
47biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Tue, Jul 12, 2011, 12:43 		Do you know how long it takes to do a quality job painting on eyebrows?

 
48Boldwin
      ID: 426151116
      Tue, Jul 12, 2011, 16:34 		Hard to tell, exactly, what the job of a Member of Congress is when Bachmann is paraded around as an example of a good one.

And Obama's string of 'present' votes was a better job description?
 
49Boldwin
      ID: 426151116
      Tue, Jul 12, 2011, 16:38 		WTF has she been doing?

Leading the Tea Party revolution. Engineering the 2010 landslide. What were you doing?
 
50Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Jul 12, 2011, 16:42 		You are mixing up your meme's. Obama never voted "present" in the US Senate. He did, however, sponsor legislation which became law, and chaired committee meetings.

Once again you duck the question. Which is kinda ironic, since that was what you are trying to slam Obama for doing by bringing up the "present" votes. Another example of "do as I say, not as I do" politics from the Right.

If you think Bachmann's record will stack up to Obama's in any way, you are still dreaming. It will be months like the Biden-Palin debate, and won't be pretty for the Right.

This is why I am so very hopeful for a Bachmann victory for the nomination. The only way to kill off the no-do all-slam Team Party is to bring them out into the public eye and make them face the music of their own stances.
 
51boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Jul 12, 2011, 17:06 		Neither Bachmann or senator Obama have/had much of record...too bad Bachmann is not going to go very far so that will never be much of an issue.

 
52Boldwin
      ID: 426151116
      Tue, Jul 12, 2011, 19:52 		Since Obama went directly from blaming Bush for everything to blaming the Tea Party for everything, what record he actually has is debatable according to him.
 
53DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Tue, Jul 12, 2011, 20:02 		^ [ ] is remotely in touch with reality
 
54Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Jul 13, 2011, 00:01 		Blaming people for what they actually say isn't a bad thing. Even when shining a light on them makes them look bad.
 
55DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 11:47 		Bachmann's Church: Pope = Antichrist

Well, that should secure the Catholic vote at least.
 
56Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 21:14 		I'd like to think it won't have much impact and that the tendency to judge people by their associations is an electorate flaw that mostly prevails among the mouth-foamers on the hard right, few of whom are Catholic.

But the noise machine has shown itself to impact some influence on the moderate middle, so maybe month after month of Ayers and Wright and Van Jones (oh my!) will prove sufficient behavioral hypnosis to give them (yet another) reason to scoff at the notion of voting for her in a general election.
 
57Boldwin
      ID: 396501420
      Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 22:30 		Anyone know how many anti-abortion one issue Catholics there are?
 
58DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 22:59 		Mr. Owl knows how many
 
59Boldwin
      ID: 396501420
      Thu, Jul 14, 2011, 23:02 		For the record O got 54% of the Catholic vote in 2008.
 
60Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 00:25 		Does that mean you think 46% are pro-life single-issue voters?
 
61Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 01:14 		Think the Right will ask her to repudiate her pastor?
 
62sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 01:24 		You mean, like they did Obama?
 
63Boldwin
      ID: 16637151
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 02:44 		The difference is she isn't pretending she doesn't share her pastor's values, and her pastors values are not unpopular with the majority.
 
64Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 06:18 		The difference is she isn't pretending she doesn't share her pastor's values, and her pastors values are not unpopular with the majority.

if i didn't think you actually believed the nonsense you just posted, it would be funny. sadly, you do, so it's not.
 
65Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 06:55 		The difference is she isn't pretending she doesn't share her pastor's values

Has she commented on it yet? At least give the media a chance to give her a taste of the Rev. Wright treatment before you're so sure of how candidate Bachman will handle the issue.

and her pastors values are not unpopular with the majority.

We're only talking about one "value" (for now, anyway) in particular, that the Papacy is the Antichrist. You believe this position is not unpopular with the majority?
 
66Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 07:45

Reminds me of John Kerry naming "Manny Ortiz" as his favorite Red Sox player.
 
67Boldwin
      ID: 16637151
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 08:07 		You would be amazed at how many denominations consider the catholic church to be Babylon the Great which figures prominently and negatively in the Book of Revelations. I'm not saying they make a big deal of it buuut it's quite common. Possibly the majority view. My own religion's view is that all those denominations have one finger pointed at the catholics and four pointed back at themselves.

Somehow you guys missed yesterday's big meme which was to point out her husband's councilling center recommends repairative therapy for gays who come in for help. The lamestream media got all gay and gleeful thinking that was a gotcha moment. The majority of americans believe that if a gay person wants help he should have repairative therapy as an option so the jokes on the lamestream.
 
68Boldwin
      ID: 16637151
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 08:09 		And Americans are sure to fault her for not having a keen ear for correct yiddish. Tell me another one.
 
69Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 08:12 		Keen ear? Any ear at all would be more like it. If someone isn't familiar with a word, it probably is worth checking it out before using it in public.

It made her sound stupid.
 
70Boldwin
      ID: 16637151
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 08:14 		We're only talking about one "value" (for now, anyway) in particular, that the Papacy is the Antichrist. You believe this position is not unpopular with the majority? - MITH

I think roughly half of america believes in a denomination in which among their groups beliefs are the belief that catholicism figures negatively in Bible prophecy.

I also believe it is downplayed and many are only vaguely aware of their own denominations doctrines and positions...

...just as Bachmann I am sure has no more intention of playing this up than those denominations do.
 
71Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 08:29 		I think roughly half of america believes in a denomination in which among their groups beliefs are the belief that catholicism figures negatively in Bible prophecy.

I think this overstates things by quite a bit. About 3/4 of Americans self-identify as Christian, and about 1/4 of Americans self-identify as Catholics.

This leaves half of America as non-Catholic Christians.

I would say that the Evangelicals (or Born Agains) are far more likely to exhibit anti-Catholic teachings, of which (according to the last ARIS survey I saw) was about 34% of Americans.
 
72Boldwin
      ID: 16637151
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 08:41 		I'm not saying they're anti-catholic in the sense that they wouldn't vote for JFK if he were alive today. It's just a scarcely mentioned part of doctrine, because if they don't assign that role in Revelations to catholics they would have to ask themselves if they themselves fit the description [and they do].
 
73Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 09:03 		good point.
 
74Boldwin
      ID: 16637151
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 09:26 		It's not an either/or situation btw, it's a 'just how inclusive is this?' issue.
 
75Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 09:33 		Well, sure. And I think there is a comparison to the Muslims vis a vis Israel here as well.
 
76Mith
      ID: 46121210
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 10:25 		And Americans are sure to fault her for not having a keen ear for correct yiddish.

"Americans" no. Jewish Americans... probably moreso than American baseball fans faulted Kerry for cheering Manny Ortiz (outside of New England, anyway). Personally I'd tend to agree it'll take more than that to sway most Jewish swing voters (at least I'd hope so). However I do recall the right side of this forum arguing that Kerry's was no minor flub at the time.


just as Bachmann I am sure has no more intention of playing this up than those denominations do.

I'm sure she has as much intention to do so as Obama had to play up Wright's paraphrasing of MLK in his 'God Damn America' sermon.


It's just a scarcely mentioned part of doctrine

For whatever it's worth the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, which her church belogs to, has a Doctrinal Statement explaining why the Pope is the Antichrist.

At 9 pages, it's the longest of the synod's 8 doctrinal statements.
 
77Boldwin
      ID: 16637151
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 10:29 		If the jewish vote can swallow the kick in the balls that the Obama administration has been to Isreal, they were never going to vote for Bachmann anyway. And the few who can't take Obama's insults anymore can probably forgive Michele.
 
78Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 10:43 		You're touchy this morning. I didn't consider the Kerry flub important at the time and like I said, I see this as the same kind of thing also because both are very funny. Throw in Queens born and raised Donald Trump taking Palin to a corporate chain for an authentic slice of NY pizza and being seen on camera eating it with a knife and fork.

Dude, you know you're all-in emotionally when you're too bitter to even laugh at politicians when they make asses of themselves.
 
79Boldwin
      ID: 16637151
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 10:59 		Or when you think what Bachmann said was newsworthy.
 
80Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 11:02 		And Americans are sure to fault her for not having a keen ear for correct yiddish.

if you're going to use a word like that, know how to pronounce it. really, it's that simple. it's a minor flub, and no big deal, but be better prepared.

that being said, either Huntley or Brinkley once said, on air, "and to my Jewish friends, Happy Chanukkah", pronouncing the holiday as Cha-nook-ah, instead of the proper pronunciation.
 
81Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 11:06 		Or when you think what Bachmann said was newsworthy.

CHOOTS pa.
 
82Seattle Zen
      ID: 10732616
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 13:36 		Baldwin: The majority of americans believe that if a gay person wants help he should have repairative therapy as an option so the jokes on the lamestream.

Your proclamations are so ridiculous, you have simply become so completely blindered that whatever you believe you also assign to the majority of Americans. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, could be further from the truth.

From here on out, if Baldwin says, "the majority of Americans", take it to mean "5% or fewer".
 
83Boldwin
      ID: 16637151
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 14:02 		That would be why every gay agenda referenda has gone down to defeat meaning a majority defeated them.

Five percent that.
 
84DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 14:19 		That's a really strange definition of the word "every" you must be using.
 
85Boldwin
      ID: 16637151
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 14:22 		Really? Which gay marriage referenda passed?
 
86DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 14:25 		Tell me where the goalposts are (gay agenda referenda and gay marriage agenda are two different things); it's pretty telling you're already backpedaling.

On second thought, don't, because you're just going to make stuff up anyway.
 
87Seattle Zen
      ID: 10732616
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 14:26 		Again with the facts wrong.

 
88Boldwin
      ID: 16637151
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 14:32 		Well, ok you got me there SZ, but that wasn't gay marriage either and I even have suggested limiting it to civil unions would be the best pragmatic deal conservatives could get in the near and mid-term. In the long term brainwashing kids for generation after generation eventually tears down the culture.
 
89DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 14:33 		But, SZ, that doesn't indoctrinate children in kindergarten to have sex with homosexual pedophiles while wearing rainbow pins and watching Richard Simmons videos, so it doesn't advance the gay agenda.
 
90DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 14:36 		That would be why every gay agenda referenda

Well, ok you got me there SZ, but that wasn't gay marriage either

LOL. So predictable. Takes four minutes to prove you unequivocally wrong, and another six minutes to say "well, that thing I was absolutely certain of ten minutes ago isn't what I meant" as though we're supposed to forget what you wrote ten minutes ago. Good gravy, can you be any more dishonest? (No, no you can't.)

Also, dammit, thought seven minutes would be enough time to get in BEFORE the "brainwashing kids" tripe actually made it into the thread. It's slightly less funny now.
 
91Boldwin
      ID: 16637151
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 14:41 		Of course the original point was SZ says only 5% of americans agree with Bachmann's religion that repairative therapy should be available. The difficulty in passing gay marriage puts the complete lie to that suggestion.
 
92DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 14:50 		Well, no, because there's a slight difference between thinking "maybe we should keep the marriage like it is" and "homosexuality is a psychological disorder that needs to be repaired".

I mean, not to you, but that's because you're in that 5%.
 
93Seattle Zen
      ID: 10732616
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 14:53 		"reparative therapy" is barbaric and should go the way of female circumcision. No sane person should support it, much less 5%.
 
94Boldwin
      ID: 16637151
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 15:11 		Yeah, you think if a gay person goes to a psychologist asking for help to change his sexual preferences the psychologist should turn a cold shoulder to him. Thanks. Big help you are.
 
95DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 15:14 		Can we maybe just once get the goalposts off the truck and actually put them in the ground for five seconds, or is that too much to ask?
 
96sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 15:50 		Homosexuality is NOT a choice. Who here, of the hetero sexual persuasion, consciously and deliberately, sat at their table adn DEBATED within themselves, whether to be straight, gay or bi, as it pertaians to their sexual orientation? I for one, NEVER sat and "chose" to be straight I just am. Gays, did not choose to be gay, they just are.

As a Christian B, you accept that God made all man. You accept that God is without fault You accept that Gods Plan is beyond our comprehension. So accept the logicala conclusion. God made them that way for His purposes, not yours.

And your 'repairative therapy", isnt that how they used to refer to frontal lobotomies and shock therapy too?
 
97weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 19:24 		As a Christian B, you accept that God made all man. You accept that God is without fault You accept that Gods Plan is beyond our comprehension. So accept the logicala conclusion. God made them that way for His purposes, not yours.

Yikes Sarge.
You get an "F" for theology.
 
98bibA
      ID: 48627713
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 20:02 		You accept that Gods Plan is beyond our comprehension

sarge - you really think he believes that God's plan is beyond his comprehension?
 
99sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 20:24 		I beg to differ WK. In my world, God made man. While man has "free will", sexual orientation is not and has not, been a choice for any.

You may disagree with my view, but I frankly believe God disagrees with MANY of the legalistic practices I have seen in the name of Christianity.

Trying to change the very fabric ccof a human being, to conform to YOUR version of right/wrong; *IS* wrong. It is in point of fact, the very ultimate in "passing judgement". Something we lack the authority to do.
 
100weykool
      ID: 19613142
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 23:15 		In my world
That is your world.
You are entitled to live in your world.
You are entitled to your beliefs.....dont judge those who have a different set of beliefs.
 
101sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Fri, Jul 15, 2011, 23:40 		Then you'll agree not to pass jusgement on homosexuals and agree to allowing them to marry and enjoy the same legal rights as heterosexuals? (IOW, you rae the ones passing judgement, I am merely pointing out to you that you are passing judgement)
 
102Boldwin
      ID: 16637151
      Sat, Jul 16, 2011, 02:30 		Sarge

I categorically deny that there is any such thing as born gay.

Psychology knew full well what developmental factors go into inclining someone that way and they knew how to treat it. Until gay activists stormed a convention of the APA and made it politically all but impossible to do unbiased scientific study or therapy for homosexuality.

We've been all thru this in a 700+ post thread.

It's all at the NARTH website. The causes of homosexuality, the treatment, the political takeover of the APA.

Homosexual activists can't storm God and change his unchangable judgement on the matter nor can they change the objective facts.
 
103sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Sat, Jul 16, 2011, 02:44 		You can categorically deny your own existance of you choose to But did those animals in the wild exhibiting homosexual tendencies, CHOOSE to be homosexual? No. Nor do most humand (Some no odubt do, though I think most of those would be correctly termed bi-sexual) I was born straight, I did not choose my sexual orientation., It is, what it is Just as I was born blue eyed and blonde. Deny what you will, your own inflexible attitude will bear it out anyway.
 
104Boldwin
      ID: 16637151
      Sat, Jul 16, 2011, 02:50 		1) Don't get your moralty from animals.

2) If you were correct he would owe Sodom and Gomorrah an apology. As it is of course, he is never mistaken.

 
105Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Sat, Jul 16, 2011, 03:03 		Sexual orientation has nothing to do with morality, even if you insist that the way one acts on it does.

The question of being born with a sexual orientation has all kinds of problems, including semantics. People aren't born six feet tall, either. Psychologists have as much ability change what stimulates the loin as they do a man's height. In both cases the only option is amputation.
 
106Wilmer McLean
      ID: 46653164
      Sat, Jul 16, 2011, 05:55 		RE: 103

... I was born straight, I did not choose my sexual orientation., It is, what it is Just as I was born blue eyed and blonde. ...


"There's no scientific conclusion that (being gay) is genetic." Tim Pawlenty on Sunday, July 10th, 2011 in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press"

...

The typical way of figuring out whether something is caused by genes is through twin studies. Since identical twins share 100 percent of their DNA, any observed differences in traits would be presumed to be influenced by environment rather than genetics. So if being gay was truly, and exclusively, a genetic trait, every set of identical twins should either be both straight, or both gay.

In fact, that’s not the case. Even the studies with the strongest linkage show about a 50 percent correlation in sexual orientation between identical twins. Other studies have shown lower rates. Based on these findings, scientists agree that being gay is not caused exclusively by genes.

...

Pawlenty said "there's no scientific conclusion that (being gay) is genetic." On that specific question, we found broad agreement that Pawlenty was correct. Scientists told us that genetics may play a role in determining sexual orientation, but the current evidence suggests that it’s not the dominant factor and may ultimately be shown to play just a modest role.

But a modest role is still different from no role. And we also think that viewers of the interview might be led to believe that because homosexuality is not primarily caused by genes, there’s no biological cause. In reality, most scientists do believe that sexual orientation is caused by biology, rather than by choice. On balance, we rate Pawlenty’s statement Mostly True.
 
107Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Sat, Jul 16, 2011, 06:46 		Wilmer McLean
There are two problems with post 106. First, Sarge never said anything about genetics, his point is obviously that sexual orientation is not a choice.

Second, I read that article and in several sections, they deal specifically with what Sarge was talking about, yet you chose to omit any of those excerpts. For example:
And we also think that viewers of the interview might be led to believe that because homosexuality is not primarily caused by genes, there’s no biological cause. In reality, most scientists do believe that sexual orientation is caused by biology, rather than by choice.
 
108Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Sat, Jul 16, 2011, 09:01 		Apologies. I skimmed your post too quickly to notice you included the same excerpt that I pasted.
 
109sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Sat, Jul 16, 2011, 12:02 		104, pt 2. Why would He owe S&G an apology? Leviticus, is Old Testament. S&G, was Old Testament. No apology owed, no apology due. You are correct, He is without fault. Therefore, Gay people are His beloved children, just as heterosexuals are. Would you presume to judge a neighbor because he sleeps with a woman? Then dont judge him who sleeps with a man either.
 
110Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Jul 16, 2011, 23:00 		Boldwin 63
The difference is she isn't pretending she doesn't share her pastor's values, and her pastors values are not unpopular with the majority.

I knew you were speaking prematurely.

CNN: Bachman leaves her church.
Bachmann, a Minnesota congresswoman, and her husband, Marcus, withdrew their membership from Salem Lutheran Church in Stillwater, Minnesota, last month, according to church officials.

Bachmann had listed her membership in the church on her campaign site for congress in 2006. She lists no church affiliation on her campaign website or her official congressional website.

Bachmann was asked about her status with the church on Thursday at Reagan National Airport as she headed to catch a flight. When asked about her pastor, she asked, “Which one?” An aide quickly hustled her away, noting that they were late for a flight.

The Bachmann campaign declined to immediately respond to a request for further comment Friday.

 
111Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Jul 18, 2011, 02:44 		Sarge

Right now in England they are preventing christians from adopting and favoring gays adopting.

I don't know for sure why you decided to help Satan stand the world's morals on it's head in direct opposition to God instead of...

...'proving to yourselves the good and acceptable will of God'...[Romans 12:2]

...but the sheep are being separated from the goats and you sir are not following the shepherd. The goats are cast off into eternal destruction just so you know.
 
112sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Mon, Jul 18, 2011, 03:02 		Right now in England ...

We're not in England.

I don't know for sure why you decided to help Satan ...

I havent. Quite the contrary actually. The God I speak of, as per His Living Word, requires ONLY that you accept the sacrifice of His Son. You know, that part where the Bible says, "Whosoever believes in me shall not perish but have everlasting life." This (I'll call it what I see it as), nonsense where in a so called Christian feels justified in condemning a man or a woman, when said man or woman has committe no crime...is pure, unadulterated BS. I doubt seriously, God will look kindly upon such.

...but the sheep are being separated from the goats and you sir are not following the shepherd. The goats are cast off into eternal destruction just so you know.

So says one of THE premier legalist faiths. I do not however, subscriube to such a theory. Christianity, TRUE Cristianity, is not based or premised on what must be done. It is based, entirely on what has already BEEN done.
 
113Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Jul 18, 2011, 03:13 		Satan and the demons believe and yet they shudder. - James 2:19

I don't use my sense of right and wrong at all. There is only one rightful arbiter of right and wrong in the universe. He is real clear [in both old and new covenant] to anyone who isn't rationalizing for all he is worth. It is very explicit that homosexuals have no part in God's Kingdom ie. the future.
 
114sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Mon, Jul 18, 2011, 12:01 		As it is equally clear, one is not to eat shell fish, one is to stone a divorced woman, etc etc etc. It is the LIVING word. So it has oft been called, so it is.

 
115Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Mon, Jul 18, 2011, 14:29 		Right now in England they are preventing christians from adopting and favoring gays adopting.

never mind that we're not in England, i'm sure the link you provide for this tidbit will be, at the very least, entertaining.
 
116Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Jul 18, 2011, 16:12 		OMG

In all my years going door to door talking to people no one has ever tried to tell me the Bible is a 'living document' like the constitution supposedly is and that we are free to stretch it any way we want it.

That is a special level of rationalization right there. A conscience like that is of no use whatsoever.

Yes the rules are slightly different depending on whether you are living within a fully established theocracy such as the Kingdom of Judah or the Kingdom of God after armageddon cleans the slate of all other governments.

Why? Because then God's people execute judicial God's decisions. Literally right up to and including capital punishment.

When they are in among the ungodly living under their thumb, the full execution of God's judgement is deferred until he chooses

Our situation may change. We may develop enuff hygiene and refrigerators to be able to safely store certain foods such as shellfish and pork. But the principle of not eating unclean things stands.

God's opposition to homosexuality was reiterated in all parts of the Bible.

God's principles never change and he never changes. 'With him there is not a variation of the turning of a shadow'. - James 1:12
 
117boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Mon, Jul 18, 2011, 17:00 		And we also think that viewers of the interview might be led to believe that because homosexuality is not primarily caused by genes, there’s no biological cause. In reality, most scientists do believe that sexual orientation is caused by biology, rather than by choice.

well that is sorta logically false, if homosexuality is not genetic but caused by biological changes caused from the environment then by choosing the environment you can in fact choose the sexual orientation of an individual.
 
118DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Mon, Jul 18, 2011, 18:44 		"Our situation may change."

Except, of course, when you don't want it to because teh gays are gross, like, ew.

LOL.
 
119sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Mon, Jul 18, 2011, 19:01 		117...no mention is/was made of environment, until you made it. Biology (biologic causes) are not 100% genetic driven. Something can be biologically caused, and not be primarily genetically caused.
 
120boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 10:10 		sarge, either you are born with something, genetics; or you created by something, environment; or some combination. It would appear that you know of some 3rd way things happen maybe magic?
 
121boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 10:58 		I don't know if this question belongs in here but here goes:



If it was found out for say that drinking chlorinated water when you are child made you 50% more likely to be homosexual, should chlorinated water come with warning, be banned for children, or nothing?
 
122Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 11:03 		I don't think we need to guess what Michelle Bachmann would say!

For myself, I think anything which makes such a profound change in a person should cease. A government which chlorinates water (in this example) would clearly be stepping outside their bounds if such a high incidence of unwanted affects would show up.
 
123Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 11:56 		On biology/genetics, no one said genetics has nothing to do with it, only that it doesn't appear to be the primary factor. The politicact article, does note a correlation, as up to 50% of sets identical twins have the same sexuality.
 
124sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 12:00 		Boilin, would you call a chromosomal imbalance genetic then? Or a hormonal imbalance genetic? Those are I think, two examples of biologic causes for some things, which are not genetic.

They have identified a specific number of genes. Something in the back of my memory wants to say 34 or so? DNA controls the vast majority of our biology, does it not?
 
125DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 13:06 		If it was found out for say that drinking chlorinated water when you are child made you 50% more likely to be homosexual, should chlorinated water come with warning, be banned for children, or nothing?

I'd say it should come with a disclosure. (A "warning" implies that something's inherently "wrong" with it, which is a value judgement I'm not completely comfortable with other people making for me. Possibly a minor quibble, possibly not.) Then, let people decide if the health benefits of chlorinated water outweigh the side effects.

Some people would much rather die of Escherichia coli than catch teh ghey. Fine with me. I'd rather they did too.
 
126Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 13:12 		A warning would be good if people had a chance (i.e., a warning is a caution allowing people to opt out). With public water that isn't really a choice.
 
127DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 13:20 		There's a choice, it's just made on a non-individual level. (Or else we can argue for pure individualized anarchism, but I don't think any of us wants that discussion.)
 
128Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 13:26 		A government-provided utility isn't a choice. This is like saying "if you don't like this new $50/month charge on your phone bill then don't use it." Water is required for life (and, even when we might choose to use bottled water, the government still requires water hookups (and its accompanying charge) for nearly all municipal systems).

A better option would be, when the affect of the chlorination outweighs the benefits, to simply stop chlorinating the water.
 
129DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 13:42 		"A better option would be, when the affect of the chlorination outweighs the benefits, to simply stop chlorinating the water."

Obviously (I hope!), you're still making a choice here. You're just disguising that choice in terms of a value judgement.
 
130boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 14:53

They have identified a specific number of genes. Something in the back of my memory wants to say 34 or so? DNA controls the vast majority of our biology, does it not?


what in the world do you think genetics is referring to if not DNA?

Boilin, would you call a chromosomal imbalance genetic then? Or a hormonal imbalance genetic?

that would depend on the cause if you born with out the genes to make a hormone then that is clearly genetic, if it is caused becuase of life time of being exposed to wrong chemicals then it is an environmental issue. The point is there is no third way. your biology is created from genetics(DNA) that you are created from and then parts of it can then be changed by the environment it is exposed too.
 
131Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 14:54 		You're just disguising that choice in terms of a value judgement.

No in both cases. This is neither a disguise, nor a value judgement. This is a risk analysis.
 
132boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 14:57 		re 128: you could move to country(or outside city limits in some places) and live off well water. to some degree public water is still a choice.
 
133biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 15:01 		My sister just made this choice. Then she did a lab analysis of the well water, and is starting to regret it.
 
134sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 15:05 		In my admittedly limited knowledge of advanced biology, it seems to me DNA is comprised of a number of "elements", one of which we call "genes". There is also RNA is there not?
 
135Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 15:09 		to some degree public water is still a choice.

As is putting the chlorine in the water in the first place, yes?

My point isn't a difficult one, and it isn't clear why this somehow became about whether the individual should have to do anything to prevent being exposed to something that we were to suddenly find had a bad biological effect on people.
 
136DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 15:13 		No in both cases. This is neither a disguise, nor a value judgement. This is a risk analysis.

We're possibly saying the same things here, but maybe not. Whatever you call it, you are imposing your own judgement on others as to what a "profound change" is, and what chance of one is acceptable in others. And you (and if not you, "whoever's in charge of the water utility" are doing this based on a value judgement as to "how bad" something is, in a situation where people's personal choices about "how bad" increasing the probability of homosexuality is will be dramatically different from yours or mine.

You can call that a "risk analysis", but you are calling it that based on something which is not a quantifiable "risk" in this case.
 
137boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 15:39 		And you (and if not you, "whoever's in charge of the water utility" are doing this based on a value judgement as to "how bad" something is, in a situation where people's personal choices about "how bad" increasing the probability of homosexuality is will be dramatically different from yours or mine.

This was kind of what I was thinking with the question a) is homosexuality inherently bad, in which case the public should be protected or b) is it not bad so who cares what effect the water has or c) is it some where in between and that the public should be protected but to what degree.
 
138Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 15:46 		your own judgement on others as to what a "profound change"

I believe that changing people's sexual inclinations by a factor of .5 is, indeed, profound.
 
139DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 15:57 		I believe that changing people's sexual inclinations by a factor of .5 is, indeed, profound.

Well, that's fine, and that's your right to believe that -- which is sort of my point. It is, however, unquestionably a value judgement, which you denied that you were making in the first place.

Would you be comfortable with something that increased the intelligence of someone by a factor of .5 in the water? How about a third fully functional arm which doesn't detract from the other two?

My guess is you'd think the first one was awesome (having made a value judgement that increased intelligence = good) and the second one bad (because having a third arm is weird and would make someone not fit in, even though objectively they would be MORE productive.

boikin's pretty clearly on the right track here. Though, to be fair, you'd have to ask "would you be comfortable with water that made 50% FEWER homosexuals" as well.
 
140biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 16:04 		What did you think of gattaca?
The movie raised essentially the questions you are raising - if we can manipulate who we are, even if that manipulation produces a stereotypical perfection, should we?
 
141Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 16:14 		I never said anything about "comfort."

Your value judgment is the presumption about how I (or anyone else) would feel if there were more homosexuals around as a result of our War on Plaque.

Might as well ask if the change was one of race.

The point isn't about how any of us value gayness. It is about we value choice.
 
142DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 16:28 		Well, that's the whole damn point. You probably feel differently than I do. Your alternatives are:

1. We agree to decide democratically, in which case some of us have a judgement made for them that they disagree with, or

2. We find a way to all decide individually.

And yes, obviously, that's difficult to do with things like water supplies (but there are clearly ways to allow people to make those choices in smaller, possibly more homogeneous groups, to minimize the likelihood of that happening).

The mere fact that you HAVE a public water utility automatically implies that you're okay with taking that choice away from a number of people. But that's really not what we are discussing here (it may be what you're discussing, but it's a totally separate and irrelevant issue to boikin's question).

So, GIVEN that we have a public water utility making choices for other people, how should they decide? By definition, it's either "more people become homosexual" or "more people die as a result of disease".
 
143DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 17:39 		(And, in case it wasn't obvious, I'd be saying the exact same thing if you thought that homosexuality was cool like getting X-ray vision and wanted everyone to have it. Just wanted to get that in before you again accuse me of accusing you of bias, or something.)
 
144Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Jul 20, 2011, 10:43 		Her life practically writes its own oppo ads. Apparently Bachmann's only professional job as an attorney before entering politics involved collecting taxes for the federal government.
 
145Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 04:39 		Bachmann puts her finger on why T-paw is fading while she is surging
Today Bachmann fired back. “Executive experience is not an asset if it simply means bigger and more intrusive government,” she said in a statement. “Governor Pawlenty said in 2006, ‘The era of small government is over… the government has to be more proactive and more aggressive.’ That’s the same philosophy that, under President Obama, has brought us record deficits, massive unemployment, and an unconstitutional health care plan,” Bachmann added.

Bachmann criticized Pawlenty for “praising” the individual health care mandate and TARP, supporting cap-and-trade, and “leaving a multi-billion-dollar budget mess in Minnesota.” [that an actual tea party governor is now fixing - B]

- National Review Online
I never did see anything remotely appealing about this guy but I was not aware of the huge negatives that make him anathema to the Tea Party. And to think they tried foist the notion that he was the Tea Party alternative to Mitt Romney.
 
146Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 04:43 		You can put the nail in the coffin of his campaign after that paragraph. She swatted him out of the sky like a gnat with one stroke.
 
147blackjackis21
      ID: 336252510
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 11:25 		Re: 145 - Forgive my non-lurking, but, "actual tea party governor"?
 
148DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 12:30 		You're forgiven for non-lurking!

Your post, however, requires a great deal of elaboration. (Translation: "huh?")
 
149Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 13:03 		blackjackis21

The current governor of Minnesota is running the state according to responsible small government tea party principles. Unlike the putative tea party candidate and former governor Tim Pawlenty.
 
150sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 14:01 		Bachmann IS a gnat. Her time on center stage, will soon be over. EVEN, if the Rep party should be STUPID enough to nominate her. Shge can not win the national election. She, like Palin, will ultimately go down as clowns in a circus ring. A ring, we call the Republican Party of the early 21st century.
 
151Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 14:33 		At least they'd go down swinging, unlike Mr. Era of small government is over, Pawlenty or Obamneycare Romney.
 
152slug
      ID: 446482513
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 14:48 		I've lived in MN for a little over 3 years. For a little perspective, I'm not a libertarian, but it is the party that most closely matches my views. I don't see the correlation between "responsible small government tea party principles" and Gov. Dayton's campaign statements or governing decisions. In fact, they seem quite at odds with each other. Can anyone provide an example to support Boldwin's viewpoint?

Much like blackjackis21, my apologies for stepping outside of my normal lurking role.
 
153blackjackis21
      ID: 336252510
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 14:51 		Boldwin - I'm not sure who would be more offended by your assertion that Dayton is an actual tea party governor, Dayton or the Tea Party (or Pawlenty or Bachmann, for that matter). Agree to disagree, I guess.
 
154Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 15:12 		I don't know him as well as they do, but I know he successfully put his foot down against government spending at great political risk to himself. That is the core principle of the Tea Party.
 
155Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 15:15 		Really, you lurkers? Does the fact that he was willing to shut down his government if necessary in order to secure lower spending remind you of anyone else on the national scene?
 
156blackjackis21
      ID: 336252510
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 15:21 		You really don't know Dayton, do you?

Minnesota Shutdown
 
157slug
      ID: 446482513
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 15:33 		Boldwin, you must be confusing Gov. Dayton with someone else. Although, he did do something at great political risk to himself, he backed off of the foundation of his platform, "raising taxes on the wealthiest 10% of people in the state"
 
158sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 16:10 		the link in 156, sounds ominously similar to what is happewning in Washington. EXCEPT, the Presidents proposal s not 4:1 revenue increase over spending cuts. It IS 5:1 spending cuts over revenue increase, and the Republicans (whose own study supported this level), said NO.
 
159Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 16:28 		Yeah, you don't expect to find a republican governor on the 'Eat The Rich' side of a government spending showdown. Lol.

My bad. I guess that's why the Minn shutdown never became a cause celebre here and in the national media and Wisconsin did.




 
160Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 16:29 		Does Minn have a balanced budget requirement in law?
 
161slug
      ID: 446482513
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 16:37 		Yes. Although I have a hard time saying that borrowing money from the educational system and from tobacco settlements (as MN did for this budget) is really balancing the budget.
 
162Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 16:39 		T-Paw "balanced" the budget but, like many outgoing govs, used accounting tricks and one-offs to make it happen.

Minnesota's balanced budget requirement is a little complicated, but this might shed some light on what they have to go through.
 
163slug
      ID: 446482513
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 16:46 		Try your hand at balancing the MN budget. I think this came out prior to the past election. So you can check out a summary of budgets that were already proposed.
MN Budget
 
164DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 18:08 		This was fun, should have printed off.

Ended up with a $4 million surplus, whee! Roughly 60% spending cuts and 40% tax increases.
 
165Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 11:38 		Michele Bachmann leaves Iowa state fair early after teenager raises husband's clinic

She said she was going to shake hands but left the makeshift stage quickly when 17-year-old civil rights advocate Gabe Aderhold of Edina, Minn., loudly questioned her husband Marcus about his counseling techniques to "pray the gay away."

a teenager. someone running for president can't even handle a teenager questioning her?!!? oy.
 
166Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 13:28 		Maybe she needed to get her crazy eyes.

Or, maybe she has no respect for reporters.

Living in the Tea Party cocoon will do that, I think.
 
167sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 19:42 		I dunno, but strikes me that as a condidate for national office; pushing/shoving national news reporters and ignoring their questions,...is probbaly NOT a very good campaign strategy.
 
168Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Tue, Aug 16, 2011, 16:40 		Bachmann wishes Elvis happy birthday on death date

not an Onion headline and not a big deal. just another funny gaffe from this year's Sarah Palin....
 
169DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Thu, Aug 18, 2011, 16:39 		Not a Doctor (and other lies)
 
170Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Aug 19, 2011, 12:40 		Whatever you do, don't let those undead countries bite you!
 
171Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Aug 19, 2011, 16:17 		Tell it to the Georgians. And Putin. He still hasn't gotten the memo.
 
172sarge33rd
      ID: 37571915
      Fri, Aug 19, 2011, 17:00 		B...still trying valiantly to defend the indefensible eh?

FTR, thats Russia..NOT the Soviet UNION. The Warsaw Pact doesnt exist anymore either.
 
173DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Fri, Aug 19, 2011, 18:10 		You know who's far worse?

The Prussians. You can never trust those damn Prussians.

(Almost went with Mesopotamians here -- help me out, dunno if I made a mistake.)
 
174sarge33rd
      ID: 547591918
      Fri, Aug 19, 2011, 19:59 		Spartans. With Greece in trouble, you just know THOSE militant bstrds are gearing up.
 
175Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 11:09 		"Just kidding" when I called the hurricane a "wakeup call from god."

She's just a pair of balls from being Pat Robertson, people.
 
176sarge33rd
      ID: 497422816
      Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 13:48 		Loved this comment:

"Ummm, so God wants to communicate that we should spend less by creating natural disasters that cause us to spend more? Please explain, Shelly, because whether you're serious or joking, it makes no sense either way."

which when coupled with this one,

"So her PR convinced her that saying that she was joking about a natural disaster that caused some deaths was somehow better than saying it was a sign from God? Hmmm Ed Rollins needs to up his game!"

really seems to say all that needs to be said, to put an end to her.
 
177Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 14:34 		Yeah, like it didn't strike anyone odd here that an earthquake and a hurricane hit DC within one week and you and your friends never even thot of one joke along those lines. Puhleeze. Manufactured outrage much? You can wish there was something to stir up against her here but really you got nothing.

Not a thing.
 
178Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 14:35 		Manufactured outrage much?

Heh. Yeah, pot, meet your black friend kettle.
 
180Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 14:51 		boikin will have to speak for himself. I've received nothing from him.

The moment you start calling non-outrage "manufactured outrage" will be about a year since you decided to stop contributing to these boards positively. Who, exactly, is "outraged?"

Most people on the left are laughing at Bachmann, not "outraged" at her stupid comments.
 
181sarge33rd
      ID: 497422816
      Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 15:12 		and to answer your question B..no. I never thought of a single joke one time, dealing with those 20-odd dead people.

puh-lease indeed.
 
182Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 15:16 		That was a perfectly reasonable comment about a point that makes any thinking person go 'hmmmm'.

It's not crazy.

It's not insensitive.

It isn't going to negatively impact her campaign at all.

So tell me wtf Sarge brought it up for if it wasn't to manufacture a little phony outrage?
 
183sarge33rd
      ID: 497422816
      Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 15:24 		(A) I didnt bring it up..PD did
(B) MY point, was that she cant claim righteousness in making the comment in the first place, and then claim immunity cause it was a joke. So joking about dead people and natural tragedy, is a trait/quality in a national leader you would defend????????????
 
184Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 15:38 		Most people on the left are laughing at Bachmann, not "outraged" at her stupid comments. - PD

So joking about dead people and natural tragedy... - Sarge

There you go, PD. He really is gonna pretend he's outraged to the last.

You have to be practically brain dead if it doesn't strike you noteworthy that a hurricane and an earthquake struck DC within one week. I would hold it against her if she didn't mention it.
 
185Canadian Hack
      ID: 164132618
      Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 15:46 		What she mentioned was not the fact that there was an earthquake and shortly after that a hurricane. She decided it was a sign from the care bears of their discontent or some other similar imaginary character that sane grown ups really should know doesn't exist and doesn't run weather events on their whim.

It is very crazy.
 
186sarge33rd
      ID: 497422816
      Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 15:52 		Boldwin? Did God not promise to never again flood the Earth as punishment? So either her "faith" is manufactured for convenience sake, or she doesnt understand the Bible anymore than a 2 yr old understands War and Peace, OR...she's a phoney biatch prancing for votes.


Take your pick. And while you're at it, which one of those would fit you?
 
187Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 16:18 		#185: Her crazy isn't in mentioning God. It is in joking that God sent some natural disasters near DC to wake up the country about overspending.

Ironically, now governments will have to spend more money in order to help people during the recovery. Unless Cantor gets his way, in which case disaster spending will be offset, dollar for dollar, with discretionary spending cuts.

Wonder how his state of Virginia feels about that?
 
188sarge33rd
      ID: 497422816
      Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 17:54 		Give Cantor what he wants. For every dollar spent on disaster relief, cut discretionary spending in VA by an equal amount.
 
189Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 18:03 		Sarge

A hurricane is not a flood.
 
190Canadian Hack
      ID: 164132618
      Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 18:14 		Wow Baldwin do you equivocate much? I guess you have to when your world view is as far into fantasy as yours is.
 
191sarge33rd
      ID: 497422816
      Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 18:15 		189...tell that to the people of New Orleans
 
192Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 18:19 		Quite obviously the Noachian covenant was not a promise there would never again be a flood. It was a promise that he would never bring a global deluge again.
 
193sarge33rd
      ID: 497422816
      Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 19:05 		well which is it B? Either a hurricane is not a flood, as you first claimed, or it is, and if Bachmanns assertion is correct, then the covenant was broken as a flood was used to punish man.

So which is it? Was Bachmann wrong, were you wrong, or has the covenant been broken?
 
194Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 20:16 		Haven't noticed any global deluges lately and when it starts to rain I have every confidence it isn't going to be a global deluge today either.
 
195Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 20:32 		You have to be practically brain dead if it doesn't strike you noteworthy that a hurricane and an earthquake struck DC within one week. I would hold it against her if she didn't mention it.

um, of course it's noteworthy. in fact, it's even newsworthy. hence, why many people have discussed it, and why it's been all over the news.

but what it WASN'T, was God's wrath coming down on Washington DC. Considering the source, it's hard to accept as a joke.

and Baldwin - i noticed that until Sarge mentioned Noah and all that, you didn't have one single comment about Bachmann's God comment. did you conceivably miss that part, and that being why she's getting some ridicule?
 
196sarge33rd
      ID: 497422816
      Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 20:41 		194...then it wasnt Gods wrath, and Bachmann was just plain wrong.

Any reason you cant admit/wont that?
 
197sarge33rd
      ID: 497422816
      Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 20:42 		obviously should read....cant/wont admit that....
 
198Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 20:52 		Did I miss something? To my knowledge, neither the quake, nor the hurricane did much damage to Washington, DC, with the possible exception of the Washington Monument(God hates freemasons?).

The thought that It isn't going to negatively impact her campaign at all is ludicrous. Any person considering Bachmann that is now looking at their flooded home in numerous states probably doesn't appreciate her making jokes about their dilema, much less being told that God is punishing them, ha ha.

God must really hate Japan and Joplin, Missouri, not to mention the million people currently starving in the Horn of Africa.

 
199Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 21:19 		A) I do not presume to know every time God is or isn't involved in a phenomenon, weather or otherwise.

B) I don't think Bachmann was presuming to have that entirely nailed down either. I think she was joking, with the understanding that we often joke about things because we are afraid there is a serious uncomfortable underlying truth involved.

C) In the 'last days' God is 'shaking the nations'.

"I will rock all the nations and the desirable things [people - B] of all the nations will come in." - Haggai 2:7

[By the same token] I will never assume he isn't behind a literal or figurative earthquake either.
 
200sarge33rd
      ID: 497422816
      Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 21:23 		You should take your act on the road B. See how well it goes over in New Orleans, Japan, Thailand. Bet you'd have been a BIG hit in Jakarta back in the day.
 
201Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 21:41 		I think she was joking

I don't. When you have to explain, after the fact, that you were joking, it's only because your handlers tactfully explained that you just made a major fool of yourself.

She's now in a fight with Perry to prove which is God's favorite representative. That plays to a really narrow audience, even among the 70% or so Americans who identify as Christians. But no one expects you to understand that, or even contemplate it.
 
202Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 21:52 		it's only because your handlers tactfully explained that you just made a major fool of yourself.

Yeah, ridiculous wishful thinking. This is nothing more than desperate democrats in permanent 'gotcha' mode, projecting your own animus onto her handlers, independents you fantasize have been turned off by her, internecine debates you imagine republicans ripping each other to shreds...none of which are true.

Every person who looks sideways at Washington has said or thot the exact same things over the last week's events and half of everyone else as well.

And no one who counts is upset about it.
 
203Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 21:57 		Yeah, ridiculous wishful thinking.
and
independents you fantasize have been turned off by her,

there is no better example of wishful thinking than the belief that independents aren't being, and haven't already been, turned off by her.
 
204Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 22:15 		Oooo, we can't afford to lose a one. As if it were possible to say a word or take a single position without losing some independent somewhere.
 
205Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 22:58 		internecine debates you imagine republicans ripping each other to shreds...none of which are true.

I would venture to say I interact with more Republicans in a week than you do in a month. Granted, almost 100% of these are Mormons with a deep committment to Mitt Romney, but it still gives me an insight beyond your "wishful thinking" description.

Now, I didn't say anything about republicans ripping each other to shreds;independents you fantasize have been turned off by her, so that's a product of your imagination. I said Bachmann and Perry are fighting hard for the same conservative Christian vote, which plays well in the South and Midwest, not so much the West and Northeast. Perry has already passed her in the national polls, and her trying to turn a national disaster into a political issue will only hasten her demise.

 
206Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Aug 29, 2011, 22:58 		Oooo, we can't afford to lose a one.

That's true. Of course, the more people hear about the Tea Party, the less they like them. They are like Palin that way.

Neither party can win the Presidency by appealing only to its core constituents.
 
207Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 00:11 		I apparently erred when I omitted Bachmann from the 'flavor of the month' list. I can't get over the fact that Perry is the current champion of the right.

I understand why the party with such an early-commitment-prone base would glom on to Cain the way they did even though everyone with half a brain knew he'd be an afterthought by autumn.

But Rick Perry?

Anyway, I tend to believe she was joking when she said the recent natural phenomena was a divine message to American politicians. But I know that she wasn't joking in the same speech in Miami today when asked about her pro-drilling policy in the Everglades and she responded that we should put to use "this wonderful treasure trove of energy that God has given to us in this country."

Maybe some disagree but I find the notion that God blessed the USA with an abundance of natural resources every bit as absurd (if not even moreso) than the idea that he communicates with our politicians through natural disasters.
 
208sarge33rd
      ID: 77382923
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 00:38 		Jay Leno, can make jokes about natural disasters. Conan O'brien, can make jokes about national disasters. Even Jimmy Kimmel, can make jokes about national disasters, But candidates for the Presidency? Not so much.
 
209Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 01:43 		Personally if she was a candidate I otherwise supported, a joke like that would irk me but wouldn't be a reason to change my mind.
 
210sarge33rd
      ID: 77382923
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 01:52 		Understood Mith. But McCains naming of Palin, and the lack of judgement that act showed, was sufficient to cease my considering him in 2008. Same would hold true for me today. Such an overt lack of judgement...would turn me away.
 
211Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 02:01 		Maybe some disagree but I find the notion that God blessed the USA with an abundance of natural resources every bit as absurd (if not even moreso) than...

The funny thing is that we pretty much agree. I don't think God is America-centric much. A very substantial percentage of America which takes God less seriously than I do disagree and mean it when they say 'God Bless The USA'. So many that even Obama feels compelled to mouth the words.

...the idea that he communicates with our politicians through natural disasters.

Tell it to Soddom and Gomorrah.
 
212Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 03:25 		That wasn't communication so much as punishment.

Surely you aren't of the belief that God is angry with the government for overspending? Angry enough to kill?
 
213Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 03:26 		I'd just add that it seems just as likely, or even more so, that God would be angry that the Tea Party refuses to help people more.
 
214Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 10:23 		I think the USA is by no means alone in overturning godly morality with Satan's anti-morality.

The government is irredeemable, I don't think he is trying to steer it, but there are good people that can and will be woken out of their stupor. Earthquakes are a predicted feature of the last days. For whatever reason.
 
215Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 10:27 		They are also predictors of religious wackos, elbowing each other for their 15 minutes.

I believe Jesus had some things to say about such people too. Ironically enough.

[As an aside, I think it is interesting, theologically, that evangelicals pray publicly to Jesus almost exclusively. But large nature events are described as being from "God" rather than Jesus. There's a longish blog post to come about my musings on the topic and what it means, personally and politically, for the evangelicals. Not on this site, of course.]
 
216Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 10:39 		It means they are more comfortable with baby Jesus in a manger than with the resurrected Jesus returning on a white horse with a long sword.
 
217Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 10:41 		It also means they have no idea what the word mediator means.

And no relationship with the God Jesus was praying to.
 
218Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 10:49 		It might also mean that they are more comfortable with Jesus with a sword than God.

Many evangelicals aren't altogether interested in a baby Jesus. Or a social justice Jesus. Or a real all-loving God, for that matter. It gets in the way of their politics.
 
219Razor
      ID: 33520166
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 11:52 		This sort of religious talk is surprisingly on topic for the Bachmann thread.
 
220sarge33rd
      ID: 77382923
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 12:22 		Bachmann ad Perry both IMHO. Each is deliberately trying to "out Christian" the other. In doing so, each is by definition, decidedly NOT Christian.
 
221Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 12:51 		Tell it to Soddom and Gomorrah

Well did that New Covenant thing happen or not?
 
222Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 12:57 		Of course it did. For starters, what do you imagine the New Covenant is?
 
223Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 13:29 		Well its my understanding that the reason we dont get a burning bush every week on FNC is that the Big Guy no longer rules this third speck of dust from a bigger flaming speck of dust as His Kingdom. Its what I though we were supposed to attribute all the big differences between OT and NT to. Including all the smiting and whatnot.

But I will admit that I'm lost on some of the logic involved. Most specifically why such a convoluted thing as sending in his kid to get whacked was necessary to usher in this new covenant, which was necessary in to save us from sin, which we're born with and commit because of the imperfection He chose to create in us. I'd think a truly omnipototent entity is not bound by any laws of logic, physics or time, especially since He must have written them all anyway. So why not just fix it by wiggling his omnipresent nose and be done with it?

But I'm getting side tracked. Michele Bachman. Kooky.
 
224Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 15:28 		I'd think a truly omnipototent entity is not bound by any laws

That's just it. In order for there to be justice in the universe even he has to be just. In other words, he cannot arbitrarily ignore his own principles. He had to have a legal framework for absolving guilty people.
 
225Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 15:30 		imperfection He chose to create in us

Bzzzzt. Imperfection was brought in by Adam's bad choice.
 
226Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 15:36 		the Big Guy no longer rules this third speck of dust from a bigger flaming speck of dust as His Kingdom

Tho he has the right to rule...a detour was necessary. It had to be shown by satan's failure, that he was wrong in his challenge to God's sovereignty. Thus satan was given enuff rope to hang himself, and man was given an object lesson in why God's way was best. [seeing satan's failure first hand]
 
227Canadian Hack
      ID: 164132618
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 15:40 		There goes Baldwin acting like he is an expert in the imaginary.

The last several posts here show he is not a sane grown up who knows the difference between fact and fiction.
 
228sarge33rd
      ID: 77382923
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 15:44 		Adam's? Was it not Eve the bible says plucked the fruit from the forbidden tree?
 
229Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 15:53 		Adam married wrong, sarge.

:)
 
230Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 16:15 		The covenants new and old were the legal agreement between God and those people who want to be his people.

The old covenant was just a shadow of the new covenant. It's purpose was to demonstrate that a perfect sacrifice and a better motivation than mere legalism would be necessary to reconcile man to God.

Basically the New Covenant is where people obey the principles embeded in the 3000+ laws of the Old Law Covenant...because they want to, not because they are compelled to...and where the people have a legally adequate sacrifice to buy their freedom from the penalty for sin.
 
231DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 16:27 		Once again, the Onion is right on top of the story
 
232sarge33rd
      ID: 77382923
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 17:07 		ROFLMFAO The Onion...right on time, right on the mark. (Are we SURE, this is satire?...just sayin)
 
233Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 18:11 		Imperfection was brought in by Adam's bad choice.

Somehow the answers always just create more questions. If Adam and Eve were susceptible to temptation, they clearly were not perfect. If He is omnipotent, He intentionally made us that way. Just as He chooses to allow Satan to manipulate us.

So is calling Him omnipotent giving Him too much credit?
 
234Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 18:17 		'Susceptible to temptation' = freewill.
 
235Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 18:20 		if He is omnipotent, He intentionally made us that way.

Exactly.

Robots do make for a perfect satisfying family. People with freewill who stick together out of love and loyalty, do.
 
236Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 18:28 		Logical enough. But if His satisfaction is bound to such logic...

But this is a sub-tangent. Back to the earlier point, if the New Covenant includes our responsibility to make the right choices without being divinely compelled to do so, then a deadly hurricane as a communication device to American politicians doesn't quite mesh.
 
237Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 18:32 		Maybe you should try looking at it from a different perspective.

When Jesus was on the earth he was able to calm the storm. Ergo in God's Kingdom we won't have to worry about hurricanes.

Since satan is temporarily the ruler of this world, why doesn't he care enuff to calm the storm?
 
238Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 18:38 		Satan is, in no way, the "ruler" of this world.

You are confusing "presence" with "ruling." A confusion which will get you into theological mistakes no matter what church you belong to.
 
239Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 18:45 		Satan is, in no way, the "ruler" of this world. - PD

'The ruler of this world is coming. And he has no hold over me.' - Jesus quoted in John 14:30.

Know your Bible.

 
240Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 18:56 		See also...
Eph 6:12
Matt 4:1-11
1 John 5:19
2 Cor 4:4
 
241Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 19:09 		see also: Joel 05:02:02
 
242sarge33rd
      ID: 77382923
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 19:27 		If one accepts that all things are part of Gods plan, then it follows that God allows Satan to do things. Just as a wife might allow her hubby to THINK he is in charge, we all know she is. Gods allowing Satan to THINK he is in charge, doesnt mean that he IS in charge. Ergo, Satan isnt ruling anything.
 
243soxzeitgeist
      ID: 6783019
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 20:08 		All this "deadly hurricane as a sign of God's displeasure and wrath" talk convieniently ignores the fact that all Irene did to the Cape was push some sweet head high swells in for a couple of epic late summer surf sessions.

I call that a just and loving Creator.

Oh, and Bachmann's a loon.
 
244Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 20:09 		Sox!

#239: 'The ruler of this world is coming. And he has no hold over me.'

"Satan is, in no way, the "ruler" of this world"

Know your verb tenses.
 
245sarge33rd
      ID: 77382923
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 20:16 		hey sox!!
 
246Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 20:26 		PD

Read all those verses. It isn't even debatable. When satan offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth if Jesus would 'just' would do an act of worship to him, satan truly had those kingdoms to offer because he was and is...the ruler of this failed and doomed system of things of his mismanagement.
 
247soxzeitgeist
      ID: 6783019
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 20:52 		Hello guys.

Regular lurker, sometime contributor, noticing that this thread is now spinning wildly out of control. Amusing and in many ways apropos, but deciededly not a discussion about Ms. Bachmann.

Personally, I doubt very much she even can whip the base into a heavy enough froth to win the nomination, and it would be disastrous for the GOP if she did. Make no mistake about it, she cannot pull enough of the "I" vote to even make it interesting, and you're only fooling yourself if you assert otherwise. She is at odd with the vast majority of the body politic with her outlandish (and dangerous views) on many issues.

Science, history, and economics are not things that can be dismissed simply because they don't fit with your ideology, yet she has little problem ignoring (or changing facts) that don't jibe with her theology. Her inflammatory rhetoric on gays and lesbians ("part of Satan") aside, she believes we should abolish Energy, Commerce and Education as Cabinet level Departments.

She was anti-TARP, which many economists believe helped save the American economy from a total meltdown (hypocritically, she applied for funds as well). She'd can't seem to go a news cycle without a gaffe, mis-statement or outright lie coming from her mouth, and her total lack of competence and experience coupled with her minimal leadership skills make me wonder: who, exactly sees her as Presidential timbre (er?).
 
248Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 20:57 		Right here.
 
249sarge33rd
      ID: 77382923
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 20:58 		ask, and ye shall receive.
 
250Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 21:16 		#246: Taking Satan at face value is about the silliest thing one can do as a christian. Satan is the Great Liar. I believe John calls him the Father of Lies.

This is God's world. Always has been. He would never have called the Jews his people if they were ruled by Satan in this world, which was created by God. God allows Satan to operate in this world--that's certainly true. But he only has power over unbelievers.

I realize that your religion teaches you otherwise. But Jesus is said to have all power over heaven and earth, given to him by God. And that can't be true if you believe Satan to be ruler over earth.

According to many parts of the Bible (Daniel, for instance) God rules the Kingdom of Men. And his love simply couldn't operate in an area ruled by Satan (which is why Hell exists--a place cut off from God's love).
 
251Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 21:49 		Just read scriptures. That is the exact term Jesus used for him.

Yes of course Jesus' father, Jehovah is God almighty, and he owns it all.

Yes of course Jesus' followers are citizens of God's Kingdom and are 'no part of this world'. That is because this world, this governmental arrangement, this system of things is not God's Kingdom. He is not responsible for the mismanagement we see all around us.

Jehovah could not answer satan's challenge by simply killing him. Might doesn't make right.

Adam chose to join satan in rebellion. That rebellion was allowed to continue for a short period of time by Jehovah's measure of time. So we are suffering under that rebellion run by satan.

Oh, and Jehovah did not create a burning sadist's paradise for satan to rule as you would have us believe.
 
252Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 22:33 		But Jesus is said to have all power over heaven and earth, given to him by God. And that can't be true if you believe Satan to be ruler over earth. - PD

The investing of power in Jesus is a very interesting subject.

Follow it's timeline.

God's symbolic throne on the earth, the 'Throne of David', was put on hold for quite a while.

Ezekiel 21:27 describes what happened to it. "A ruin, a ruin, a ruin I shall make it, as for this also, it will certainly become no one's until he comes who has the legal right, and I must give it to him."

So where was God's rulership on earth during that period when the nation of Judah with it's 'Throne of David' was destroyed? It was put on hold. It was described as a giant tree which was cut down and banded so it would be in stasis until a later time.

What followed was called in the Bible, 'The Time of the Gentiles'.

Jesus has been ruling his followers since pentecost but he certainly hasn't been ruling the politics of this world.

Acts 2:34,35 says 'Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet'.

Until then however the situation is described in Hebrews 2:8 "now tho we do not yet see all things in subjection to him".

Heb 10:12,13 "This man offered one sacrifice...and sat down at the right hand of God, from then on awaiting until his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet".

So you need to understand the timeline of the re-establishment of the 'Throne of David' on the earth with Jesus sitting on it of course, this time over all the earth.

You also need to understand why satan was allowed a brief time to be proven a liar, to have his methods turn out disasterously and to vindicate God's name which satan dragged thru the mud.
 
253Seattle Zen
      Leader
      ID: 055343019
      Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 00:19 		Whoa! a soxzeitgeist sighting!

Hey, you are supposed to post that old Baldwin photo you have on your harddrive!
 
254Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 05:30 		Yeah, that was a fun surprise. Welcome back Sox.
 
255soxzeitgeist
      ID: 187353118
      Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 19:35 		If that photo can be lifted from my old macbook (at my folks), it'll go up immediately, if not sooner!

B, since you self identified as a Bachmann vote, can you 'splain why? My take is that she is a former state senator and currently a congresswoman who can point to no legislation she's sponsored that has benefited anyone except her own political allies/agenda. She has zero foreign policy experience, knows nothing of national defense, has no immigration policy, no economic, financial or job-creation experience. She derides big federal government, but takes TARP money and personally benefited from grants to her husbands business and family farm. As far as I can tell, her trump card a smug certainty that she knows God and understands him better than me.
 
256sarge33rd
      ID: 77382923
      Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 19:41 		And while she professes to favor "smaller, less government", the only paycheck she has ever drawn since graduating, was a governmental one.
 
257Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 20:51 		Sox

She is the only genuine Tea Party candidate in the top tier. I like West and don't mind Cain.
 
258Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 20:55 		And there is no contradiction in accepting your SS check while pointing out that it is a giant ponzi scheme we'll all regret sooner or later. Why you guys think that sort of thing is hypocritical eludes me. If Robbinhood offers you some of your money back, you take it. And it doesn't make you one of his merry men.
 
259sarge33rd
      ID: 77382923
      Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 21:05 		She worked for the IRS, worked as a State Rep and as a Federal Rep. Only paycheck she has ever gotten, came from the same government she claims is "too big".

PD already took your backside to school for using the term ponzi-schewme re SS. Its a falsehood and you know it. Knock it off and quit lying. God doesnt much appreciate, a liar.

Heres an idea how she can make govt smaller...she should get a private sector job.
 
260Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 21:14 		She is the only genuine Tea Party candidate in the top tier.

Of course, Ron Paul was genuine Tea Party before it was fashionable, and remains the only candidate who endorses necessary spending cuts in defense and foreign involvement.

And Paul is every bit as top tier as Bachmann.
 
261Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 21:51 		Sarge

SS is a classic ponzi scheme. Unsustainable. Early adopters taking advantage of late entrants who will never get paid. It is exactly and nothing less than a ponzi scheme.

PV

Paul is so genuinely libertarian he scares Tea Partiers. No one knows just how literally he would follow the libertarian program. I guess as president he couldn't really go too far. And I'd give up a month's pay just to see what he'd do to the Fed...but I just don't see it happening.
 
262sarge33rd
      ID: 77382923
      Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 22:39 		No B, it is not a ponzi scheme.

A) WWII was not foreseen when SS was initiated. Thus the "baby boom" was not foreseeable.
B) If rep would yield on waving the FICA c ap, the immediate solvency issue would be solved.
C) If Rep would yield on initiating a means test, the long term solvency issue would be solved.

Sole those issue, and you are NOTHING remotely resembling, in any way, a ponzi scheme. NOW QUIT DELIBERATELY LYING.
 
263Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 22:56 		I am 100% convinced it is an unsustainable ponzi scheme that will crash or be gutted beyond recognition within a decade.
 
264DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 23:03 		You're also 100% convinced about a bunch of other things that you're blatantly and laughingly wrong about in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, so I fail to see why this time it should be any different.
 
265sarge33rd
      ID: 77382923
      Wed, Aug 31, 2011, 23:13 		What you are "100% convinced" of, is irrelevant. The term "ponzi scheme" is already defined, and SS does NOT fit that definition.

Grow up and accept that the world does not revolve around you and your opinion(s). You egotistical displays, are not likely to be well thought of by either the God I know, or the one you claim to.
 
266soxzeitgeist
      ID: 7824116
      Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 17:24 		re: 257

I was hoping for more than a one line, off the cuff response. What, specifically, makes her an attractive candidate to you, B? What are her positions on major policy issues? Is there anything that I should know besides the fact that she is the most dogmatic of all the GOP hopefuls? I'm being serious here, and trying to understand what makes her so attractive to you besides the coded religious references.
 
267Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 17:28 		I am 100% convinced it is an unsustainable ponzi scheme that will crash or be gutted beyond recognition within a decade.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, it seems. Even the SSA itself says that, with no changes, the Trust fund has 25 more years of life.
 
268Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 17:28 		I am 100% convinced it is an unsustainable ponzi scheme that will crash or be gutted beyond recognition within a decade.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, it seems. Even the SSA itself says that, with no changes, the Trust fund has 25 more years of life.
 
269Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 21:35 		Sox

In your heart of hearts how many of those candidates up there claiming to be fiscally responsible and willing to cap spending do you think are just posing and how many mean it with every fiber of their being?

How many would really twist the Fed's arm behind it's back and twist hard?

How many would never do a QE4 and QE5 and QE6?

How many aren't over-awed by the same expert Bernanke's of the world who rode us down in the first place? And wouldn't end up with the same financial advisors as Obama is using?

How many there wouldn't accept a Soros puppet string campaign contribution? [I'm not perfectly sure even she gets the importance of this one]

How many there aren't gonna put the Tea Party at arms' length once they get the nomination?

How many there viscerally hate tax increases as much as I do?

What did the others there do to help found the Tea Party? [In her case founding the House Tea Party caucus]

How many are decidedly and openly skeptical of the AGW hoax?

How many there have taken substantial steps to maintain traditional marriage in it's primary place in the culture?

How many there were brave enuff to openly point out Obama's anti-americanism?

How many there will veto anything Barney Frank does?

Who is reliably anti-cap-n-trade when push comes to shove?

Who is more likely to push until Obama-care is dead, dead and gone with a stake thru it's cold dark evil heart?

Which ones are genuinely anti-abortion?

You name an issue and I love her stance and more importantly her stances aren't just posing to please the base until they can get nominated, flip-flop and stab their base in the back.
 
270Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 21:38 		PD

For starters there is no trust fund. It is long since spent. And I don't trust the rosy scenarios necessary to keep that ponzi scheme afloat. Especially not from this point in the depression.
 
271Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 21:42 		And when I say 'there is no trust fund' I mean receipts are just barely covering expenses with nothing in reserve.

As the baby boom explodes into retirement and the kids who have to carry a lot more old people than the planners ever anticipated, are out of work.
 
272Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 22:05 		Here Forbes explains why SS is a Ponzi Scheme no matter what SS would have you believe.

That's if you don't feel like reading Rick Perry's book which explains why SS is a Ponzi Scheme.

I know, I know, you are too busy trying to convince any republican who will listen to you that Perry is more electable than Bachmann to read his book.
 
273sarge33rd
      ID: 20835110
      Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 22:27 		lmao Rick Perry cant SPEAK and tell the truth. How the hell is he gonna write it?
 
274sarge33rd
      ID: 20835110
      Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 22:28 		Oh and FTR...neither one of them can win vs Obama. You best find yourself a candidate MUCH closer to center. Bachmann/Perry/Palin and the entire ilk, piss of 90% of the country.
 
275Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 22:56 		The numbers really don't lie. No matter what you might think about the SS Trust Fund.
 
276Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 23:00 		Sarge

If that's true then the majority has turned marxist, hope has died and the American experiment is over.

If there's hope that isn't true it does conservatives no good nominating non-conservatives. In the end even if they 'won' they would just end up getting blamed for the outcome of non-conservative policies and that does their cause an even greater disservice.
 
277Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 23:01 		PD

You must love the ending of 'Dumb and Dumber'.

Yup, those IOU's all add up perfectly.
 
278Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 23:37 		Despite the efforts on your side, the United States has never defaulted on its treasury note obligations in its entire history.

If your case about Social Security crashing within ten years rests on the US defaulting on its T-bill payments to the Trust Fund, then you really are a faith-driven political animal, for whom facts and history don't matter.

And I'm guessing that if you voted, you would vote to elect people who would willingly bring that kind of thing about, just so you aren't proven wrong.
 
279sarge33rd
      ID: 20835110
      Thu, Sep 01, 2011, 23:40 		276...hardly B. The far right psuedo christians (who in reality are ALL about themselves) have managed to delude even their own families for the most part.

History shows, GDP and employment grow under Dem Administrations and shrink under republican; yet the right will STILL screech at the top of their lungs what BS that is. However, the numbers are there, 80 years of history are there...they PROVE it.

The right claims "the govt can not spend its way out of a recession/depression", yet that is PRECISELY what we did to get out of the Great Depression.

Facts, are the bane of the right; because they destroy the very foundation upon which you stand. Have fun, when the walls fall in upon you.
 
280Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 02, 2011, 01:47 		That would explain the booming economy after the stimulus then. It's all clear to me now.
 
281soxzeitgeist
      ID: 4851217
      Fri, Sep 02, 2011, 18:52 		Thanks for the response B. While I disagree with your hard right, reactionary philosophy, you at least posed some good questions.

Your first and seventh queries though, are so infuriating. Everyone wants to go to the party, but nobody wants to help clean up. It is simply impossible to get back on track fiscally without some sort of tax increase mated with a drop in spending.

The fear and loathing of the Fed is not something I can address,because I simply don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories floating around about it as you do.

When even Charles Krauthammer calls her "unbelievably irresponsible", it should make you at least scratch your head.

The Tea Party is simply an arm of Koch Industries, so your point about her not being bound to a Soros-like "puppet string campaign", and "founding" anything Tea Party related is lost on me.

She wants to eliminate the EPA, so she loses my vote right there. Clean air and water? Who needs 'em? Prosecuting the worst environmental defenders? Bah! Who needs to be a good steward to the earth?

As far as the other things are concerned, we already know that you're far more socially conservative than the vast majority of America. And while I can respect that, there's no way I would ever want your narrow worldview imposed on myself or my family. I enjoy being able to make choices too much.

And as we get ready for the long weekend, Bachmann would rather you be at work than be enjoying a holiday that celebrates your hard work. She'd like to eliminate the National Labor Relations Board, and has said she "is not married" to the idea of a minimum wage.

So while you enjoy your burgers and some end of summer time with family and friends, it bears mentioning that Ms. Bachmann is about crippling unions, (maybe) abolishing minimum wage, and how the concept of workers rights is a scourge on the poor corporations of America.

Yeah. Tough for me to get behind, especially when I think we should be doing more to help the less well off in this country.
 
282Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 02, 2011, 19:08 		especially when I think we should be doing more to help the less well off in this country.

Exactly why capitalism makes sense having done more to raise the living standards of the poor in society than any other system tried so far.
 
283Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Sep 02, 2011, 19:19 		Exactly. And why democracy has done the same. Let's not subvert one for the other.
 
284Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 02, 2011, 19:21 		So you are willing to stop importing illegal alien Dem voters then?
 
285sarge33rd
      ID: 7822218
      Fri, Sep 02, 2011, 19:24 		soon as you stop beating your wife.
 
286Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Sep 02, 2011, 19:33 		#284: Heh. Making up fables of that sort isn't going to give you any headway with the vast middle of America, in which truth, despite all the efforts of the Right, still holds some sway.

There are no examples of the widespread voting fraud about which you Chicken Little every few months. None. [You are, of course, welcome to make the case that the occasional voter registration fraud is the same thing but you'd get laughed at]. Actual fraudulent voting by "illegal alien Dems voters?" Good luck there--you demonstrate no knowledge of illegal aliens, Dems, or voters.
 
287Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 02, 2011, 20:00 		Yeah, you wouldn't be so desperate to depopulate Mexico if you weren't sure you could get them to vote democrat.
 
288sarge33rd
      ID: 51855219
      Fri, Sep 02, 2011, 20:55 		Most Latinos are pretty staunch conservative Christians B. If the Rep party weren't so busy trying to paint every one of them as a raping homicidal maniac, just maybe the rep party could benefit in votes from its imported slave labor.
 
289sarge33rd
      ID: 51855219
      Fri, Sep 02, 2011, 21:04 		and since B, youj are so quick to condemn Obama based on loose knit acquaintances, I'm curious how you defend the republican Party here:

Racist Roots of Rep Party Immigration Policy

Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, tied much of the Republican Party's anti-immigrant policies to three groups with innocuous sounding names that his organization labels hate groups: the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies and NumbersUSA

Each of these groups originated with the goal of maintaining a "European American majority" in order to preserve what they see as a "European American society," Potok said.

"At the end of the day that is what we're talking about here," he added. "They're interested in protecting a European American majority, meaning white people."

He said that current leaders of FAIR have described past immigration reform laws that ended racial quotas on immigration as a retaliation against "Anglo-Saxon dominance."...

John Tanton, the founder of each of these groups, has been exposed as having corresponded in friendly ways with Holocaust deniers, KKK organizations and leaders, as well as leaders of the "white nationalist world," Potok continued. Tanton's organization has accepted more than $1 million from the Pioneer Fund, which advocated eugenics activities designed to increase the genetic stock of the original white colonists.

And if you think the connections between these organizations and the Republican Party are only tenuous, Potok would ask you to consider Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., newly elected member of the GOP-controlled House and head of his party's Congressional Immigration Caucus. That caucus, despite its bland name, actually advocates mass deportation, striking birthright citizenship from the Constitution, and other punitive measures aimed mainly at Latino immigrants.

 
290Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 02, 2011, 21:36 		Yeah, we would be happy to pay the social services of a fourth of Mexico if not for those people. *roll*
 
291Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Fri, Sep 02, 2011, 23:40 		Baldwin will defend his bigoted and anti-human rights and anti-Christian stance as long as he lives. and he'll do it in a mocking, insensitive, sneering, anti-Christian way.

because that's how he...rolls.
 
292Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Sep 09, 2011, 14:54 		538 takes a close look at Bachmann.

Like Palin, the more people see of her, the less they like her. Even among the GOP.
 
293Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Sep 13, 2011, 21:57 		A flameout, right in front of us.

Wish she could have stuck around longer--I was looking forward to someone turning to her in one of the seven remaining debates and going "What the f*ck are you talking about?"
 
294sarge33rd
      ID: 368201321
      Tue, Sep 13, 2011, 22:20 		well, if she suddenly claimed that SHE got the vaccine at age 11, then we COULD point at her and say AH-HA! It CAN cause mental retardation!
 
295Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Tue, Sep 13, 2011, 22:56 		For those who despair at ever seeing me in doubt, this is one scientific subject on which I am agnostic. I have no problem with her harboring doubts about the safety. Vaccine enthusiasts make it awfully hard to skip them, especially on the kids.

Perry is altogether too quick to put the government ahead of the parents...

...one of the reasons he can get the power elite's money and she can't. And the reason there won't be a real choice in November 2012.
 
296sarge33rd
      ID: 148511322
      Tue, Sep 13, 2011, 23:51 		Can hardly believe I will defend Perry, HOWEVER...he made certain there was an easy opt out proviso FOR the parents.

Given the attitude of todays right-wing, its a damn GOOD thing POLIO, TB et al have already been dealt with.
 
297Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Sep 14, 2011, 01:16 		I have no problem with her harboring doubts about the safety

She wasn't "harboring doubts." She said it caused mental retardation.
 
298Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Wed, Sep 14, 2011, 12:02 		I'll wager she can provide the anecdotal evidence too. Enuff to raise doubts anyway.

I guess I am the only one who raises an eyebrow seeing Malthusians like the Bush Dynasty owning vaccine makers [Bioport in that case]. Too much like russian roulette for my comfort.

The Merck family is pretty Malthusian too. Ctl-F Merck
 
299Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Wed, Sep 14, 2011, 12:48 		Malthusian

notating this as the potential spot where Baldwin comes up with an Alinski-like word to label political enemies.
 
300Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Sep 14, 2011, 12:54 		By their nature anecdotes are not evidence.

I'll wager...

Are you being figurative here, or literal? If the latter, I would absolutely take you up on this, if you are really betting that Bachmann will come up with either actual evidence, or something more substantial than a woman stopped her on the street saying her daugher was retarded as a result of the vaccine.
 
301sarge33rd
      ID: 148511322
      Wed, Sep 14, 2011, 14:22 		remember Josephine the plumber?
 
302Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Wed, Sep 14, 2011, 14:23 		Well actually anecdotes are evidence, it's just that their sample size is too small to be conclusive evidence. They are also red flags. They tell you to look deeper into that direction.

In this particular vaccine's case I'd be far more concerned about becoming sterile than retarded.

Few people are so luddite that they discount vaccination in principle or past examples ot their success. There have just been too many cases of them going wrong. The problem it seems to me is not with the disabled or live viruses but rather with the adjuvants. The vaccine makers seem to feel vaccines are so critical that they can blow off the contraindications of the adjuvants and the known effects can be very very serious at times and still pass muster with the FDA for whatever reason. Vaccine adjuvants in anthrax vaccines I seem to recall was one of the two strongest candidates to explain Gulf War Syndrome. The other being mycoplasm infections.

There is of course floating anxiety towards vaccines of any kind in the background all the time based on rumors. She's not the only one to experience it whatever evidence she had.

You won't find too many government executive orders demanding vaccination. Not among re-elected government executives.
 
303Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Wed, Sep 14, 2011, 14:26 		This one area where the phrase, "Don't worry, what could go wrong?" really doesn't cut it for me.
 
304Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Wed, Sep 14, 2011, 14:29 		look like Baldwin's got his new "sky is falling" paranoia locked and loaded.

pretty soon, we'll have long rambling threads about this topic, alongside those of the "compassion Fascists" and the "death panels" and "Teri Schiavo".
 
305Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Wed, Sep 14, 2011, 14:44 		And don't get me started about floridating our precious bodily fluids.
 
306Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Sep 14, 2011, 14:46 		Well actually anecdotes are evidence, it's just that their sample size is too small to be conclusive evidence.

That makes it non-evidence. It either is or isn't, and if it doesn't rise to the level of offering proof then it isn't, in fact, evidence.

Basic science here, fellas. The actual evidence of that vaccine shows nothing of the sort like the uncorroborated single anecdote. Which one do you weigh more? If you are Michelle Bachmann, the answer is "whichever one my opponent doesn't support."
 
307DWetzel
      ID: 49962710
      Wed, Sep 14, 2011, 15:20 		In the immortal words of Lionel Hutz, "Well, Your Honor. We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence."
 
308Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 00:09 		There isn't much difference between PD shilling for Merck and the guys who enabled the tobacco industry, except PD is doing it for free. There is indeed plenty of evidence of risks involved.
 
309Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 00:14 		Schilling for Merck, am I? Where, exactly? You mean the part where I made fun of Bachmann for making up "evidence?" This is called "schilling for science." I know--it is a foreign concept on the Right, and therefore to be avoided and mocked.

Put up or shut up: Where is the evidence of retardation as a result of taking this vaccine?

Note: I am not talking about evidence of vaccines in general, or other vaccines. Or historical problems with other drugs. Or Merck. Or liberals.

Show me the evidence that this particular vaccine causes mental retardation. Otherwise, stop squirming so we can kill this stupid meme and you can get on to not starting your own blog.
 
310Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 04:38 		I already showed you evidence of it causing infertility in significant enuff numbers to warrant opting out.

AFAIK she going on the basis of one heart wrenching personal anecdote.

"Oh, no big deal then." Huh?
 
311sarge33rd
      ID: 4843154
      Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 05:43 		I already showed you evidence of it causing infertility in significant enuff numbers to warrant opting out.

No you didnt.
 
312sarge33rd
      ID: 4843154
      Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 05:56 		and more to the point, even if you had...that has just a wee little bit less than NOTHING, to do with Bachmanns claim.
 
313Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 05:59 		Sorry Sarge, I didn't mean to imply I could ever sway you. Ever.
 
314sarge33rd
      ID: 4843154
      Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 06:08 		I am far more flexible on my most stubborn days B, than you are on your least stubborn.

All of which, again, has a little less than NOTHING, to do with Bachmanns claim.
 
315Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 06:27 		But for those with an open enuff mind, do a google search for +polysorbate-80 +infertility, an ingredient in Gardasil.

Unless you are happy to end your family line. Some people are ok with the thinning of the herd.
 
316sarge33rd
      ID: 4843154
      Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 06:29 		for the 3rd time..--->WTF does that have to do with Bachmanns claim of mental retardation?
 
317Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 06:49 		About when does it sink in that I think Bachmann has the wrong problem associated with Gardasil? It's hard to keep straight which vaccines cause which problems. She's coming from where I am coming from tho. If you don't trust the government to raise your kids you probably don't want the Merck family anywhere near your bloodstream.
 
318sarge33rd
      ID: 4843154
      Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 07:02 		ahhhh, so now your defense of her baseless allegation/claim; is that she mispoke and was confused. Despite her claim that she was TOLD by a parent, that was the cause of the mental retardation. So, was the parent also confused?
 
319Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 07:08 		And yes, I repeat, I am guessing she went on the basis of one heart-rending anecdote. Shall we accuse her of being a woman sensitive to heart-rending stories? Those women. So emotional. I am also guessing it also stemmed from a lifetime of hearing vaccination horror stories from those of us cynical or curious enuff to collect them.

She's still one of only three candidates who address my concerns. This won't effect her base. It will of course be one more log on the fire for the Borkers. Especially the Misogynist Borkers.
 
320Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 07:11 		So, was the parent also confused?

I'm sure liberals will find her and pile on her grief.
 
321sarge33rd
      ID: 4843154
      Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 07:16 		As you twist, turn and dodge yet again.

You went from "I'm sure she'll provide anecdotal evidence" to "She was confused" to "I'm sure liberals will..."

all in the span of what? 12 or so posts?

Sox called it...no valid reason at this point, to entertain any more of your posts. You've made yourself into a mockery. A well read mockery, but a mockery all the same.
 
322Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 07:33 		Look, here is Bachmann's exact quote on that.
I had a mother last night come up to me here in Tampa after the debate. She told me that her little daughter took that vaccine, that injection, and she suffered from mental retardation thereafter. It can have very dangerous side effects.
1) Do you think that encounter happened? I think that's just an objective fact.

2) Can vaccine's have 'very dangerous side-effects'? I think they can.

3) Can they effect the brain? Retardation sounds more like a birth defect than something you contract IMO, but vaccines are believed to cause similar severe neurological problems, autism being the one most often linked to vaccines. GBS being another quite common concern raised. There are others.

 
323Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 07:43
For all those who've declared the autism-vaccine debate over - a new scientific review begs to differ. It considers a host of peer-reviewed, published theories that show possible connections between vaccines and autism. - CBS NEWS
So what if the mother's child has autism, diagnosed as retardation? How do you think she feels?
 
324Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 07:55 		the sky is falling! the sky is falling!
 
325DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 09:44 		Everyone here is missing the point, which is:

Okay, assuming there are risks ... who gives a flying ****? EVEN IF these vaccines cause the level of mental retardation in the number of cases that they do, then we're STILL vastly, vastly better off than having outbreaks of the diseases that the vaccines prevent in the first place.

God, this crap ain't hard. Could we perhaps explore better vaccines? Sure, that's fine, let's have an intelligent discussion. But if we're talking about no vaccine and a disease that killed 15,000 people per year in the 1920s, or a vaccine that means the same disease has three cases in the US in eight years between 2000 and 2007... well, criminy, it's not a hard decision.
 
326Farn
      Leader
      ID: 451044109
      Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 10:20 		Where's the proof? $10k reward if you have some.
 
327Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 10:23 		What are you doing here? Aren't you missing one vaccine or another?
 
328Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 11:06 		323, Boldwin, this is nothing new. There's been debates about vaccines causing autism for the past decade. In all your reading and scientific research you haven't come across any of this until just now? I find it hard to believe.


People with autism have popped up in some studies. However, there is no evidence of a causal connection between vaccines and autism.

Even that article cites that this is all a theory review and not a factual review. Don't get up in arms about vaccines and autism. Let the scientific community do its job. So far their job has NOT revealed any causal connection.

 
329Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 11:33 		In all your reading and scientific research you haven't come across any of this until just now? I find it hard to believe.

What did I say that led you to believe I just ran across that recently? Of course I was all over that a decade or two ago.

It's my family and I'd appreciate it if I decided how much risk to accept and not 'the collective'.
 
330Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 11:40 		Squirming, squirming. I gave you a chance to prove the mental retardation claim and you have done anything but.

This won't effect her base. I agree. But her base is getting smaller and smaller, driven away by her being swayed by the very thing she took a certain Supreme Court nominee to task on.

 
331Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 11:50 		Explain the contradiction, cause I don't get it.
 
332Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 21:47 		HuffPo detects Fox News Bachmann Blackout in their coverage.
 
333walk
      ID: 348442710
      Fri, Sep 16, 2011, 12:53 		Another article relevant to this conversation:

NYT: Bachmann's Misstatements
 
334sarge33rd
      ID: 178571611
      Fri, Sep 16, 2011, 12:57 		from your link walk:

Mr. Perry’s edict, in February 2007, was never enforced because the Texas Legislature blocked it. He said during the debate that he had made the wrong decision. It may haunt him with conservative voters who resent government’s role in personal health decisions.

Personal health decisions? Unless those decisions have to do with reproduction, in which case the Right wants to dictate those decisions for all. They got to let go of one or the other. Either you want the ability to mandate, or you dont. Which is it?
 
335walk
      ID: 348442710
      Fri, Sep 16, 2011, 13:27 		Yeah, I liked what Perry said during his first debate, when he did not cave. Something around: "I'm against cancer." Good for him. He made the right move, realizing the vaccine would clearly have far greater benefit than detriment (what detriment? This is an example of practical and government intervention where they know that teens will have sex, and that this is the time when the vaccine has the greatest effectiveness). However, he was zinged by Bachmann overdrive herself in the next debate when she accurately pointed out that he got a donation from Merck, the makers of the vaccine. Perry then put his foot in his mouth by saying: "If you think I can be bought for $5000..." It was $30k. And, he also pushed for abstinence-only sex education, making his exec order for the vaccine all the more curious around Merck's campaign donation.

Still, I see Bachmann and Perry as similar in terms of their place on the conservative spectrum.
 
336sarge33rd
      ID: 178571611
      Fri, Sep 16, 2011, 13:43 		Oh I agree entirely. Each, like Palin, is an extremist holding few if any reservations, about trying to change the Constitution to reflect their personal views as opposed to maintaining a form of govt.
 
337Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 16, 2011, 15:22 		#334 is the worst false dichotomy I've ever seen.

Either let us get away with murder or let us run your life.
 
338DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Fri, Sep 16, 2011, 16:08 		Welcome to Boldwinia, where condoms = murder.
 
339sarge33rd
      ID: 178571611
      Fri, Sep 16, 2011, 16:15 		<--mildly curious, how many of my posts, or Trees or DWs...we can entice B into calling "worst ever"?
 
340sarge33rd
      ID: 178571611
      Fri, Sep 16, 2011, 16:16 		oh and B? For about the 10,000th time? MURDER, is a legal term which has been defined. Abortion, is not murder.
 
341Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Fri, Sep 16, 2011, 17:11 		Baldwin makes his singing debut.

 
342Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 16, 2011, 18:13 		We've dismissed those phony counter-arguments countless times. A baby is a complete individual human with the right to life like every other individual human.

But of course liberals don't believe individuals have rights, only different competing classes do. So for them killing babies works.
 
343sarge33rd
      ID: 178571611
      Fri, Sep 16, 2011, 18:17 		No B. We have not dismissed, debunkied or anything else along those lines. The word "murder", is clearly defined BY LAW. Regardless of how your opinion goes, abortion, which is also clearly defined BY LAW, is not murder.

Call a house a garage if you want to. It is still a house.
 
344Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Sep 16, 2011, 18:32 		Unless your car is in it.
 
345Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Fri, Sep 16, 2011, 18:37 		But of course liberals don't believe individuals have rights

I would counter that, in this case, the one attempting to deny individual rights is the one forcing a woman(girl) to give birth against her will.
 
346Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 16, 2011, 18:40 		So drop your abortion euphemisms.

You can call it "disarticulate the fetus" or "reduce" or "separate the fetal calvarium" or "terminate a fetus"...

...but's still murdering a baby and whatever conscience you haven't completely seared away, knows it.
 
347sarge33rd
      ID: 178571611
      Fri, Sep 16, 2011, 19:09 		No B. My conscience has no issue, with my not forcing my ideals down the throat of another.
 
348Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Sep 16, 2011, 19:53 		Yeah, we wouldn't want to trouble murderers about that little ethical lapse that they kill people.
 
349DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Fri, Sep 16, 2011, 20:15 		Nor we would we want to trouble pedophile protectors about that little ethical lapse of letting adults getting away with raping children. But hey, call it a religion if you want. A house is still a house.
 
350sarge33rd
      ID: 178571611
      Fri, Sep 16, 2011, 20:19 		cept B,. it aint murder.
 
351Wilmer McLean
      ID: 28855111
      Sat, Sep 17, 2011, 06:27 		Interesting stuff:

Unborn Victims of Violence Act 0f 2004 (wiki)

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".

...

The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."

...

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act was strongly opposed by most pro-choice organizations, on grounds that the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision said that the human fetus is not a "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and that if the fetus were a Fourteenth Amendment "person," then he or she would have a constitutional right to life. However, the laws of 36 states also recognize the human fetus as the legal victim of homicide (and often, other violent crimes) during the entire period of pre-natal development (27 states) or during part of the pre-natal period (nine states). Legal challenges to these laws, arguing that they violate Roe v. Wade or other U.S. Supreme Court precedents, have been uniformly rejected by both the federal and the state courts, including the supreme courts of California, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.

Some prominent legal scholars who strongly support Roe v. Wade, such as Prof. Walter Dellinger of Duke University Law School, Richard Parker of Harvard, and Sherry F. Colb of Rutgers Law School, have written that fetal homicide laws do not conflict with Roe v. Wade.

...

-------------------------------------------------


Woman who attempted suicide while pregnant is accused of murder - The Guardian (UK) April 15, 2011

A woman accused of murdering her four-day-old baby girl by trying to kill herself with rat poison while pregnant has become a cause célèbre for US women's groups and civil liberties organisations.

...

She was given treatment to counteract the poison and gave birth on New Year's Eve, but her daughter, Angel, suffered seizures and died after four days.

...

But in March she was arrested and charged with murder and attempted foeticide. She now faces life imprisonment.

"This case has huge implications for pregnant women, not only in Indiana but across the country," said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union.

"If we allowed the state to put a woman in jail for anything that could pose a risk to her pregnancy, there would be nothing to stop the police putting in jail a woman who has a drink of wine or who smokes. So where do you draw the line?"

...

Dave Rimstidt, part of the prosecution team, said careful consideration had gone into the decision to charge Shuai.

"This is a very unique case. Every charging decision is very difficult and goes through a process where we consider all the facts, all the circumstances, and under this situation, we believe we've charged the two charges we can prove," he said.

Utah, Alabama, Mississippi, Iowa and South Carolina are among states to have pressed ahead with cases involving pregnant women and their foetuses, most of which have related to women taking illegal drugs during pregnancy.

 
353Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Sat, Sep 17, 2011, 07:39 		Outstanding stuff, Wilmer. Sorry I inadvertently stepped on it.
 
354DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sat, Sep 17, 2011, 10:19 		Just curious, how many abortions do you think anyone on this board has performed (or allowed to be performed on themselves)?

I'll set the over/under at 0.5 and bet a large sum of money on the under. So if you're comfortable calling people murderers who haven't actually done any of that on the basis of their religious beliefs, then I'm equally comfortable calling a different group of people pedophile defenders on the basis of their religious beliefs (and mountains of evidence).

Similarly, there's been a level of comfort (even glee) in calling a certain other religion terrorists on the basis of the actions of a small subset of people in that religion. Since that seems to be the basis in judging all the members of that other religion, I would presume it's equally in bounds to assume that all members of that other religion are pedophile defenders (I mean, they don't even rise up and protest against it and they even protect the terrorists, look at them!).

It's EXACTLY THE SAME. So, if we're comfortable allowing "murderer" and "terrorist" to enter the discussion every time those topics come up, then yes, I'm going to continue to bring up the equally logically valid counterpoint every time these topics come up. It's only fair.
 
355DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sat, Sep 17, 2011, 10:36 		Agreed, excellent links by Wilmer. Of course, what was omitted was that in most (if not all cases), the law explicitly excludes abortion.

Fetal Homicide Laws, by state

For example:

Arkansas
(i) (a) As used in §§ 5-10-101 -- 5-10-105, "person" also includes an unborn child in utero at any stage of development.

(b) "Unborn child" means a living fetus of twelve (12) weeks or greater gestation.

(ii) This subdivision (13)(B) does not apply to:

(a) An act that causes the death of an unborn child in utero if the act was committed during a legal abortion to which the woman consented;

(b) An act that is committed pursuant to a usual and customary standard of medical practice during diagnostic testing or therapeutic treatment; or

(c) An act that is committed in the course of medical research, experimental medicine, or an act deemed necessary to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.

(iii) Nothing in this subdivision (13)(B) shall be construed to allow the charging or conviction of a woman with any criminal offense in the death of her own unborn child in utero

Idaho

Idaho Code § 18-4001, § 18-4006 and § 18-4016 (2002) declare that murder includes the unlawful killing of a human embryo or fetus under certain conditions. The law provides that manslaughter includes the unlawful killing of a human embryo or fetus without malice. The law defines "embryo" or "fetus" as any human in utero. These laws do not apply to conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law, or to any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her embryo or fetus.

Illinois



Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 720 § 5/9-1.2, § 5/9-2.1 and § 5/9-3.2 define intentional homicide of an unborn child, voluntary manslaughter of an unborn child, involuntary manslaughter and reckless homicide of an unborn child, respectively. The laws define "unborn child" as any individual of the human species from fertilization until birth. The laws also specify that these provisions do not apply to acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion to which the pregnant woman has consented or to acts which were committed pursuant to usual and customary standards of medical practice during testing or treatment. (1986 Ill. Laws, P.A. 84-1414; 1987 Ill. Laws, P.A. 85-293; 2000 Ill. Laws, P.A. 91-404; 2010 Ill. Laws, P.A. 96-1000)

Louisiana



La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:32.5 defines feticide as the killing of an unborn child by the act, procurement, or culpable omission of a person other than the mother of the unborn child. The offense of feticide shall not include acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion to which the pregnant woman or her legal guardian has consented or which was performed in an emergency. Nor shall the offense of feticide include acts which are committed pursuant to usual and customary standards of medical practice during diagnostic testing or therapeutic treatment.


So, while it's a very interesting argument, it's important to note that in most if not all (and no, I didn't look at the exact laws in all 38 states, yet), the laws specifically and explicitly exclude abortion as a possible source of feticide.
 
356Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Sat, Sep 17, 2011, 10:36 		1) I am careful to single out Islamists when talking about terrorist muslims. I am also careful to point out specific involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood, one of their front groups or specific quotes supporting terrorist acts before I link a muslim to terrorism.

2) Name a pedophile convicted of it who I have defended. Remember their accusers are free to go to the police and get them convicted.

3) Keep your religious projection to yourself.
 
357Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Sat, Sep 17, 2011, 10:44 		Wilmer of course proved that babies are human lives recognized and valued in law.

Therefore allowing abortion is allowing murder of a human life, not simply a 'tissue mass'.

And If you punched a woman on her way into an abortion clinic so hard as to abort, and the police found out about it, in most places you'd get the punishment the abortionist should get for the same reason.
 
358DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sat, Sep 17, 2011, 10:45 		1) is pretty questionable; I'll be sure to keep closer tabs on this in the future.

2), at least, makes you a bald-faced liar. When your church elders are telling children that their entire family is going to be kicked out of the church for pursuing it, repeatedly... yeah, they're free to go. That's OK, keep defending those child molesters.

3) is just pretty funny.

 
359DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sat, Sep 17, 2011, 10:48 		357: That's specifically not what the law says, of course -- for a reason. I know, reading is hard. You may want the law to be different. But, well, it's not.
 
360Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sat, Sep 17, 2011, 10:52 		Wilmer of course proved that babies are human lives recognized and valued in law.

The point of the law is the back up the choice part of Roe v Wade. Once a woman decides to keep a child (for instance) that choice is recognized in the law. This is the other side of the right of choice by the woman.

It is important that babies be given rights (IMO), but this actually reinforces the pro-choice argument that you might not be seeing, Boldwin.
 
361Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Sat, Sep 17, 2011, 11:58 		PD

Do any of those laws Wilmer pointed to have a proviso that the baby was 'wanted'.
 
362sarge33rd
      ID: 36811711
      Sat, Sep 17, 2011, 12:01 		Actually B yes, in that the exceptions are explicitly stated in the case of consented abortion. Even then, a woman may want the child, but be unable to birth it w/o undue risk or may not be able to care for it or, any of a myriad of PERSONAL reasons which she need not divulge to either you or me.
 
363Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Sat, Sep 17, 2011, 12:03 		PD

What this is is exactly like the civil rights movement, the constitution and the law. Right now the law has a contradiction with fundamental constitutional principles tho temporarily upheld by the SCOTUS until society is ready to live up to constitutionally enshrined principles. Like the one about every person having the God given right to life.
 
365Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Sat, Sep 17, 2011, 12:09 		Actually the law does not have a proviso that would allow the legal defense, 'yes, I struck a woman who thereafter aborted, but that's ok, I found out that she didn't want it anyway'.
 
366sarge33rd
      ID: 36811711
      Sat, Sep 17, 2011, 12:37 		Except I did not say that such was a valid defense. Nice attempt at a strawman however.
 
367Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Sat, Sep 17, 2011, 12:45 		What I proved with that was that this country has schizophrenically decided that a baby has the right to life and that it doesn't.
 
368Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Sat, Sep 17, 2011, 12:48 		You see, someone who strikes a woman so as to cause an abortion, doesn't get prosecuted for assault, or battery in those laws. He gets prosecuted for exactly causing an abortion.
 
369sarge33rd
      ID: 36811711
      Sat, Sep 17, 2011, 12:48 		No, what we have decided, is that the pregnant woman has the right to CHOOSE to terminate her pregnancy. Termination absent that choice however, violates the fundamental rights of both the developing fetus AND the pregnant woman.
 
370Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Sat, Sep 17, 2011, 12:51 		He also isn't prosecuted for denying her a choice.
 
371sarge33rd
      ID: 36811711
      Sat, Sep 17, 2011, 13:06 		On the contrary, in a very real sense, he/she is indeed prosecuted for denying the choice. Not literally for such, but the implication is clear.
 
372Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Sat, Sep 17, 2011, 14:02 		While that might be logically consistent it is not logically entailed.
 
373sarge33rd
      ID: 36811711
      Sat, Sep 17, 2011, 14:07 		With apologies B, much of what you post lately, lacks in logic at all.
 
374Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Sat, Sep 17, 2011, 14:15 		Really Sarge, because you feel you deduce an implication, therefore you have proven a legal fact! Amazing. The law is not so loosely written as to enforce all conceivable interpretations, even contradictory ones.
 
375Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sat, Sep 17, 2011, 14:18 		#361: That is how it has been prosecuted. At least, here in PA where I have the only real familiarity with the law.

Perhaps that is because, typically, women who have abortions don't advertise their pregnancy and are able to abort rather quickly. It'll be interesting to see how this law starts bumping up against waiting periods that states are trying to implement. What happens when a woman wants an abortion, is forced to wait, and then is the victim of a crime which causes the death of the fetus?
 
376Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Sat, Sep 17, 2011, 18:48 		And If you punched a woman on her way into an abortion clinic so hard as to abort, and the police found out about it, in most places you'd get the punishment the abortionist should get for the same reason.

the "logic" of someone who is simply nuts.

so, if i'm going to the doctor to get a shot for whatever reason, and someone on the street walks up to me and jabs me with a needle filled with the exact same stuff, they shouldn't be charged with any criminal act because i was going to get that injection anyway.

that's some sane logic there! /sarcasm.
 
377Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Sat, Sep 17, 2011, 19:50 		You'd be charged with assault and battery. That's not what these laws do. Why not? Because a murder has taken place.
 
378sarge33rd
      ID: 36811711
      Sat, Sep 17, 2011, 20:25 		the death of a fetus, w/o the oregnant womans consent, outside the boundaries of a medical procedure...is what takes place under those laws. Put that within the definition of a medicala process, with the womans consent; and a lega; process is what has taken place.

the two are not the same B, and you will never understand that your way is NOT the only way; until you DO understand the difference.
 
379Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 01:48 		the fact that you can't see the difference between a woman making the difficult CHOICE to have an abortion in a medically safe environment, and some idiot kicking her in the stomach causing the abortion, is baffling.

either you're being deliberately obtuse, or you're just ignorant.
 
380sarge33rd
      ID: 36811711
      Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 02:10 		This B, the over all position of the right re the so called "Ground Zero Mosque", the general attitude of superiority held by the right and stemming entirely from a self claimed moral high ground as Christians; are all indicative of WHY I tend to despise the republican party.

You SAY you want less governmental intrusion. Yet you wish to legislate what occurs in a grown adults bedroom.

You SAY you are for the Constitution, yet you denounce those whose religious views are different from your own.

You SAY, you are pro capitalism, yet the GDP regularly declines under Republican Administrations and rises under a Democratic one.

You SAY, you are pro individual rights, yet you want to legislate away much of what I hold dear.

You speak sir, out of both sides of your mouth. And I'm not at all certain, that either side is speaking truthfully.
 
381bibA
      ID: 48627713
      Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 06:39 		sarge - Aren't you taking him more serious than he deserves? I mean, hasn't he admitted in the past that he actively provokes by means of hyperbole and exaggeration as comedic tools with which to challenge others? Like Rush and Ann, who he has said should not be taken seriously at their word either?
 
382sarge33rd
      ID: 7821815
      Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 16:02 		re 381...I dont recall B ever making such a statement. Nor do I recall having EVER seen him be dismissive of AC.
 
383Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sun, Sep 18, 2011, 21:14 		Bachmann: Obama is to blame for Arab Spring! And for a roadmap to peace with Israel and Palestine!
 
384Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Sep 19, 2011, 14:26 		Ed Rollins, Bachmann's former campaign manager [when did he leave?], says Bachmann is out of money after Iowa:

 
385Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Mon, Sep 19, 2011, 14:44 		#384
That's really an indictment of our political system. Bachmann, like her or not, is a populist candidate that is hindered by her inability to raise horrific sums of money.
Ron Paul, also a populist candidate and winner of the California straw poll, suffers from the same malady.
 
386Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Sep 28, 2011, 11:22 		Terrorists to build missile sites in Cuba!

My guess is she fell asleep while watching Thirteen Days, had a dream she wrote down, and is now citing her dream journal as her own source.
 
387Perm Dude
      ID: 420241913
      Tue, Oct 04, 2011, 13:55 		Bad Lip Reading: Michelle Bachmann
 
388Perm Dude
      ID: 39961218
      Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 13:33 		Bachmann is so pro-Reagan, she wants you to have higher tax rates just like he did..

Or something like that.
 
389Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 13:52 		Yeah, you don't want to go back to the Tip O'Neil tax plan.

David Frum resigns cause he's not conservative.

This is news to TPM but any conservative could have told you that.
 
390sarge33rd
      ID: 58959139
      Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 13:57 		ummm, not being a rightwing whacko, is not the same as not being right wing.
 
391Razor
      ID: 33520166
      Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 14:00 		Bachmann is an idiot and a nonfactor like I said 400 posts ago. She never really knows what she's saying but it's worse now that she's flailing.
 
392Perm Dude
      ID: 39961218
      Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 14:01 		#389: Bachmann apparently doesn't get it and needs your help in re-casting all the economic policies under Reagan as being Tip O'Neil's. Better give her a ring.
 
393Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 14:07 		Bachmann is not an idiot but she does misspeak. The reason isn't that she's got a Mayor Daley speech dyslexia problem either.

The reason she gets into trouble is because she falls into that pitfall of honest people. She tends to occasionally revert to the belief that telling the truth can't hurt you.

Try 'Why yes, that dress does make your butt look like the back end of a bus'.

or 'Why yes, our beloved president is a commie bastard'.

The media will not give you points for honesty.
 
394Perm Dude
      ID: 39961218
      Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 14:16 		You don't get points for honesty when you "misspeak."
 
395sarge33rd
      ID: 58959139
      Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 15:51 		Not an idiot? hahahahahaha

Yesterday in the interview with Erin whatever from CNN, Bachmann blamed the recently thwarted, alledged Iranian plan to assassinate; on Pres Obama for appearing "weak" in the face of terrorism.



Weak?!?!?!?! Killed OBL, killed the nr 3 guy (who was moving to the nr2 position) seemingly days later. Supported militarily, the Libyan uprising and eventual overthrow of Khaddafi; supported the Egyptian upriding, has called for the removal of the Syrian regime....

WTF is he supposed to do in order to NOT "look weak" in the eyes of the rightwingnuts Nuke the Middle East until the sands are one gigantic sheet of glass?

She *IS*, a bonafide, friggin...IDIOT.
 
396Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 15:52 		Anyone with the balls to say, 'Why yes, our beloved president is a commie bastard' will get all kinds of points from me. Not the media tho.
 
401Seattle Zen
      ID: 10732616
      Tue, Nov 08, 2011, 17:33 		All I can say about this piece on Michele Bachmann is "Wow!", she really is the most radical person to run for President in years.

Man, I really need to catch up on my New Yorkers, I just finished reading this piece on Bachmann. We all knew she was a kook, but I guess I didn't really know just how out of the mainstream is really is. It seems that some of her misstatements are really long held beliefs that are simply wrong but firmly in her worldview. She reminds me a lot of Baldwin, it seems she limits herself to crazy right wing religious lunatics and their writings and eats them up without irony or critical thought.

For example, here is a piece explaining why she believed the Founding Fathers did not support slavery.
Bachmann’s comment about slavery was not a gaffe. It is, as she would say, a world view. In “Christianity and the Constitution,” the book she worked on with Eidsmoe, her law-school mentor, he argues that John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams “expressed their abhorrence for the institution” and explains that “many Christians opposed slavery even though they owned slaves.” They didn’t free their slaves, he writes, because of their benevolence. “It might be very difficult for a freed slave to make a living in that economy; under such circumstances setting slaves free was both inhumane and irresponsible.”

The Eidsmoe mentioned above is John Eidsmoe, her mentor at Oral Roberts' School of Law.
At Oral Roberts, Bachmann worked for a professor named John Eidsmoe, who got her interested in the burgeoning homeschool movement. She helped him build a database of state homeschooling statutes, assisting his crusade to reverse laws that prevented parents from homeschooling their children. After that, Bachmann worked as Eidsmoe’s research assistant on his book “Christianity and the Constitution,” published in 1987.

“Christianity and the Constitution” is ostensibly a scholarly work about the religious beliefs of the Founders, but it is really a brief for political activism. Eidsmoe writes that America “was and to a large extent still is a Christian nation,” and that “our culture should be permeated with a distinctively Christian flavoring.” When I asked him if he believed that Bachmann’s views were fully consistent with the prevailing ideology at O.R.U. and the themes of his book, he said, “Yes.” Later, he added, “I do not know of any way in which they are not.”

Eidsmoe has stirred controversy. In 2005, he spoke at the national convention of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a defiantly pro-white, and anti-black, organization. (Eidsmoe says that he deeply despises racism, but that he will speak “to anyone.”) In Alabama last year, he addressed an event commemorating Secession Day and told an interviewer that it was the state’s “constitutional right to secede,” and that “Jefferson Davis and John C. Calhoun understood the Constitution better than did Abraham Lincoln and Daniel Webster.” In April, 2010, he was disinvited from a Tea Party rally in Wausau, Wisconsin, because of these statements and appearances.

Bachmann has not, however, distanced herself, and she has long described her work for Eidsmoe as an important part of her résumé. This spring, she told a church audience in Iowa, “I went down to Oral Roberts University, and one of the professors that had a great influence on me was an Iowan named John Eidsmoe. He’s from Iowa, and he’s a wonderful man. He has theology degrees, he has law degrees, he’s absolutely brilliant. He taught me about so many aspects of our godly heritage.”

She is a huge fan of the nutjob Francis Schaeffer and his film series "How Should We Then Live". She lauded David A. Noebel and his Summit Ministries, a group on Baldwin could like:
Around this time, Bachmann became interested in the writings of David A. Noebel, the founder and director of Summit Ministries, an educational organization founded to reverse the harmful effects of what it calls “our current post-Christian culture.” He was a longtime John Birch Society member, whose pamphlets include “The Homosexual Revolution: End Time Abomination,” and “Communism, Hypnotism, and the Beatles,” in which Noebel argued that the band was being used by Communists to infiltrate the minds of young Americans. Bachmann once gave a speech touting her relationship with Noebel’s organization. “I went on to serve on the board of directors with Summit Ministries,” she said, adding that Summit’s message is “wonderful and worthwhile.” She has also recommended to supporters Noebel’s “Understanding the Times,” a book that is popular in the Christian homeschooling movement. In it, he explains that the “Secular Humanist worldview” is one of America’s greatest threats. Bachmann’s analysis of education law similarly veered off into conspiratorial warnings. “Government now will be controlling people,” she said during one lecture on education, at a church in Minnesota. “What has history shown us about planned, state economies in the last one hundred years? Think Fascism, think Communism, think socialism. Think, the state-planned economies, totalitarianism. Think Cuba! Do you want Cuba’s economy or do you want the United States of America’s economy?”

She gets her family's history so wrong that Marco Rubio looks like a saint. She makes up ridiculous stories about how she ended up running for the state senate, she just showed up at the convention on a whim and was urged, URGED, by friends to run... bullshit. She listed J. Steven Wilkins 1997 biography of Robert E. Lee as a "must read" on her website.
Wilkins is the leading proponent of the theory that the South was an orthodox Christian nation unjustly attacked by the godless North. This revisionist take on the Civil War, known as the “theological war” thesis, had little resonance outside a small group of Southern historians until the mid-twentieth century, when Rushdoony and others began to popularize it in evangelical circles. In the book, Wilkins condemns “the radical abolitionists of New England” and writes that “most southerners strove to treat their slaves with respect and provide them with a sufficiency of goods for a comfortable, though—by modern standards—spare existence.”

African slaves brought to America, he argues, were essentially lucky: “Africa, like any other pagan country, was permeated by the cruelty and barbarism typical of unbelieving cultures.” Echoing Eidsmoe, Wilkins also approvingly cites Lee’s insistence that abolition could not come until “the sanctifying effects of Christianity” had time “to work in the black race and fit its people for freedom.”

Really? How pathetic. I'm having a hard time imagining a worse candidate for the President, perhaps only Dick Cheney. She would set back our country 150 years!
 
402Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 00:16 		Bachmann, "If I were President, I would close our embassy in Iran."

Er, Michelle?
 
403sarge33rd
      ID: 510433010
      Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 00:21 		O-M-G...if ever those 3 letters applied, there it is, right there.
 
404walk
      ID: 348442710
      Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 08:25 		It was a hypothetical, says her campaign...

Tonight, the Bachmann campaign has released the following statement: “Congresswoman Bachmann is a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and is fully aware that we do not have an embassy in Iran and have not had one since 1980. She was agreeing with the actions taken by the British to secure their embassy personnel and was speaking in the hypothetical, that if she was President of the United States and if we had an embassy in Iran, she would have taken the same actions as the British.”

Bachmann's Ooops Moment?
 
405Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 09:46 		she's also going to invent color televisions, flying machines, and machines that "toast" bread.
 
406sarge33rd
      ID: 17117210
      Fri, Dec 02, 2011, 17:55 		17 yr old IA HS student challenges Bachmann on gay rights

Student: 1
Bachmann: 0
 
407Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Fri, Dec 02, 2011, 18:09 		amazing. she never quit. good for her!
 
408Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 12:47 		Ba Bye
 
409Razor
      ID: 551031157
      Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 13:12 		I always find it deplorable when parents thrust their children into the political spotlight with loaded questions. Shame on that parent for using her child to advance a political agenda.
 
410DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 13:12 		That reflects horribly on everyone involved, unfortunately.
 
411sarge33rd
      ID: 581115611
      Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 13:26 		Poor excuse of parenting, and unfortunately, fuel for the opponents of gay equality, that could be used to backfire.
 
412Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 13:46 		#410: Exactly.

Bachmann handled it poorly, but I think it was an opportunity for her to tell the parent to stop using their child like a tool.
 
413weykool
      ID: 21114561
      Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 13:56 		I thought Bachmann handled it just fine.
You dont need to say anything when a tool of a mother, who obviously needs fixing uses an innocent child in such a deplorable manner.
It was painful to watch the kid being forced to do something he didnt want to do.
 
414Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Dec 28, 2011, 22:34 		Bachmann's Iowa campaign manager jumps ship to join Ron Paul.
 
415Boldwin
      ID: 321121173
      Thu, Dec 29, 2011, 04:32 		And soon to be joining Newt's old staff commisserating with each other at some DC wateringhole.
 
416Razor
      ID: 551031157
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 09:38 		Bacchman gets 5% of the vote in Iowa. See post 31 in response to the graph in post 21.
 
417Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 10:40 		She's got a presser scheduled for 11am and cancelled her SC trip. Sounds like she might be packing it in. Too bad--I was hoping all the wackos would stay in until SC.
 
418Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 10:41 		FNC just reported that Bachmann has cancelled her SC tour and scheduled an 11amET press conference. So much for nominating a candidate with TP bona-fides.
 
419Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 10:45 		deja vu...
 
420Razor
      ID: 551031157
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 10:46 		Nonfactor. Sideshow.
 
421Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 10:53 		She did her job--she got T-Paw out of the race.

Romney is doing just enough to win--first the establishment GOP will rally around him this week, and then (reluctantly) the base.

He won't have any coattails for the down ballot candidates, and that hurts the GOP overall. While the Dems are defending more Senate seats this year, the Romney Effect might just even that all out.

What this means for Obama remains the same for the election, but the GOP, knowing that they are putting up a candidate even they themselves aren't altogether happy with, will dig in even more on the legislative front. I think this is why Obama went ahead decided to do a recess appointment of Richard Cordray for the CFPB, despite the Senate technically being "in session" in order to prevent such appointments.

 
422Boldwin
      ID: 5103310
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 11:45 		It doesn't matter if you are the best choice available for the job...

...when you deliver campaign zingers like a tax attorney reading off bullet points.

Campaigning is not about being right. That's only good for a golf clap.
 
423Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 12:04 		Campaigning is not about being right.

Then Michele Bachmann was your perfect candidate.
 
424Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 12:20 		the GOP, knowing that they are putting up a candidate even they themselves aren't altogether happy with

This was unavoidable with the field that entered the race. Not sure who, if anyone could have unified the party.
 
425Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 12:43 		I'm guessing Huckabee is kicking himself for not running.
 
426Tree
      ID: 434451418
      Mon, May 14, 2012, 19:53 		more heroes and their lies.

......Bachmann’s Fundraising Whopper

In several urgent fundraising appeals, Rep. Michele Bachmann falsely claims that biased “liberal judges” redrew her congressional district “in retaliation for repeatedly standing up to President Obama.”

The truth is that only two of the five judges were Democratic appointees, and Bachmann’s Minnesota district has become even more Republican than it was before...

yep. same ol' same ol'.
 
427Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 19:31 		Bachmann gets rebuke from Boehner and other GOP members for her unfounded Muslim Brotherhood allegations.
 
428Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 19:52 		In a fair world you guys would eat crow when the war against the jihadis gets serious, however in reality you guys will go *innocently* whistling past the graves you created in your willful ignorance.

Just as Barney Frank whistled innocently past the debacle he and his Fanny caused.

Just as liberals whistle past the debacle that is Iran which they are completely guilty of facilitating.

You guys will be kissing up to and enabling jihadis when you aren't ignoring what they actually say to each other, until the day 'you never had anything to do with it'.
 
429sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 19:53 		Review your history B. Start with Sen McCarthy.
 
430Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 19:54 		Bachmann doubles down on the crazy.
 
431Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 20:10 		These ties are anything but trivial.
“You must move in the arteries of the system without anyone noticing your existence until you reach all the power centers... until the conditions are ripe... Until that time, any step taken would be too early – like breaking an egg without waiting the full forty days for it to hatch. It would be like killing the chick inside.”
- radical islamist Jihadi Fethullah Gülen who tried to overthrow the secular government of Turkey and who the Clintons managed to find sanctuary here in the USA.

Hillary and Huma also managed to overturn the ban on the grandson of the Muslim Brotherhood here in the USA.
 
432Tree
      ID: 326542313
      Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 14:56 		Her actions are anything but trivial...

The heat should be focused on Bachmann and those who are as irresponsible as she is.
 
433sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 15:10 		How about charging her with "Accessory to conspiracy to commit murder"?
 
434sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Sat, Oct 06, 2012, 18:42 		Bachmans lead down to 2% points, which is within the margin of error

Less than a year ago, Rep. Michele Bachmann was traveling the country, making her case to be the Republican Party's presidential nominee. Today, six weeks out from that long-awaited election, she's caught in an unexpectedly tight race to keep her seat in Congress.
 
435Boldwin
      ID: 37932618
      Sat, Oct 06, 2012, 20:01 		Considering the success George Soros has had perverting the Secretary of State office in Minnesota a 2% republican lead is effectively even.
 
436sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Sat, Oct 06, 2012, 20:02 		nah, couldnt be that she proved herself to be an airhead huh?
 
437Tree
      ID: 57842011
      Sun, Oct 07, 2012, 17:27 		for someone who constantly harps on personal responsibility, no one is quicker to blame someone else than Baldwin.
 
438sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Fri, Nov 02, 2012, 22:46 		talk about unintentionally hilarious

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) describes herself as a bipartisan "independent voice" in a pitch to voters in a campaign ad.
 
439sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Wed, Nov 07, 2012, 18:34 		how the hell did she win?
 
440Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Nov 07, 2012, 18:58 		Barely won. Let's see what she learns from it. Right now all I'm hearing is "It is time for the President to lead us out of this gridlock by agreeing with the House GOP."
 
441sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Wed, Nov 07, 2012, 19:09 		that was FOX news spin last night too.
 
442Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Nov 07, 2012, 19:32 		Which is believed as gospel by 47-48% of the voters right now.
 
443sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Tue, Jan 01, 2013, 20:28 		hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

For her extraordinary dedication to America’s founding principles and steadfast defense of the Constitution, WND has named Rep. Michele Bachmann 2012 “Woman of the Year.”
 
444Boldwin
      ID: 51036421
      Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 03:28 		House: At noon [Thurs,1/3/13-B], I introduced the first bill of the 113th Congress to repeal Obamacare in its entirety. - Michele Bachmann

Senate: Ted Cruz, Texas' first latino senator vowed that his "first bill would seek to repeal 'every syllable of every word' of the Obama administration's health care reform law,"
 
445sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Fri, Jan 11, 2013, 20:42 		Michele Bachmann Still Hasn’t Paid Campaign Staff

Bachmann has over $2 million left in her campaign account, reports Waldron, but still refused to fork over the paltry $5,000 owed to the staffers. Furthermore, as per her own Personal Financial Disclosure, Bachmann has a net worth between $1,300,000 and $2,800,000.

The GOP, ethics in action.
 
446Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Fri, Jan 11, 2013, 20:47 		She can't pay campaign staff out of her personal money. But if she's got campaign money left there is no reason not to pay.
 
447sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Fri, Jan 11, 2013, 20:48 		She can donate the 5k to the campaign funds (if it were short) and then the staff could be paid.
 
448Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Fri, Jan 11, 2013, 21:12 		She's already done that, I believe. But the problem isn't that the campaign funds are short, so donating more isn't solving the problem. They don't need her $5000 to pay the staff.
 
449sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Fri, Jan 11, 2013, 21:13 		I know.
 
450Mith
      ID: 4310402110
      Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 14:19 		Apparently accepting the fact that they've been stiffed, Bachmann's staff disses their NDA and goes public.
[Peter Waldron, a widely known evangelist enlisted by the Bachmann campaign for outreach to Christian conservatives], formerly Bachmann's national field coordinator, is accusing the campaign of improperly dipping into money from MichelePAC to pay longtime fundraising consultant Guy Short for presidential campaign work he performed in the critical final weeks ahead of Iowa's caucuses last year.

Waldron also alleges that the campaign concealed payments to Iowa state campaign chairman Kent Sorenson, a state senator who abruptly left the Bachmann camp to join then-U.S. Rep. Ron Paul's insurgent campaign. Under Iowa Senate rules, Waldron maintains, Sorenson could not perform paid work for a presidential campaign.

...One of those involved in the payment dispute is Barbara Heki, who sued the campaign last year over the use of a database listing the names and e-mail addresses of thousands of Christian home-school families. Although the campaign eventually agreed to pay $2,000 for the list, the lawsuit continues, as does a separate criminal investigation.
 
451Mith
      ID: 4310402110
      Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 14:23 		Original article at the Star Tribune
 
452Razor
      ID: 177192916
      Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 14:36 		Ron Paul had an insurgent campaign? No wonder he didn't win!
 
453Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Fri, Mar 22, 2013, 19:34 		My question: When was she ever on the rails?
 
454Boldwin
      ID: 282212214
      Fri, Mar 22, 2013, 23:01 		No, she's not one of your animatronics.
 
455Tree
      ID: 0271015
      Sat, Mar 23, 2013, 01:28 		obviously. they can at least fake being smart.
 
456Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Sat, Mar 23, 2013, 02:19 		The wacky right, as a natural consequence of putting down education, are proud of their forcefully stupid leaders.
 
457Boldwin
      ID: 282212214
      Sat, Mar 23, 2013, 05:39 		The left has been 'putting down' education ever since I was in college. If by putting down you mean euthanizing. It's been Bill Ayers' career ever since he gave up explosives as his favorite tool to bring in marxism, and chose degrading the education system instead.
 
458sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Sat, Mar 23, 2013, 08:53 		no, he meant putting down as in, making fun of. You know, like many of us have started to do with too many of your posts.
 
459Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Sat, Mar 23, 2013, 11:04 		Exactly sarge. And a person using their education wouldn't have to question that, I don't think. The ability of the Wacky Right to self-characterize never ends.
 
460Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Mon, Mar 25, 2013, 16:26 		The slow train wreck of her presidential campaign.
 
461Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Thu, May 23, 2013, 15:29 		Bachmann goes full Westboro.
 
462boikin
      ID: 430211013
      Wed, May 29, 2013, 10:26 		Not looking to get relected, liberal humorist and right wingers heart broken
 
463Tree
      ID: 564211423
      Wed, May 29, 2013, 10:33 		her having to explain her reasons for not seeking reelection (its not the criminal investigation, it's not that i might have to again face the guy who i greatly outspent but who almost beat me) is pretty telling.
 
464Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Wed, May 29, 2013, 11:24 		Good news!