View Full Version : Bachmann quotables
moejoe15
Aug15-11, 05:57 PM
She has made some good ones. Did anyone catch the one she said the other day?
"I have a spine AND a backbone."
That isn't the part of her anatomy I wonder if she has.
Here's one - it shows she has a heart.
http://www.hollybaby.com/2011/07/01/michele-bachmann-presidency-miscarriage-sarah-palin/
"“no matter how many children were brought into our life, we would receive them because we are committed to life.""
Ivan Seeking
Aug16-11, 12:21 AM
There is a controversy among scientists about whether evolution is a fact… hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel prizes, believe in intelligent design.”
17 Year Old to Michele Bachmann: Show Me Your Nobel Laureate Scientists
http://www.repealcreationism.com/508/17-year-old-to-michelle-bachmann-show-me-your-nobel-laureate-scientists/
From a pro-Bachmann site:
Michele Bachmann supports the teaching of intelligent design in public school science classes.[86]
During a 2003 interview on the KKMS Christian radio program 'Talk The Walk', Michele Bachmann said that evolution is a theory that has never been proven, one way or the other.[87]
Michele Bachmann co-authored a bill [that received no additional endorsement among her fellow legislators] that would require public schools to include alternative explanations for the origin of life as part of the state's public school science curricula.[88]
In October 2006, Michele Bachmann told a debate audience in St. Cloud, Minnesota "there is a controversy among scientists about whether evolution is a fact or not.... There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design."[89]
http://www.ministers-best-friend.com/AMERICAN-TEA-PARTY-Michele-Bachmann-Tremendous-Christian-American-Leader-WEBS-BEST-SITE-on-Bachmann.html
Ivan Seeking
Aug16-11, 12:38 AM
What we saw last week is the markets unfortunately agreed with me. Because the markets saw what happened in Washington when Obama got a $2.4 trillion check. And one thing you learned is you can't fool the markets. …We just raised the debt ceiling and added $2.4 trillion more to the debt.…The reason why they [Standard & Poor’s] lowered the rating is because we dumped another $2.4 trillion in debt on the backs of Americans of the next generation.”
— Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), August 8, 2011
But does her story about the debt limit — and her opposition to raising it — match the facts? Did markets decline because the federal debt ceiling was increased by $2.4 trillion? And did Standard & Poor’s lower the government’s credit rating because the debt ceiling was increased?
...S&P analysts voiced concern that “the statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.” The company expressed relief that the debt ceiling had been lifted, saying the action “removed any perceived immediate threat of payment default posed by delays to raising the government's debt ceiling.”
The Pinocchio Test
Bachmann’s opposition to the debt-ceiling increase does not give her license to reinvent what happened after the deal was struck between Congress and the White House.
It is simply wrong to say S&P lowered the rating on U.S. bonds because the debt limit was increased; the agency wanted the debt limit increased, in direct opposition to Bachmann’s views. And while S&P’s downgrade appears to have played some role in the market turmoil, broader economic concerns in the United States and abroad have been a much more important factor...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/michele-bachmanns-inaccurate-recounting-of-the-debt-ceiling-saga/2011/08/10/gIQAKbvE7I_blog.html
moejoe15
Aug16-11, 07:53 AM
Here's one - it shows she has a heart.
http://www.hollybaby.com/2011/07/01/michele-bachmann-presidency-miscarriage-sarah-palin/
"“no matter how many children were brought into our life, we would receive them because we are committed to life.""
That wasn't the part of her anatomy that I am worried about in a president.
DevilsAvocado
Aug16-11, 08:20 AM
:rofl:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/Chimp_Brain_in_a_jar.jpg/300px-Chimp_Brain_in_a_jar.jpg
DevilsAvocado
Aug16-11, 08:39 AM
Dick Cheney also has a heart.
http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h178/mattamand/DickCheneyHeartPump.jpg
Ivan Seeking
Aug16-11, 11:21 AM
:rofl:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/Chimp_Brain_in_a_jar.jpg/300px-Chimp_Brain_in_a_jar.jpg
Dick Cheney also has a heart.
http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h178/mattamand/DickCheneyHeartPump.jpg
Why do you post crap like this when there are so many real and scary quotes from Bachmann?
Now pray the gay away and get with the program. :biggrin:
DevilsAvocado
Aug16-11, 07:39 PM
Now pray the gay away and get with the program. :biggrin:
hehe, reloading my "quote-gun"… back tomorrow. :wink:
I'm shocked we haven't heard about Elvis yet.
There are going to be some tough guidelines for posting on the 2012 elections going forward. There won't be any name calling, put downs, etc...
Only the facts will be allowed and you will need to leave the emotional commentary at the door. There will be stiff penalties given to anyone that doesn't follow these guidelines. Just fair warning, there will be a sticky on acceptable posts added to the existing guidelines.
On Bachmann confusing Concord, New Hampshire with Concord, Massachusetts:
After that I promised I would never again use President Obama's teleprompter and I intend to keep that promise.
source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OATKPpEOMxo&feature=related
She was joking or making light of the remark, but this angle doesn't really help.
Mech_Engineer
Aug17-11, 08:31 AM
I don't care how conservative a candidate is, if they're for teaching intelligent design in school I can't bring myself to vote for them.
'Course, I'm not sure I can bring myself to vote for someone who wants to raise taxes and increase deficit spending either; a fiscally conservative scientists's life is full of tough decisions...
mheslep
Aug17-11, 04:06 PM
I don't care how conservative a candidate is, if they're for teaching intelligent design in school I can't bring myself to vote for them.
'Course, I'm not sure I can bring myself to vote for someone who wants to raise taxes and increase deficit spending either; a fiscally conservative scientists's life is full of tough decisions...Well, which ill-considered, faith based policy is more likely to damage the country over eight years, keeping millions out of work, versus amounting to an eccentricity of little impact? US Presidents don't get to decide what's taught in local schools.
Ivan Seeking
Aug17-11, 05:23 PM
I don't care how conservative a candidate is, if they're for teaching intelligent design in school I can't bring myself to vote for them.
'Course, I'm not sure I can bring myself to vote for someone who wants to raise taxes and increase deficit spending either; a fiscally conservative scientists's life is full of tough decisions...
These are not ordinary times. There is a difference between standard policies, and avoiding disaster, or nursing a struggling recovery. Recall that the only truly "socialist" action taken was by Bush when he nationalized Fannie and Freddie, and it was Paulson - an iconic free-marketeer - who finally demanded the bank bailouts; asked for blank check with no oversight. Obviously these are times when standard labels don't apply. Continued [excess] spending over the next few years is probably necessary in order to avoid job losses that would hamper the recovery and reduce growth - results that could be more damaging than continued spending.
Over the next five years (during which time CBO projects that the economy will still be below potential), Chairman Ryan’s Medicaid proposal would cut the program by $207 billion, which includes both eliminating the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act and even deeper cuts to the Medicaid program. Using a standard macroeconomic model that is consistent with private- and public-sector forecasters, we find that a $207 billion cut would result in a loss of 2.1 million jobs over the next five years, or 2.9 million full-time equivalent jobs.[3] These figures are in job-years, which refer to a job held for a single year, meaning that five jobs lost in a single year is the equivalent to one job lost over five years.
Furthermore, the job loss would overwhelmingly be in the private economy. Medicaid has very low overhead, as about 96% of the program’s funds go toward benefits which are spent in the private sector. Assuming the 96% ratio is relatively constant across states (or at least not systematically biased in one direction), Medicaid cuts of this magnitude would result in the loss of just under 2 million private-sector jobs, or 2.8 million full-time equivalent jobs...
http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/ryan_plan_to_slash_medicaid_will_cost_the_economy_ nearly_two_million_privat/
Ivan Seeking
Aug17-11, 05:39 PM
Well, which ill-considered, faith based policy is more likely to damage the country over eight years, keeping millions out of work, versus amounting to an eccentricity of little impact? US Presidents don't get to decide what's taught in local schools.
And you don't have a problem with her blatantly false statements in regards to the debt ceiling? Does it matter that she was 100% wrong and would, according to S&P, put US credit in imminent jeopardy. How do you justify this?
Mech_Engineer
Aug17-11, 08:10 PM
These are not ordinary times.
That is the truth! Of course, I'm not sure how I would try and define "ordinary times" anyway :confused:
Ivan Seeking
Aug17-11, 10:40 PM
That is the truth! Of course, I'm not sure how I would try and define "ordinary times" anyway :confused:
Well, hopefully "ordinary times" does not mean 9% unemployment with 25% [or whatever it is now] underemployment, 1.3% growth, and the looming threat of a double dip.
Krugman has been screaming since day one that we needed to spend a lot more on the stimulus.
Well, hopefully "ordinary times" does not mean 9% unemployment with 25% [or whatever it is now] underemployment, 1.3% growth, and the looming threat of a double dip.
Krugman has been screaming since day one that we needed to spend a lot more on the stimulus.
Instead of screaming to spend more - perhaps he should encourage people to look at this tracking report?
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/
***
If I read that correctly - "only" $3Trillion of $11Trillion has been allocated?
***
Instead of making fun of Michelle Bachman's comments - perhaps it would be wise for her attackers to read this report also?
http://www.mnprogressiveproject.com/diary/8272/michele-bachmanns-budget-plan
"There's another problem with respect to Bachmann's "repeal" of "unspent stimulus funds." She's calling for $60 billion in savings, but as of January 14, there was only $39.5 billion in unspent stimulus funds left. The only way to get $60 billion of savings out of the stimulus at this point would be to raise taxes that were lowered by the stimulus. So Bachmann's plan either calls for tax increases or it is a complete mirage...or both."
***
Unless CNN is wrong - Bachman might just be on to something?
Ivan Seeking
Aug17-11, 11:03 PM
Instead of screaming to spend more - perhaps he should encourage people to look at this tracking report?
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/
***
If I read that correctly - "only" $3Trillion of $11Trillion has been allocated?
***
So then all of the complaining about spending is meaningless.
Instead of making fun of Michelle Bachman's comments - perhaps it would be wise for her attackers to read this report also?
http://www.mnprogressiveproject.com/diary/8272/michele-bachmanns-budget-plan
"There's another problem with respect to Bachmann's "repeal" of "unspent stimulus funds." She's calling for $60 billion in savings, but as of January 14, there was only $39.5 billion in unspent stimulus funds left. The only way to get $60 billion of savings out of the stimulus at this point would be to raise taxes that were lowered by the stimulus. So Bachmann's plan either calls for tax increases or it is a complete mirage...or both."
***
Unless CNN is wrong - Bachman might just be on to something?
Instead of defending Bachmann with a diversion, how about if you respond to S&P when they said the threat of not raising the debt ceiling was a serious concern. What she said was blatantly false. Are you attempting to defend her lie?
It seems to me your argument is with S&P, not me. Are you saying they were lying or misstating the case? They don't know why they were concerned but Bachmann does?
Ivan Seeking
Aug18-11, 12:48 PM
The question to Tea Party supporters is this: How do you defend Bachmann lying about such monumental issues and promoting actions that would damage US credit? It is time to cut the crap and admit that she has no business running for office. If the tea party could face facts like this, I might find it to have a little respect for the movement. But what I see time after time is denial or obfuscation of the facts.
I don't care about any other issues. I want an answer to this question. Show me there is a modicum of credibility here.
czelaya
Aug18-11, 12:55 PM
The question to Tea Party supporters is this: How do you defend Bachmann lying about such monumental issues and promoting actions that would damage US credit? It is time to cut the crap and admit that she has no business running for office.
Ivan, you don't seem to understand anything about the Tea Party. Furthermore, I'm not in the Tea Party.
I agree, I don't think Bachmann should be running for the presidency. SO YOU'RE COMPLETELY WRONG. I'M NOT DEFENDING BACHMANN. That rhetoric sounds like typical liberal-Democratic bashing on CNN, MNBC, and Chris Matthews.
fourier jr
Aug18-11, 01:58 PM
wikiquote has a ton
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann
And what a bizarre time we're in, Jan, when a judge will say to little children that you can't say the Pledge of Allegiance, but you must learn that homosexuality is normal and you should try it.
So, who's up for trying it? Anyone?
It leads to the personal enslavement of individuals. Because if you’re involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it's bondage. Personal bondage, personal despair, and personal enslavement. And that's why this is so dangerous.
Ivan, you don't seem to understand anything about the Tea Party. Furthermore, I'm not in the Tea Party.
I agree, I don't think Bachmann should be running for the presidency. SO YOU'RE COMPLETELY WRONG. I'M NOT DEFENDING BACHMANN. That rhetoric sounds like typical liberal-Democratic bashing on CNN, MNBC, and Chris Matthews.
He didn't' direct the question at you or about you.
"Under President Bachmann you will see gasoline come down below $2 a gallon again," Bachmann told a crowd Tuesday in South Carolina. "That will happen."
http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/18/news/economy/bachmann_gas_prices/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2
Riiiiight.
Proton Soup
Aug18-11, 10:02 PM
So then all of the complaining about spending is meaningless.
would you concede that complaining about default is meaningless?
ThomasT
Aug19-11, 03:09 AM
She has made some good ones. Did anyone catch the one she said the other day?
"I have a spine AND a backbone."
That isn't the part of her anatomy I wonder if she has.I googled and yahooed Bachmann quotes and found hundreds and it's really annoying that an apparently 'serious' contender for the US presidency would still be a serious contender considering the content of those quotes.
The US is the laughing stock of the rest of the world. It's the butt of jokes and hated, as it should be. Its official hypocrisy and inconsistency is well enough documented. (Don't get me wrong here. I really want to, and do, believe that many, maybe most, US programs are well intentioned. It's just that there's so much corruption involved at every level.)
I'd be somewhat disturbed, but not really surprised, if Bachmann was elected to the presidency.
TheStatutoryApe
Aug19-11, 04:35 AM
"I firmly am against the individual mandate. I think it is unconstitutional, whether it's put into place at the state level by a state legislature or whether it's put into place at the federal level. I think it's unconstitutional,"
She apparently said something to this effect at the debates and Ron Paul corrected her. Sad that she apparently does not even understand the constitution.
"I firmly am against the individual mandate. I think it is unconstitutional, whether it's put into place at the state level by a state legislature or whether it's put into place at the federal level. I think it's unconstitutional,"
She apparently said something to this effect at the debates and Ron Paul corrected her. Sad that she apparently does not even understand the constitution.
There is an ongoing legal challenge.
http://www2.starexponent.com/news/2011/aug/19/perspective-court-ruling-sets-showdown-ar-1248240/
"Last week's ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals against Obamacare's individual mandate sets up the inevitable showdown before the Supreme Court, which will settle the dispute between those who believe Congress can order citizens to buy commercial goods and those who believe it cannot"
I think Ape's reason for the quote is that it may be federally unconstitutional, but on a state by state basis, is constitutional (since powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states), so Bachmann's statement that it's unconstitutional even at the state level shows a lack of understanding of the federal Constitution. Of course, I could be wrong, and every state Constitution might not allow for such a thing. I'm not all that familair with each state Constitution.
moejoe15
Aug19-11, 10:21 AM
I'll say one thing for her, who needs Palin when we have Bachmann? Wait, dream ticket, Bachmann-Palin (or verse vice'a). Maybe a joint presidency?
I don't know if she has said anything yet but I can imagine her views on evolution and global warming. Maybe she believes in evolution, how else to explain she has 2 spines.
Greg Bernhardt
Aug19-11, 10:24 AM
I'll say one thing for her, who needs Palin when we have Bachmann? Wait, dream ticket, Bachmann-Palin (or verse vice'a). Maybe a joint presidency?
I don't know if she has said anything yet but I can imagine her views on evolution and global warming.
why stop there, what about Christine O'Donnell for sec of state? :wink:
Sharon Engels for Treasury?
mheslep
Aug19-11, 11:24 AM
Dennis Kucinich for NASA administrator. (http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2007/10/kucinich_at_debate_i_did_see_a.html)
CAC1001
Aug19-11, 07:53 PM
I'll say one thing for her, who needs Palin when we have Bachmann? Wait, dream ticket, Bachmann-Palin (or verse vice'a). Maybe a joint presidency?
I don't know if she has said anything yet but I can imagine her views on evolution and global warming. Maybe she believes in evolution, how else to explain she has 2 spines.
Global warming skepticism is fine, check out some threads on the subject.
As for Bachmann, her latest gaffe is that the Soviet Union is still around (!!!)
ThomasT
Aug19-11, 08:23 PM
Dennis Kucinich for NASA administrator. (http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2007/10/kucinich_at_debate_i_did_see_a.html)Kucinich has been effectively marginalized, but I like most of what he says. He was one of the relatively few people in congress who was for impeaching Bush.
So what that he saw a 'ufo', ie., something curious in the sky that he couldn't identify? I don't recall him saying that he thought it was an alien spacecraft or anything like that.
I googled and yahooed Bachmann quotes and found hundreds and it's really annoying that an apparently 'serious' contender for the US presidency would still be a serious contender considering the content of those quotes.
The US is the laughing stock of the rest of the world. It's the butt of jokes and hated, as it should be. Its official hypocrisy and inconsistency is well enough documented. (Don't get me wrong here. I really want to, and do, believe that many, maybe most, US programs are well intentioned. It's just that there's so much corruption involved at every level.)
I'd be somewhat disturbed, but not really surprised, if Bachmann was elected to the presidency.
At least she has a body of work to evaluate and is being vetted by the media appropriately, unlike some 'constitutional scholar' I've heard of...
TheStatutoryApe
Aug20-11, 03:18 AM
There is an ongoing legal challenge.
http://www2.starexponent.com/news/2011/aug/19/perspective-court-ruling-sets-showdown-ar-1248240/
"Last week's ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals against Obamacare's individual mandate sets up the inevitable showdown before the Supreme Court, which will settle the dispute between those who believe Congress can order citizens to buy commercial goods and those who believe it cannot"
As Dave noted, I mention it because of the assertion that it is also unconstitutional on the state level.
She might be on to something with this one:
"Michelle Bachmann once worried that the U.S. is “running out of rich people.”
The fears were echoed in an insightful editorial in the WSJ headlined “Millionaires Go Missing.” The piece highlighted IRS figures showing that the number of American tax filers with incomes of $1 million or more had declined by 39% between 2007 and 2009. In 2009, there were 237,000 million-plus earners, down from 390,000 in 2007."
More from Bachman.
For Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, Hurricane Irene and last week's earthquake in the eastern United States were a message from God that Washington needs to change its policies.
Even as Irene was beginning its raking course up the East Coast over the weekend, which killed 21 people and caused widespread flooding and power outages, Bachmann told senior citizens in Poinciana, Florida, on Saturday that the hurricane was an "act of God" that Washington should heed.
http://news.yahoo.com/bachmann-irene-gods-message-washington-142224573.html
More from Bachman.
http://news.yahoo.com/bachmann-irene-gods-message-washington-142224573.html
It was an attempt at humor apparently - and taken out of context in the headline? my bold
""Washington, D.C., you'd think by now they'd get the message. An earthquake, a hurricane. Are you listening? The American people have done everything they can, and now it's time for an act of God and we're getting it," she said, drawing some laughs from her audience."
It was an attempt at humor apparently - and taken out of context in the headline? my bold
""Washington, D.C., you'd think by now they'd get the message. An earthquake, a hurricane. Are you listening? The American people have done everything they can, and now it's time for an act of God and we're getting it," she said, drawing some laughs from her audience."I assumed it was nervous laughter because they just realized they were in a room with her and wanted out. Just IMO.
I personally believe she meant it, based from her background. IMO.
I assumed it was nervous laughter because they just realized they were in a room with her and wanted out. Just IMO.
I personally believe she meant it, based from her background. IMO.
She might? I just don't like the way Reuters presented the story - very biased.
"..Bachmann: Irene is God's message for Washington
....MIAMI (Reuters) - For Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, Hurricane Irene and last week's earthquake in the eastern United States were a message from God that Washington needs to change its policies."
I believe Bachmann was being sincere. I've heard her pray. There's a video of that floating around YouTube and it's creepy.
Right-wing evangelicals have a way of "interpreting" natural events as signs from god. See Pat Robertson's recent pronouncement that earthquake-induced cracks in the Washington monument is a sign from god.
We have some serious whackos out there, and some of them manage to gain followings and even get elected to high office. Bachmann is a disturbing example, IMO. If her campaign advisers got her to float this "sign from god" idiocy to gauge the public reaction at a small meeting, they are being very smart. If there is backlash, pass it off as a light-hearted attempt at humor. Knowing that Bachmann's husband's clinic is involved in "curing" gay people from their sinful ways, I don't put her too far down the crazy-scale from the WBC.
Gokul43201
Aug29-11, 08:34 PM
No need for personal beliefs:
XiulmCotAcA
She's clearly making a joke.
No need for personal beliefs:
XiulmCotAcA
She's clearly making a joke.
Clearly! After seeing the video, Reuter's headline sounds ridiculous - very biased against her.
"..Bachmann: Irene is God's message for Washington
....MIAMI (Reuters) - For Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, Hurricane Irene and last week's earthquake in the eastern United States were a message from God that Washington needs to change its policies."
Stupid to make a joke about god, when she's known to be a religious uhm, fundamentalist. I don't find it funny at all, considering her beliefs and what she's said before. IMO.
NeoDevin
Aug30-11, 12:38 PM
When asked afterwards about the intent of her comments, she had this to say:
“Our hearts and prayers go out to the families of the victims,” she said. “This isn’t something that we take lightly. My comments were not meant to be ones that were taken lightly. What I was saying in a humorous vein is there are things happening that politicians need to pay attention to. It isn’t every day we have an earthquake in the United States.”
(bolding mine)
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/bachmann-plays-down-comments-linking-disasters-and-deficits/?hp
Which is it? Was it a joke, or was it "not meant to be taken lightly"?
Another thing she's wrong on: As of today, there have been 2901 earthquakes in the US this year. That is significantly more than one every day. Even if you restrict it to mag 4.0+, it's more than 1/day.
Source: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php
Even if I concede that her comment was a genuine joke, it still doesn't sit well at all. Given her previous sermons, such as the one here, I pick up some conviction in her comment about disasters and God. Is it hard to believe that she links her experiences to her faith?
l0rUBomKvY0
Even if I concede that her comment was a genuine joke, it still doesn't sit well at all. Given her previous sermons, such as the one here, I pick up some conviction in her comment about disasters and God. Is it hard to believe that she links her experiences to her faith?
l0rUBomKvY0
It appears she was standing on a Church stage - talking to a Church group - a sermon doesn't seem odd unless taken out of context.
@ Gokul43201, there is clearly some humor in her comment, but there seems to be a side of conviction to it. As a joke alone, it wouldn't technically be in her favor.
It appears she was standing on a Church stage - talking to a Church group - a sermon doesn't seem odd unless taken out of context.
The clip is complete in demonstrating how she attributed her experiences to her faith.
The clip is complete in demonstrating how she attributed her experiences to her faith.
She made the presentation on a Church stage to a Church group - an appropriate venue.
She made the presentation on a Church stage to a Church group - an appropriate venue.
That is incidental. Does this video not prove that she attributes her experiences to her faith?
She made the presentation on a Church stage to a Church group - an appropriate venue.How about on national tv?
Bachmann: Got "sense" from God to run for office
By Lucy Madison (CBS News)
Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., says that she prayed to God about whether or not to run for political office and that those prayers provided her with a "sense from God" of "assurance about the direction" she was taking.
In a Sunday morning appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation," Bachmann - who will formally announce her presidential campaign in Iowa on Monday - responded to questions about statements she has made in the past that God "called me to run for the United States Congress."
"I am a Christian, as is my husband. I became a Christian when I was 16 years old. I gave my heart to Jesus Christ," Bachmann told CBS' Bob Schieffer. "Since that time, I've been a person of prayer. And so when I pray, I pray believing that God will speak to me and give me an answer to that prayer.
"That's what a calling is," continued the Tea Party favorite. "If I pray, a calling means that I feel like I have a sense from God."
Bachmann says she asked God about running for political office.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/26/ftn/main20074482.shtml
How about on national tv?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/26/ftn/main20074482.shtml
Apparently she finds it necessary to defend her comments - made from a Church stage to a Church group?:rofl: This is getting silly - I honestly don't care what she says.
I personally won't support her for President because it appeared to me she (opportunistically) hi-jacked the TEA Party on the steps of the Capitol Building at a time they needed a credible face on the floor of Congress - not because she believes in God.
Apparently she finds it necessary to defend her comments - made from a Church stage to a Church group?:rofl: This is getting silly - I honestly don't care what she says.
It wouldn't matter if she said it in private to the Pope. She stated what she firmly believed, that God is the one who does things for her, that guides her, that makes things happen for her. Of course she said it to a church group. And she was completely honest about it to them. That was her honesty, what she thinks and believes.
It wouldn't matter if she said it in private to the Pope. She stated what she firmly believed, that God is the one who does things for her, that guides her, that makes things happen for her. Of course she said it to a church group. And she was completely honest about it to them. That was her honesty, what she thinks and believes.
Ok - great - now what? Bachman is religious. Bachman was educated at Oral Roberts (according to the clip). Bachman has defended comments she made in Church in a national interview. Last, Bachman made a joke about the earthquake and a hurricane to supporters - it was sensationalized by Reuters (IMO) - then she seemed to apologize or clarify to supporters after making the joke.
Btw - what is the purpose of this thread?
Why can't some politicians leave their personal religious beliefs out of politics? If they run on a religious platform, claiming that they will do things based on what a *god* tells them to do, it scares me. Probably a good thing to let the public know what's going on inside of their heads though.
Although churches are known to bus people to the polls, get people registered, get people to do absentee voting, etc.. These people are told who to vote for, I've been to some born again Baptist prayer meetings in the South with some old high school friends that were "born again" and it was surreal. I would have never believed the things they did.
I have nothing against people practing religion as long as it doesn't affect me. Hey, I didn't even mind when people at work would gather at my cubicle and hold mini prayer meetings for me. These were nice people with good intentions. Trying to pass laws based on your religion is wrong though, IMO.
Btw - what is the purpose of this thread?I think we should have a thread on each politician trying for President, and report what's in the news about them. You can never have too much information about what drives a politician's decisions. We can lock the threads as candidates die off.
Btw - what is the purpose of this thread?
To post Bachmann quotes and not discuss them?
Anyway, Evo's post is an excellent answer to the rest of your reply, so I'll leave it there.
I have nothing against people practing religion as long as it doesn't affect me. Hey, I didn't even mind when people at work would gather at my cubicle and hold mini prayer meetings for me.
That's a bit over the top - were you ill?
I think we should have a thread on each politician trying for President, and report what's in the news about them. You can never have too much information about what drives a politician's decisions. We can lock the threads as candidates die off.
That's valid - I feel that way about our current administration as well.
That's valid - I feel that way about our current administration as well.Obama would have to be included, unless he decides not to run.
Obama would have to be included, unless he decides not to run.
What new information do we have about him? Is he pallin' around with terrorists again, and using an anti-American racist as his spiritual adviser? Or have his birth certificate and birth announcements in TWO Hawaii newspapers been shown to be a scam?
He's been vilified by the right and by members of his own party and has prevailed. I wonder if Bachmann's "spiritual advisers" and Perry's would pass muster with Independents and moderates of both parties...
What new information do we have about him? Is he pallin' around with terrorists again, and using an anti-American racist as his spiritual adviser? Or have his birth certificate and birth announcements in TWO Hawaii newspapers been shown to be a scam?
He's been vilified by the right and by members of his own party and has prevailed. I wonder if Bachmann's "spiritual advisers" and Perry's would pass muster with Independents and moderates of both parties...Well, to be fair a thread for Obama with mainstream news articles, just like for all the others.
Well, to be fair a thread for Obama with mainstream news articles, just like for all the others.To be fair and balanced, I agree. But has the right manufactured enough "controversies" against him to make the thread viable?
NeoDevin
Sep14-11, 07:59 PM
Bachmann jumped on the anti-vaxxer bandwagon too: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63369.html
It's almost like there's no bit of science that's too well established for her to deny.
"I will tell you that I had a mother last night come up to me here in Tampa, Fla., after the debate. She told me that her little daughter took that vaccine, that injection, and she suffered from mental retardation thereafter"
Bachmann jumped on the anti-vaxxer bandwagon too: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63369.html
It's almost like there's no bit of science that's too well established for her to deny.You can't make up stuff this bizarre.
TheCool
Sep14-11, 11:49 PM
It's an unwritten rule amongst Republicans to reject science, or so it seems. Look at Fox News' attacks on Sponge Bob, whom they view as a sort of environmental extremist:rofl:
It's an unwritten rule amongst Republicans to reject science, or so it seems. Look at Fox News' attacks on Sponge Bob, whom they view as a sort of environmental extremist:rofl:
Did anyone notice that George Bush's administration was correct to hold the funding to a certain solar panel company, but the new Obama Administration decided incorrectly to move full speed ahead with more than a half $Billion in taxpayer dollars (and even changed the structure whereby the taxpayers weren't the preferred creditor)?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-09-14-Solyndra-bankruptcy-White-House-loan.htm
"White House officials on Wednesday defended a decision to award a now-bankrupt solar energy company a $535 million loan as House Republicans released Obama administration e-mails suggesting that the loan was rushed despite deep internal skepticism about the government investment."
No more off topic responses please, let's stay on the topic of Bachman while she's still contending.
Ed Rollins (GOP adviser and former Bachmann campaign manager) has called on Bachmann to walk back her condemnation of the HPV vaccine.
Also, there are at least a couple of professors of bio-ethics that are willing to call her bluff with their own money as a reward to the "mentally retarded" girl.
Physician groups including the American Academy of Pediatrics rushed out statements defending the safety of Merck's vaccine and Cervarix made by GlaxoSmithKline, whose most common side effects include a sore arm, a rash and fever.
As a measure of their incredulity over Bachmann's comments, two bioethicists are offering rewards, one of more than $10,000, if she can bring forward the child who suffered irreparable damage.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/15/analysis-bachmann-hpv-va_n_964768.html
Bachmann's anti-vaccination attack on Perry is getting her lots of press, just not the kind she would have liked.
Ed Rollins (GOP adviser and former Bachmann campaign manager) has called on Bachmann to walk back her condemnation of the HPV vaccine.
Also, there are at least a couple of professors of bio-ethics that are willing to call her bluff with their own money as a reward to the "mentally retarded" girl.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/15/analysis-bachmann-hpv-va_n_964768.html
Bachmann's anti-vaccination attack on Perry is getting her lots of press, just not the kind she would have liked.
You beat me to it, turbo. Professors offer more than $10,000 for proof that Bachmann’s story about HPV is true (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/professors-offer-more-10-000-proof-bachmann-story-132647843.html).
DoggerDan
Sep15-11, 05:07 PM
Is only Bachmann-bashing allowed, here, or is Obama-bashing allowed as well? Would an "Obama quotables" thread be instantly locked? Given the serious leftist slant of most of the posts below, I'd lay odds that it would.
Ivan, you don't seem to understand anything about the Tea Party. Furthermore, I'm not in the Tea Party.
I'll add I haven't seen a lot of understanding here, either. czelaya, I'm not in the Tea Party, nor do I support them. Yet I've been rampantly (possibly rabidly) accused of it for little other reason than I'm not a Democrat, either. Meanwhile, I find some of their ideas are teaming with common sense, just as I find some of the ideas from Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, and other lines of thought hold merit.
Meanwhile, the "tea party" name-calling is much the same as it's been over the millennia, simply because "they" don't understand the differences or respect one another's point of view. Are "they" wrong? Yes, sometimes they are. But "they" may be as well-educated as "us" and just as convinced "their" point of view is the correct one as "we" are of "our" own point of view.
Put simply, it's childish, at best. At it's worst, well, the people's of this Earth have suffered enough at the hands of name-callers who've risen to power and backed up their ignorance and foolishness with force that threatens and curtails life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The key is electing someone whose ideas hold the most merit given the current and near-term future state of our country, while ignoring their ideas that are irrelevant to the post to which they're being elected.
Is only Bachmann-bashing allowed, here, or is Obama-bashing allowed as well?There are several Obama bashing threads.
Decimator
Sep16-11, 10:37 AM
It's an unwritten rule amongst Republicans to reject science, or so it seems.
She's getting shredded by the right over her Gardasil retardation comments, actually. I think she's done.
OK, I know she's probably now an also-ran, but this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44726590/ns/politics-decision_2012/) is priceless.
You want to know why we have an Arab Spring? Barack Obama has laid the table for an Arab Spring by demonstrating weakness from the United States of America," she said. "The No. 1 duty of the president is to be the commander-in-chief.
Does she not realize that some of these countries were ruled by autocratic dictators? Does she prefer Qaddafi?
OK, I know she's probably now an also-ran, but this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44726590/ns/politics-decision_2012/) is priceless.
You want to know why we have an Arab Spring? Barack Obama has laid the table for an Arab Spring by demonstrating weakness from the United States of America," she said. "The No. 1 duty of the president is to be the commander-in-chief.
Does she not realize that some of these countries were ruled by autocratic dictators? Does she prefer Qaddafi?
Nice. Take two unrelated things, draw an erroneous conclusion and then blame your opponent for something good that happened. This should almost be a Darwin Award (for killing one's own political aspirations).
Nice. Take two unrelated things, draw an erroneous conclusion and then blame your opponent for something good that happened. This should almost be a Darwin Award (for killing one's own political aspirations).
Of course - time will tell if something "good" happened. At this point all we know for certain is that change happened.
Of course - time will tell if something "good" happened. At this point all we know for certain is that change happened.
In the short term, I think that most people would agree that it is good for people to be freed from oppressive dictators. On the longer term, I agree. What they do with their new-found freedom will determine how good it is for them and the rest of the world.
In the short term, I think that most people would agree that it is good for people to be freed from oppressive dictators. On the longer term, I agree. What they do with their new-found freedom will determine how good it is for them and the rest of the world.
I basically agree. The real question is what will emerge from the ruins? I always wonder when watching news clips from a war zone - how do these people find food for their families?
MATLABdude
Oct2-11, 06:06 AM
I basically agree. The real question is what will emerge from the ruins? I always wonder when watching news clips from a war zone - how do these people find food for their families?
I'll take this a little OT. Most of these places (save for parts of Libya) haven't become war zones--they haven't suffered extended breakdowns in services, non-black market commerce, or even (basic) law and order.
As for the actual war zones, most of the people will probably do what they usually do in times of extended war: get out of Dodge and go somewhere where the food is (or where it's stable enough that food can be grown / raised), which in these days is probably a refugee camp in or near a neighbouring country. The few that remain probably get food via the profiteers / black marketers (who are probably getting stolen supplies from one or both of the sides), or from the warring parties through their charity and good graces, or by making themselves "useful".
Still, at least modern armies carry their own food and supplies (at least the first and second world ones). Times were probably a lot rougher for non-combatants in the past when armies were going around taking YOUR food (regardless of whether or not you were on their "side"). Or, if the story about Hannibal crossing the Alps is to be believed, counting on attrition and cannibalism to solve your logistical problems for you.
EDIT: Isn't "logistical difficulties" such a nice and sanitary way of referring to mass starvation or famine?
I basically agree. The real question is what will emerge from the ruins? I always wonder when watching news clips from a war zone - how do these people find food for their families?
Tripoli is a city of 1.7 million people. There were only a few tens of thousand people fighting. I am pretty sure the rest just went to the supermarket.
They may be trying to starve the people of Sirte at the moment, though. Not sure of that.
Jimmy Snyder
Oct2-11, 06:51 AM
Of course - time will tell if something "good" happened. At this point all we know for certain is that change happened.
Excellent point. So all Bachmann needs to do for the present is to hope that it turns out bad.
Apparently this is the official response from the Left to Bachmann's attempts to keep tax funds from funding abortions?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/13/nancy-pelosi-protect-life-act_n_1009461.html
""When the Republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor, and health care providers do not have to intervene," Pelosi said at a press conference."
Apparently this is the official response from the Left to Bachmann's attempts to keep tax funds from funding abortions?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/13/nancy-pelosi-protect-life-act_n_1009461.html
""When the Republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor, and health care providers do not have to intervene," Pelosi said at a press conference."This bill is outrageous, and throws womens rights back 100+ years. IMO.
In addition to allowing hospitals to opt out of providing life-saving abortions, H.R. 358, sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), denies federal funding to all health insurance plans that cover abortion. It would be the first law to restrict what kind of coverage women with private health insurance plans can purchase.
Supporters of the bill say its purpose is to free taxpayers from having to pay for abortions and to free hospitals from having to provide them against their will. But the Hyde amendment, which has been in place for 30 years, already prohibits the flow of taxpayer dollars to any kind of abortion service.
"I can't even describe to you the logic of what it is that they are doing," Pelosi said. "I just know that you'll see a large number of women on the floor today fighting for women's health issues as well as to point out how savage this is about withholding care for a woman because of this legislation."
DoggerDan
Oct14-11, 04:53 PM
This bill is outrageous...
Only 2.8% of abortions here in the U.S. are performed for the mother's maternal health. Therefore, Pelosi's focus on women "dying on the floor" is outrageous, deceptive, and manipulative. Source: Table 2, "Underlying Reasons For Abortion," Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries, Akinrinola Bankole, Susheela Singh and Taylor Haas, International Family Planning Perspectives
Volume 24, Number 3, September 1998, Guttmacher Institute. Link: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html
Bachman's bill isn't denying abortions. It's saying "if you want an abortion, pay for it yourself."
contribute to abortions, you can always start or fund an institution which provides funding for it. It would be voluntary, and when supporting highly controversial issues, that's a tremendous improvement over making everyone pay, particularly when many have religious or moral objections to it.
Only 2.8% of abortions here in the U.S. are performed for the mother's maternal health.How many of the 2.8% of those mothers would it be acceptable to deny abortions to, when their lives are at risk? It's easy to say "all life is sacred" while letting women with problematic pregnancies risk death, infertility, infection or debilitation, especially when quick intervention is called for and/or the woman is poor or uninsured?
Only 2.8% of abortions here in the U.S. are performed for the mother's maternal health. Therefore, Pelosi's focus on women "dying on the floor" is outrageous, deceptive, and manipulative. Source: Table 2, "Underlying Reasons For Abortion," Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries, Akinrinola Bankole, Susheela Singh and Taylor Haas, International Family Planning Perspectives
Volume 24, Number 3, September 1998, Guttmacher Institute. Link: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html
Bachman's bill isn't denying abortions. It's saying "if you want an abortion, pay for it yourself."
If you would like to contribute to abortions, Evo, you can always start or fund an institution which provides funding for it. It would be voluntary, and when supporting highly controversial issues, that's a tremendous improvement over making everyone pay, particularly when many have religious or moral objections to it.
Have you heard of the Hyde Ammendment? Did you miss this part of WhoWee's article?
Supporters of the H.R. 358 (Bachman) bill say its purpose is to free taxpayers from having to pay for abortions and to free hospitals from having to provide them against their will. But the Hyde amendment, which has been in place for 30 years, already prohibits the flow of taxpayer dollars to any kind of abortion service.
Public Law 111-8
H.R. 1105, Division F, Title V, General Provisions
SEC. 507. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for any abortion.
(b) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.
(c) The term `health benefits coverage' means the package of services covered by a managed care provider or organization pursuant to a contract or other arrangement.
http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/qt/HydeAmendmentText.htm
DoggerDan
Oct14-11, 07:16 PM
How many of the 2.8% of those mothers would it be acceptable to deny abortions to...
Not only did I not mention denying abortions (so why are you?), I specifically added a comment suggesting a more appropriate alternative for people desiring to fund them. I think that's very objective.
As for Pelosi: ""I can't even describe to you the logic of what it is that they are doing," Pelosi said. "I just know that you'll see a large number of women on the floor today fighting for women's health issues as well as to point out how savage this is about withholding care for a woman because of this legislation."
Pelosi obviously doesn't understand the bill. She's probably not even read the thing. To help ensure you don't make the same mistake, read on: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr358eh/pdf/BILLS-112hr358eh.pdf
The Protect Life Act extends the restrictions imposed by the Hyde amendment. It does NOT outlaw abortions, nor will it prevent a doctor for taking steps necessary to protect the life of the mother. The exceptions are explicitly stated in the bill:
‘‘(A) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or ‘‘(B) in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical in-jury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."
Pelosi's comment about women "dying on the floor" is grossly untruthful, misleading, and totally contrary to the provisions contained in the bill. I really hate it when Pelosi, or anyone else for that matter, lies, twists, and distorts the truth for personal gain, or in her case, just because she's either being obstinent, or because she's opposing this merely because it was floated by the "other side." Of the 121 co-sponsors of the bill, 6 are Democrats.
Back on topic...
Did Bachman really say the President's primary responsibility was to be the Commander in Chief? Good! That's what the Constitution says: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec2
Not only did I not mention denying abortions (so why are you?), I specifically added a comment suggesting a more appropriate alternative for people desiring to fund them. I think that's very objective.Have you heard of the Hyde Ammendment? Do you have any idea what it is? Did you miss this part of WhoWee's article?
DoggerDan
Oct14-11, 08:01 PM
Have you heard of the Hyde Ammendment? Do you have any idea what it is? Did you miss this part of WhoWee's article?
Did you not read my post? Middle of the section beginning with "The Protect Life Act extends the restrictions imposed by the Hyde amendment."
Did you not read my post? Middle of the section beginning with "The Protect Life Act extends the restrictions imposed by the Hyde amendment."
Yeah, I see you edited it.
There is no reason for this bill, it's created by and for a bunch of paranoid people that need to feel that they have control over other people and make them do what fits in with their beliefs, religious or otherwise. It's wrong and these people need to be stopped. IMO to all.
H.R. 358, sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), denies federal funding to all health insurance plans that cover abortion. It would be the first law to restrict what kind of coverage women with private health insurance plans can purchase.
Have you heard of the Hyde Ammendment? Do you have any idea what it is? Did you miss this part of WhoWee's article?
Just for clarity - I chose that article because it was the one that tried hardest (IMO) to explain the Pelosi viewpoint - tried to be fair. I just think Pelosi was a little too dramatic - but not necessarily more dramatic than Bachmann in the other direction. They are a good opponents - again IMO.
DoggerDan
Oct14-11, 11:31 PM
Yeah, I see you edited it.
Not that sentence.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/08/michele-bachmann-mount-rushmore_n_1081742.html
"When asked who she would add to the South Dakota monument, she proposed Reagan. She then mentioned James Garfield, who was president for just over seven months before being assassinated. She reportedly said she chose him because he is the only person to become president from the House of Representatives. (Bachmann could be the second if she is elected president.) She then said Calvin Coolidge would be a good candidate for the monument, since he "got the country's budget back on track.""
my bold
:rolleyes:
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.