Register to reply

Bachmann quotables

by moejoe15
Tags: bachmann, quotables
Share this thread:
moejoe15
#1
Aug15-11, 05:57 PM
P: 39
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.
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Bees able to spot which flowers offer best rewards before landing
Classic Lewis Carroll character inspires new ecological model
When cooperation counts: Researchers find sperm benefit from grouping together in mice
WhoWee
#2
Aug15-11, 06:13 PM
P: 1,123
Here's one - it shows she has a heart.
http://www.hollybaby.com/2011/07/01/...e-sarah-palin/

"“no matter how many children were brought into our life, we would receive them because we are committed to life.""
Ivan Seeking
#3
Aug16-11, 12:21 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,498
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...te-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...-Bachmann.html

Ivan Seeking
#4
Aug16-11, 12:38 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,498
Bachmann quotables

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/...vE7I_blog.html
moejoe15
#5
Aug16-11, 07:53 AM
P: 39
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
Here's one - it shows she has a heart.
http://www.hollybaby.com/2011/07/01/...e-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
#6
Aug16-11, 08:20 AM
PF Gold
DevilsAvocado's Avatar
P: 1,662


DevilsAvocado
#7
Aug16-11, 08:39 AM
PF Gold
DevilsAvocado's Avatar
P: 1,662
Dick Cheney also has a heart.

Ivan Seeking
#8
Aug16-11, 11:21 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,498
Quote Quote by DevilsAvocado View Post


Quote Quote by DevilsAvocado View Post
Dick Cheney also has a heart.

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.
DevilsAvocado
#9
Aug16-11, 07:39 PM
PF Gold
DevilsAvocado's Avatar
P: 1,662
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
Now pray the gay away and get with the program.
hehe, reloading my "quote-gun"… back tomorrow.
WhoWee
#10
Aug16-11, 07:47 PM
P: 1,123
I'm shocked we haven't heard about Elvis yet.
Evo
#11
Aug16-11, 08:03 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,477
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.
Newai
#12
Aug17-11, 07:41 AM
P: 106
On Bachmann confusing Concord, New Hampshire with Concord, Massachusetts:
Quote Quote by Michele Bachmann
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=OATKP...eature=related

She was joking or making light of the remark, but this angle doesn't really help.
Mech_Engineer
#13
Aug17-11, 08:31 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Mech_Engineer's Avatar
P: 2,241
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
#14
Aug17-11, 04:06 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,081
Quote Quote by Mech_Engineer View Post
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
#15
Aug17-11, 05:23 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,498
Quote Quote by Mech_Engineer View Post
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_opin...illion_privat/
Ivan Seeking
#16
Aug17-11, 05:39 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,498
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
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
#17
Aug17-11, 08:10 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Mech_Engineer's Avatar
P: 2,241
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
These are not ordinary times.
That is the truth! Of course, I'm not sure how I would try and define "ordinary times" anyway
Ivan Seeking
#18
Aug17-11, 10:40 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,498
Quote Quote by Mech_Engineer View Post
That is the truth! Of course, I'm not sure how I would try and define "ordinary times" anyway
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.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Draft Michelle Bachmann Current Events 0