Who Would Michele Bachmann Add to Mount Rushmore?

  • News
  • Thread starter moejoe15
  • Start date
In summary, Michele Bachmann has made some good statements about family and having children, but her opposition to raising the debt ceiling may have hurt her campaign.
  • #1
moejoe15
8
0
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Here's one - it shows she has a heart.
http://www.hollybaby.com/2011/07/01/michele-bachmann-presidency-miscarriage-sarah-palin/ [Broken]

"“no matter how many children were brought into our life, we would receive them because we are committed to life.""
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
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/50...hmann-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
 
  • #4
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...-ceiling-saga/2011/08/10/gIQAKbvE7I_blog.html
 
  • #5
WhoWee said:
Here's one - it shows she has a heart.
http://www.hollybaby.com/2011/07/01/michele-bachmann-presidency-miscarriage-sarah-palin/ [Broken]

"“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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
:rofl:

300px-Chimp_Brain_in_a_jar.jpg
 
  • #7
Dick Cheney also has a heart.

DickCheneyHeartPump.jpg
 
  • #8
DevilsAvocado said:
:rofl:

300px-Chimp_Brain_in_a_jar.jpg

DevilsAvocado said:
Dick Cheney also has a heart.

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:
 
  • #9
Ivan Seeking said:
Now pray the gay away and get with the program. :biggrin:

hehe, reloading my "quote-gun"… back tomorrow. :wink:
 
  • #10
I'm shocked we haven't heard about Elvis yet.
 
  • #11
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
On Bachmann confusing Concord, New Hampshire with Concord, Massachusetts:
Michele Bachmann said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
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...
 
  • #14
Mech_Engineer said:
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.
 
  • #15
Mech_Engineer said:
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_opi...l_cost_the_economy_nearly_two_million_privat/
 
Last edited:
  • #16
mheslep said:
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #17
Ivan Seeking said:
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:
 
  • #18
Mech_Engineer said:
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.
 
  • #19
Ivan Seeking said:
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?
 
  • #20
WhoWee said:
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?
 
  • #21
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
Ivan Seeking said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
Michele Bachmann said:
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?

Michele Bachmann said:
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.
 
  • #25
czelaya said:
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.
 
  • #27
Ivan Seeking said:
So then all of the complaining about spending is meaningless.

would you concede that complaining about default is meaningless?
 
  • #28
moejoe15 said:
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.
 
  • #29
"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.
 
  • #30
TheStatutoryApe said:
"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"
 
  • #31
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.
 
  • #32
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.
 
  • #33
moejoe15 said:
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:
 
  • #34
Sharon Engels for Treasury?
 
  • #35
http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2007/10/kucinich_at_debate_i_did_see_a.html" [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<h2>1. Who is Michele Bachmann?</h2><p>Michele Bachmann is a former member of the United States House of Representatives, representing Minnesota's 6th congressional district from 2007 to 2015. She is a conservative politician and a member of the Republican Party.</p><h2>2. What is Mount Rushmore?</h2><p>Mount Rushmore is a national monument located in the Black Hills of South Dakota, USA. It features the faces of four American presidents - George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln - carved into the granite face of the mountain.</p><h2>3. Why is there a question about adding someone to Mount Rushmore?</h2><p>There is a question about adding someone to Mount Rushmore because there is limited space on the mountain and only four presidents are currently featured. Some people believe that other important figures in American history should also be included.</p><h2>4. Has anyone been added to Mount Rushmore after its initial construction?</h2><p>No, no one has been added to Mount Rushmore after its initial construction. The monument was completed in 1941 and there are no plans to add anyone else to it.</p><h2>5. Why is Michele Bachmann being suggested to be added to Mount Rushmore?</h2><p>Michele Bachmann is being suggested to be added to Mount Rushmore because she is a prominent figure in conservative politics and some people believe she has made significant contributions to American history. However, this suggestion is not widely supported and there are no plans to add her to the monument.</p>

1. Who is Michele Bachmann?

Michele Bachmann is a former member of the United States House of Representatives, representing Minnesota's 6th congressional district from 2007 to 2015. She is a conservative politician and a member of the Republican Party.

2. What is Mount Rushmore?

Mount Rushmore is a national monument located in the Black Hills of South Dakota, USA. It features the faces of four American presidents - George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln - carved into the granite face of the mountain.

3. Why is there a question about adding someone to Mount Rushmore?

There is a question about adding someone to Mount Rushmore because there is limited space on the mountain and only four presidents are currently featured. Some people believe that other important figures in American history should also be included.

4. Has anyone been added to Mount Rushmore after its initial construction?

No, no one has been added to Mount Rushmore after its initial construction. The monument was completed in 1941 and there are no plans to add anyone else to it.

5. Why is Michele Bachmann being suggested to be added to Mount Rushmore?

Michele Bachmann is being suggested to be added to Mount Rushmore because she is a prominent figure in conservative politics and some people believe she has made significant contributions to American history. However, this suggestion is not widely supported and there are no plans to add her to the monument.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
24
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
789
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
877
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
786
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
353
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
802
Replies
19
Views
1K
Back
Top