# News Bachmann quotables

1. Aug 15, 2011

### moejoe15

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.

2. Aug 15, 2011

### WhoWee

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: May 5, 2017
3. Aug 16, 2011

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
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:

4. Aug 16, 2011

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-ceiling-saga/2011/08/10/gIQAKbvE7I_blog.html

5. Aug 16, 2011

### moejoe15

That wasn't the part of her anatomy that I am worried about in a president.

Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
6. Aug 16, 2011

:rofl:

7. Aug 16, 2011

Dick Cheney also has a heart.

8. Aug 16, 2011

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
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.

9. Aug 16, 2011

10. Aug 16, 2011

### WhoWee

I'm shocked we haven't heard about Elvis yet.

11. Aug 16, 2011

### Staff: Mentor

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: Aug 16, 2011
12. Aug 17, 2011

### Newai

On Bachmann confusing Concord, New Hampshire with Concord, Massachusetts:

She was joking or making light of the remark, but this angle doesn't really help.

Last edited: Aug 17, 2011
13. Aug 17, 2011

### Mech_Engineer

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. Aug 17, 2011

### mheslep

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. Aug 17, 2011

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
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.

http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opi...l_cost_the_economy_nearly_two_million_privat/

Last edited: Aug 17, 2011
16. Aug 17, 2011

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
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: Aug 17, 2011
17. Aug 17, 2011

### Mech_Engineer

That is the truth! Of course, I'm not sure how I would try and define "ordinary times" anyway

18. Aug 17, 2011

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
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. Aug 17, 2011

### WhoWee

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. Aug 17, 2011

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
So then all of the complaining about spending is meaningless.

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?