News Who Would Michele Bachmann Add to Mount Rushmore?

[Evo]

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[Newai]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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?

 

[WhoWee]

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[turbo]

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...

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[turbo]

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]

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"

 

[Evo]

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]

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

 

[WhoWee]

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

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."

 

[Evo]

No more off topic responses please, let's stay on the topic of Bachman while she's still contending.

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[Borg]

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. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/professors-offer-more-10-000-proof-bachmann-story-132647843.html".

 

[DoggerDan]

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.

 

[Evo]

Is only Bachmann-bashing allowed, here, or is Obama-bashing allowed as well?

There are several Obama bashing threads.

 

[Decimator]

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.

 

[daveb]

OK, I know she's probably now an also-ran, but 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?

 

[Borg]

OK, I know she's probably now an also-ran, but 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).

 

[WhoWee]

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.

 

[Borg]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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]

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?

 

[MarcoD]

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]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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."

 

[Evo]

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]

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.