PDA

View Full Version : Elections Bachmann makes a major move


Pages : [1] 2

Chocolate Hog
06-06-2011, 07:09 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-20069373-504564.html


As she prepares to enter the race in Iowa later this month, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has signed on high-profile political strategist Ed Rollins to run her presidential campaign, according to two sources close to Bachmann.
Rollins, who was Mike Huckabee's national campaign director in the 2008 campaign, is an experienced political operative with a well-earned reputation for his tough tactics and willingness to play hardball. He's probably best known for running the 1984 Reagan-Bush reelection campaign, which Reagan won in a landslide.

Rollins will run a campaign that already has a number of experienced advisors on board, including Brett O'Donnell, who advised George W. Bush and John McCain and is considered the best debate coach in politics. Bachmann also has brought on Bob Heckman, who is prominent in the conservative movement.

Chocolate Hog
06-06-2011, 07:09 PM
She will def. be a player in the primaries. Says ALOT about the Republican party.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2011, 09:49 PM
She will def. be a player in the primaries. Says ALOT about the Republican party.

Yeah, it does say alot, especially on FP. However, Rollins is an excellent choice. He will make her a player for sure. She did well there. I read his book and experienced many of the things he mentioned when I was on a campaign. Like the use of plants inside the various campaigns to make trouble and give a heads up to rivals about what was coming next.

Brainiac
06-06-2011, 10:18 PM
This is the first thing she's done that makes me take her seriously. Ed Rollins is a helluva choice, and he adds to her credibility.

Bewbies
06-06-2011, 11:00 PM
If Rollins is such a heavyweight I wonder if he had multiple offers and picked her for a reason?

mnchiefsguy
06-07-2011, 09:03 AM
If Rollins is such a heavyweight I wonder if he had multiple offers and picked her for a reason?

Rollins is not cheap either. Bachmann must have some serious coin in the bank.

oldandslow
06-07-2011, 09:13 AM
Good grief, I just don't understand the republican party. Bachmann, really???

There are a bunch of folks out there who are ready to jump ship - seriously. But if you guys give us a Palin or Bachmann or Santorum we are gonna flock back to Obama in droves.

I think Zach might be right. Republicans are their own worst enemy.

ChiTown
06-07-2011, 09:17 AM
Good grief, I just don't understand the republican party. Bachmann, really???

There are a bunch of folks out there who are ready to jump ship - seriously. But if you guys give us a Palin or Bachmann or Santorum we are gonna flock back to Obama in droves.

I think Zach might be right. Republicans are their own worst enemy.

So true.

We have had ample time to develop and nurture another candidate, and the best we can do is Mitt ****ing Romney? Reminds me of this............

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/85/Michael_Dukakis_in_tank.jpg

mnchiefsguy
06-07-2011, 09:20 AM
Good grief, I just don't understand the republican party. Bachmann, really???

There are a bunch of folks out there who are ready to jump ship - seriously. But if you guys give us a Palin or Bachmann or Santorum we are gonna flock back to Obama in droves.

I think Zach might be right. Republicans are their own worst enemy.

Not sure what to think of the field right now...but I think the field six months from now will be radically different. The Dems were in complete disarray last cycle, but managed to pull it together and nominate someone who could win. Not saying the Republicans will, but am saying it is the first period in a long game, and there is a long way to go.

mlyonsd
06-07-2011, 09:28 AM
Good grief, I just don't understand the republican party. Bachmann, really???

There are a bunch of folks out there who are ready to jump ship - seriously. But if you guys give us a Palin or Bachmann or Santorum we are gonna flock back to Obama in droves.

I think Zach might be right. Republicans are their own worst enemy.Who would you like them to nominate, Bill Clinton?

Dave Lane
06-07-2011, 09:28 AM
God I love this field :)

oldandslow
06-07-2011, 09:28 AM
Not sure what to think of the field right now...but I think the field six months from now will be radically different. The Dems were in complete disarray last cycle, but managed to pull it together and nominate someone who could win. Not saying the Republicans will, but am saying it is the first period in a long game, and there is a long way to go.

I guess I don't see that...the dems were gonna nominate either Clinton or Obama...the Edwards of the world were out there, but anyone who knew the dem political machine knew he was going nowhere.

The repubs, on the other hand have some very viable candidates...Mitch Daniels, Chris Christy, etc. but they are all sitting on sidelines. Instead we are getting a circus freak show.

I will be honest. I am voting for Mitt Romney if he gets nominated. All the rest on the list fit in the WTO (worse than Obama) camp.

Iowanian
06-07-2011, 10:03 AM
Good grief, I just don't understand the republican party. Bachmann, really???

There are a bunch of folks out there who are ready to jump ship - seriously. But if you guys give us a Palin or Bachmann or Santorum we are gonna flock back to Obama in droves.

I think Zach might be right. Republicans are their own worst enemy.

Please. There isn't a chance you're not voting for Obama again.

Brock
06-07-2011, 10:08 AM
This would be a repeat of 08 only worse. Another mouthy broad who thinks she's way smarter than she really is.

Iowanian
06-07-2011, 10:15 AM
Another mouthy broad who thinks she's way smarter than she really is.

Sounds like you're talking about the current boss.

Brock
06-07-2011, 10:27 AM
Sounds like you're talking about the current boss.

Now you're just being silly.

Where are the good candidates? This ain't it.

Iowanian
06-07-2011, 10:50 AM
It's pretty slim pickings but the paper tiger sitting on the throne now isn't good.

As for Bachman, I'd rather have her than Palin for sure.

Chiefshrink
06-07-2011, 10:54 AM
Now you're just being silly.

Where are the good candidates? This ain't it.

The candidate that will hand Obama's ass to him is his record and the economy. Quite frankly, Obama hands his own ass to himself.:thumb:

Contrary to the popular belief among the "Alinskyizing" by the Mainstream Marxist Media that the Republicans are in "trouble" quite the opposite is true IMO. If you buy into the "Alinskyizing" then you will be a "chicken little". I do not. "We The People" will have the final say:thumb:

It is the Marxist Dems that are in severe trouble and they know it. If an election were held today any decent sensible conservative/conservative Libertarian that would run could win hands down.:thumb: The Marxist Dems know the Tea Party is legit and the 2010 elections were legit and they (Marxist Dems and Marxist Media) will do everything to de-legitmize,downplay and spin(lie) what the real truth is(economy,foreign policy,etc...) about how America really feels:thumb:

Bottom line: America is pissed, non-trusting and afraid of this WH regime and the MSMM after so much lack of transparency as promised and speaking out both sides of this President's mouth and making our country more unsafe everyday.

But then why should we be surprised?

It's what Marxists do:thumb:

Chiefshrink
06-07-2011, 10:55 AM
It's pretty slim pickings but the paper tiger sitting on the throne now isn't good.

As for Bachman, I'd rather have her than Palin for sure.

You make my point:thumb:

Brock
06-07-2011, 11:00 AM
Now that sportshrunk has weighed in, I feel pretty confident we're in for four more years. That dude has never been right about anything, ever.

oldandslow
06-07-2011, 11:03 AM
Please. There isn't a chance you're not voting for Obama again.

As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about...

DJ's left nut
06-07-2011, 11:05 AM
So true.

We have had ample time to develop and nurture another candidate, and the best we can do is Mitt ****ing Romney? Reminds me of this............


The change in the national mood came a little too quickly.

'Old guard' Republicans are still poison, IMO. And Bobby Jindal pretty much Jindalled himself right out of the running with that disastrous speechifying of his (yes, Jindal has become a verb akin to being Munsoned).

The candidates that are spooling up in the party are still too young. Rubio, Haley, Ryan and a lot of the other people I'd love to see run are going to be very very raw still. And when the Republicans just ran against Obama by blasting his inexperience, they'd look pretty damn foolish running someone like Rubio against him (who, like as not, would now have 4 years as the POTUS under his belt).

The problem with the slate hasn't been the last 2 years, it was the 4-6 years prior to that. The Republicans just did nothing to develop legitimate candidates during the Bush years. They were content putting forward 'loyal soldiers' like McCain or folks their own party would never support like Romney.

I still like Romney, personally, but he doesn't have a prayer of winning the nomination.

Chiefshrink
06-07-2011, 11:11 AM
Now that sportshrunk has weighed in, I feel pretty confident we're in for four more years. That dude has never been right about anything, ever.

Anything? Really?

However, it is nice to see you 'always' get it 'right' Brock:rolleyes:

I will still stand by the BC and Panetta stories:thumb:

KC native
06-07-2011, 11:15 AM
I will still stand by the BC and Panetta stories:thumb:

Because you fucking batshit crazy. psuedo-therapy FTW!!!11010101!1)!010101

Brock
06-07-2011, 11:18 AM
Anything? Really?

However, it is nice to see you 'always' get it 'right' Brock:rolleyes:

I will still stand by the BC and Panetta stories:thumb:

That's because you let your biases get in the way of reality. You are the very definition of idealogue, and that isn't a good thing.

Cave Johnson
06-07-2011, 11:26 AM
The change in the national mood came a little too quickly.

'Old guard' Republicans are still poison, IMO. And Bobby Jindal pretty much Jindalled himself right out of the running with that disastrous speechifying of his (yes, Jindal has become a verb akin to being Munsoned).

The candidates that are spooling up in the party are still too young. Rubio, Haley, Ryan and a lot of the other people I'd love to see run are going to be very very raw still. And when the Republicans just ran against Obama by blasting his inexperience, they'd look pretty damn foolish running someone like Rubio against him (who, like as not, would now have 4 years as the POTUS under his belt).

The problem with the slate hasn't been the last 2 years, it was the 4-6 years prior to that. The Republicans just did nothing to develop legitimate candidates during the Bush years. They were content putting forward 'loyal soldiers' like McCain or folks their own party would never support like Romney.

I still like Romney, personally, but he doesn't have a prayer of winning the nomination.

Bachman's a reasonably serious candidate (at least with respect to the R primary) but, after her response to the State of the Union, she may Jindal herself out of contention.

Chiefshrink
06-07-2011, 11:33 AM
The change in the national mood came a little too quickly.

'Old guard' Republicans are still poison, IMO. And Bobby Jindal pretty much Jindalled himself right out of the running with that disastrous speechifying of his (yes, Jindal has become a verb akin to being Munsoned).

The candidates that are spooling up in the party are still too young. Rubio, Haley, Ryan and a lot of the other people I'd love to see run are going to be very very raw still. And when the Republicans just ran against Obama by blasting his inexperience, they'd look pretty damn foolish running someone like Rubio against him (who, like as not, would now have 4 years as the POTUS under his belt).

The problem with the slate hasn't been the last 2 years, it was the 4-6 years prior to that. The Republicans just did nothing to develop legitimate candidates during the Bush years. They were content putting forward 'loyal soldiers' like McCain or folks their own party would never support like Romney.

I still like Romney, personally, but he doesn't have a prayer of winning the nomination.

Romney is a RINO. He will not win but a conservative will. The MSMM have always picked our candidates and this time they will not. If you want to know who the MSMM is scared of look who they go after. They will pump Romney and Huntsman. Obama would love nothing more than to run against either one of these candidates or a squishy RINO who wants to be bi-partisan. But a staunch conservative is who they don't want to run against because the evidence of the last 3yrs is severely against Obama. A RINO muddies up the water and will not communicate clearly the differences because they will not truly fight and do not hold to true conservative values and are more interested in being 'liked' than saving our country(a la John McCain).

But you put a Gingrich/Ryan, Ryan/Bachman, Gingrich/Palin, Palin/Bachmann, Ryan/Rubio, Gingrich/Rubio, Gingrich/Christie(however,not a true conservative) Ryan/Cain, Palin/Cain, Bachmann/Cain type ticket together then you will see the MSMM sh** and piss in their pants:thumb: And I don't care if some of these folks have limited experience in DC. IMO, that is all the better they will fight for WTP and will use 'common sense'.

Bottom line: They do not want to run against a true conservative because they will lose the argument everytime.

I agree with you a 1000% that the old guard Repubs(a la 'ruling elite' RINOS) are a poison and are more of a problem now than the Marxist Dems at this point of saving our country. Conservatism is an evil as well to the RINOs and must be stopped at all costs and that is where the Marxist Dems and Marxist RINOs work together IMO alot of the times:thumb:

Chiefshrink
06-07-2011, 11:35 AM
That's because you let your biases get in the way of reality. You are the very definition of idealogue, and that isn't a good thing.

It's the other way around Brock:thumb:

Chiefshrink
06-07-2011, 11:35 AM
Because you ****ing batshit crazy. psuedo-therapy FTW!!!11010101!1)!010101

Up your prozac KC:thumb:

NewChief
06-07-2011, 11:40 AM
It's the other way around Brock:thumb:

You're comedy gold, my man.

dirk digler
06-07-2011, 11:48 AM
But you put a Gingrich/Ryan, Ryan/Bachman, Gingrich/Palin, Palin/Bachmann, Ryan/Rubio, Gingrich/Rubio, Gingrich/Christie(however,not a true conservative) Ryan/Cain, Palin/Cain, Bachmann/Cain type ticket together then you will see the MSMM sh** and piss in their pants:thumb: And I don't care if some of these folks have limited experience in DC. IMO, that is all the better they will fight for WTP and will use 'common sense'.

Bottom line: They do not want to run against a true conservative because they will lose the argument everytime.


You are delusional. Any of those that you suggested would lose by double digits.

Brock
06-07-2011, 11:48 AM
It's the other way around Brock:thumb:

You have no evidence of that at all. thumb

Cave Johnson
06-07-2011, 12:10 PM
Romney is a RINO. He will not win but a conservative will. The MSMM have always picked our candidates and this time they will not. If you want to know who the MSMM is scared of look who they go after. They will pump Romney and Huntsman. Obama would love nothing more than to run against either one of these candidates or a squishy RINO who wants to be bi-partisan. But a staunch conservative is who they don't want to run against because the evidence of the last 3yrs is severely against Obama. A RINO muddies up the water and will not communicate clearly the differences because they will not truly fight and do not hold to true conservative values and are more interested in being 'liked' than saving our country(a la John McCain).

But you put a Gingrich/Ryan, Ryan/Bachman, Gingrich/Palin, Palin/Bachmann, Ryan/Rubio, Gingrich/Rubio, Gingrich/Christie(however,not a true conservative) Ryan/Cain, Palin/Cain, Bachmann/Cain type ticket together then you will see the MSMM sh** and piss in their pants:thumb: And I don't care if some of these folks have limited experience in DC. IMO, that is all the better they will fight for WTP and will use 'common sense'.

Bottom line: They do not want to run against a true conservative because they will lose the argument everytime.

I agree with you a 1000% that the old guard Repubs(a la 'ruling elite' RINOS) are a poison and are more of a problem now than the Marxist Dems at this point of saving our country. Conservatism is an evil as well to the RINOs and must be stopped at all costs and that is where the Marxist Dems and Marxist RINOs work together IMO alot of the times:thumb:

So, everyone that's not as batshit conservative as you is a Marxist?

Got it.

Chocolate Hog
06-07-2011, 12:15 PM
Bachmann is a better candidate than Palin because she atleast sticks up for herself and is a former IRS tax lawyer so there is atleast some kind of skill set there. I personally won't vote for her. Hopefully after this election Republicans change their ways, they got off to a good start in the Spring of 09' but it's been downhill since.

Chocolate Hog
06-07-2011, 12:16 PM
If Rollins is such a heavyweight I wonder if he had multiple offers and picked her for a reason?

My guess is he was waiting for Huckabee to make a decision.

Amnorix
06-07-2011, 12:16 PM
Yeah, it does say alot, especially on FP.

I've seen you use "FP" a couple times now. What is that?

Amnorix
06-07-2011, 12:18 PM
But you put a Gingrich/Ryan, Ryan/Bachman, Gingrich/Palin, Palin/Bachmann, Ryan/Rubio, Gingrich/Rubio, Gingrich/Christie(however,not a true conservative) Ryan/Cain, Palin/Cain, Bachmann/Cain type ticket together then you will see the MSMM sh** and piss in their pants:thumb: And I don't care if some of these folks have limited experience in DC. IMO, that is all the better they will fight for WTP and will use 'common sense'.



PLEASE become a Republican political operative. You'd do great. The Demo....errr.....Republicans would really benefit from your efforts!

NewChief
06-07-2011, 12:20 PM
I've seen you use "FP" a couple times now. What is that?

Foreign Policy, I think.

BucEyedPea
06-07-2011, 12:39 PM
That's because you let your biases get in the way of reality. You are the very definition of idealogue, and that isn't a good thing.

I see nothing wrong with being an ideologue. It just depends of the ideology especially ones that enslave.

Brock
06-07-2011, 12:41 PM
I see nothing wrong with being an ideologue. It just depends of the ideology especially ones that enslave.

Of course you don't. You're nearly as batshit crazy as he is.

Bewbies
06-07-2011, 12:43 PM
Do liberals get a big of a kick out of conservatives telling them which of their candidates will be best for them as I get watching liberals pick the liberal republicans as best options?

LMAO

dirk digler
06-07-2011, 01:02 PM
Do liberals get a big of a kick out of conservatives telling them which of their candidates will be best for them as I get watching liberals pick the liberal republicans as best options?

LMAO

Probably. Though I don't remember really any liberal\Dem saying during 2008 that the dream ticket would be Kucinich\Gravel which is the equivalent of pretty much the majority of SS suggestions.

Brainiac
06-07-2011, 01:07 PM
Romney is a RINO. He will not win but a conservative will. The MSMM have always picked our candidates and this time they will not. If you want to know who the MSMM is scared of look who they go after. They will pump Romney and Huntsman. Obama would love nothing more than to run against either one of these candidates or a squishy RINO who wants to be bi-partisan. But a staunch conservative is who they don't want to run against because the evidence of the last 3yrs is severely against Obama. A RINO muddies up the water and will not communicate clearly the differences because they will not truly fight and do not hold to true conservative values and are more interested in being 'liked' than saving our country(a la John McCain).

But you put a Gingrich/Ryan, Ryan/Bachman, Gingrich/Palin, Palin/Bachmann, Ryan/Rubio, Gingrich/Rubio, Gingrich/Christie(however,not a true conservative) Ryan/Cain, Palin/Cain, Bachmann/Cain type ticket together then you will see the MSMM sh** and piss in their pants:thumb: And I don't care if some of these folks have limited experience in DC. IMO, that is all the better they will fight for WTP and will use 'common sense'.

Bottom line: They do not want to run against a true conservative because they will lose the argument everytime.

I agree with you a 1000% that the old guard Repubs(a la 'ruling elite' RINOS) are a poison and are more of a problem now than the Marxist Dems at this point of saving our country. Conservatism is an evil as well to the RINOs and must be stopped at all costs and that is where the Marxist Dems and Marxist RINOs work together IMO alot of the times:thumb:
The only thing this extreme point of view will accomplish will be to get Obama re-elected in 2012.

People who insist upon calling themselves "true conservatives" who will only support other "true conservatives" will be the downfall of the Republican party in 2012 and for years to come. They long for some idealistic "true conservative" utopia that will never be created because "true conservatives" are a tiny minority in this country, no matter how intensely they believe otherwise. Since they can't get what they want, they'll continue to sabotage the chances of any Republican who doesn't march to the beat of their drum. If they were to actually succeed at nominating someone like Palin or Bachman, Obama would win in a landslide.

I'll take a RINO every day over a bleeding-heart liberal or a "true conservative". A pragmatic approach to government is the only way to achieve long-term success in this eclectic society of ours, and the extremists on the Left and on the Right are incapable of such pragmatism.

patteeu
06-07-2011, 01:28 PM
Romney is a RINO. He will not win but a conservative will. The MSMM have always picked our candidates and this time they will not. If you want to know who the MSMM is scared of look who they go after. They will pump Romney and Huntsman. Obama would love nothing more than to run against either one of these candidates or a squishy RINO who wants to be bi-partisan. But a staunch conservative is who they don't want to run against because the evidence of the last 3yrs is severely against Obama. A RINO muddies up the water and will not communicate clearly the differences because they will not truly fight and do not hold to true conservative values and are more interested in being 'liked' than saving our country(a la John McCain).

But you put a Gingrich/Ryan, Ryan/Bachman, Gingrich/Palin, Palin/Bachmann, Ryan/Rubio, Gingrich/Rubio, Gingrich/Christie(however,not a true conservative) Ryan/Cain, Palin/Cain, Bachmann/Cain type ticket together then you will see the MSMM sh** and piss in their pants:thumb: And I don't care if some of these folks have limited experience in DC. IMO, that is all the better they will fight for WTP and will use 'common sense'.

Bottom line: They do not want to run against a true conservative because they will lose the argument everytime.

I agree with you a 1000% that the old guard Repubs(a la 'ruling elite' RINOS) are a poison and are more of a problem now than the Marxist Dems at this point of saving our country. Conservatism is an evil as well to the RINOs and must be stopped at all costs and that is where the Marxist Dems and Marxist RINOs work together IMO alot of the times:thumb:

If the Republican party is small enough to consider Romney a RINO then I think those saying that the Republicans don't have a chance are right. I don't think the Republican party is that small. Romney is a Republican in more than just name, but he's not an ideological conservative.

I think Obama would love to run against a "staunch conservative" who can't appeal to moderates like Rick Santorum or Ron Paul.

patteeu
06-07-2011, 01:31 PM
What's wrong with Bachmann (besides the fact that she's a girl)?

mnchiefsguy
06-07-2011, 01:49 PM
If the Republican party is small enough to consider Romney a RINO then I think those saying that the Republicans don't have a chance are right. I don't think the Republican party is that small. Romney is a Republican in more than just name, but he's not an ideological conservative.

I think Obama would love to run against a "staunch conservative" who can't appeal to moderates like Rick Santorum or Ron Paul.

I agree with this. While I would not put Romney in the staunch conservative category, I sure as hell would not classify him as a liberal, either. He clearly would be better in the White House than the current occupant.

Iowanian
06-07-2011, 01:50 PM
If nothing else, this might get her sex tape released.

Chocolate Hog
06-07-2011, 01:52 PM
If the Republican party is small enough to consider Romney a RINO then I think those saying that the Republicans don't have a chance are right. I don't think the Republican party is that small. Romney is a Republican in more than just name, but he's not an ideological conservative.

I think Obama would love to run against a "staunch conservative" who can't appeal to moderates like Rick Santorum or Ron Paul.

Paul polls the best amongest indies.

Chocolate Hog
06-07-2011, 01:53 PM
If nothing else, this might get her sex tape released.

She's hawt for sure.

patteeu
06-07-2011, 02:06 PM
Paul polls the best amongest indies.

Maybe indies who don't know anything about what he stands for. He didn't poll well in any group when it counted back in 2008.

Chocolate Hog
06-07-2011, 02:08 PM
Maybe indies who don't know anything about what he stands for. He didn't poll well in any group when it counted back in 2008.

Well we now know you would never pass a poli-sci class.

patteeu
06-07-2011, 02:17 PM
Well we now know you would never pass a poli-sci class.

Keep chasing that rainbow, billay.

Chocolate Hog
06-07-2011, 02:31 PM
Keep chasing that rainbow, billay.

I can show polling data that supports my position while you just make shitup.

patteeu
06-07-2011, 02:40 PM
I can show polling data that supports my position while you just make shitup.

What did I make up?

SNR
06-07-2011, 02:40 PM
What's wrong with Bachmann (besides the fact that she's a girl)?She hates gays and minorities. Other than that she's fine.

patteeu
06-07-2011, 03:15 PM
She hates gays and minorities. Other than that she's fine.

I assume this post is TIC.

DJ's left nut
06-07-2011, 03:17 PM
If the Republican party is small enough to consider Romney a RINO then I think those saying that the Republicans don't have a chance are right. I don't think the Republican party is that small. Romney is a Republican in more than just name, but he's not an ideological conservative.

I think Obama would love to run against a "staunch conservative" who can't appeal to moderates like Rick Santorum or Ron Paul.

Exactly.

But the Republicans have allowed themselves to become beholden to the evangelicals. Well perhaps 'allowed' isn't the right word, but I can't find a better one.

Anyone with the experience to be a credible candidate that passes the evangelical litmus test is likely to be rejected by the national electorate. Anyone that can actually win a general election (i.e. Romney), is going to get shot down by the evangelicals again.

It's just not a good year for an election, IMO. A 2014 election might've been nice, but the Republicans did too much damage in the 2000s by not replenishing their slate of candidates.

Consider this the first couple years of the Herm rebuild. Dickie V trotted too many old veterans out there for too long, and the rebuild was a mess. Well, unfortunately I believe 2012 is likely to be the Chiefs 2008. 2016, when folks like Rubio are ready for the national scene, may be our 2010, but it's just too soon to recover from the mess left by the RNC over nearly a decade.

Calcountry
06-07-2011, 03:30 PM
Good grief, I just don't understand the republican party. Bachmann, really???

There are a bunch of folks out there who are ready to jump ship - seriously. But if you guys give us a Palin or Bachmann or Santorum we are gonna flock back to Obama in droves.

I think Zach might be right. Republicans are their own worst enemy.Look, if you guys think that Obama is a pragmatist, and that McCain was a right winger, then you are lost.

These are mainstream conservatives, not radical right wingers, but, I am sure they appear that way standing next to Hussein.

Chocolate Hog
06-07-2011, 03:35 PM
What did I make up?

That Paul doesn't poll well with Indies. The polls are clearly indicate that is not true.

Chocolate Hog
06-07-2011, 03:36 PM
Exactly.

But the Republicans have allowed themselves to become beholden to the evangelicals. Well perhaps 'allowed' isn't the right word, but I can't find a better one.

Anyone with the experience to be a credible candidate that passes the evangelical litmus test is likely to be rejected by the national electorate. Anyone that can actually win a general election (i.e. Romney), is going to get shot down by the evangelicals again.

It's just not a good year for an election, IMO. A 2014 election might've been nice, but the Republicans did too much damage in the 2000s by not replenishing their slate of candidates.

Consider this the first couple years of the Herm rebuild. Dickie V trotted too many old veterans out there for too long, and the rebuild was a mess. Well, unfortunately I believe 2012 is likely to be the Chiefs 2008. 2016, when folks like Rubio are ready for the national scene, may be our 2010, but it's just too soon to recover from the mess left by the RNC over nearly a decade.

What makes Mitt Romney a credible candidate?

patteeu
06-07-2011, 03:38 PM
That Paul doesn't poll well with Indies. The polls are clearly indicate that is not true.

I didn't say he didn't poll well with all indies. Just the ones who know what's going on and the ones marking actual ballots.

Calcountry
06-07-2011, 03:39 PM
What makes Mitt Romney a credible candidate?Ed Koch would make a better candidate than Obama.

patteeu
06-07-2011, 03:41 PM
What makes Mitt Romney a credible candidate?

Well, for one thing, he recorded something greater than Ron Paul levels of (i.e. trivial) support in the 2008 primaries.

go bowe
06-07-2011, 03:41 PM
I didn't say he didn't poll well with all indies. Just the ones who know what's going on and the ones marking actual ballots.

"actual ballots"?

what do actual ballots have that billay's pole doesn't?

mlyonsd
06-07-2011, 03:41 PM
What makes Mitt Romney a credible candidate?He's polling even with Obama.

Chocolate Hog
06-07-2011, 03:42 PM
Well, for one thing, he recorded something greater than Ron Paul levels of (i.e. trivial) support in the 2008 primaries.

And heres a good example of why the Republican party has been shit for along time.

patteeu
06-07-2011, 03:43 PM
"actual ballots"?

what do actual ballots have that billay's pole doesn't?

I have to admit that I'm not very familiar with billay's pole.

Calcountry
06-07-2011, 03:44 PM
Let me be clear: Whomever the Republicans nominate, I will actively, and wholeheartedly support for President.

I am undecided on who I will support in the primary, but, looking at each one of the announced candidates through the lens of Hussein Obama makes the choice crystal clear.

Chocolate Hog
06-07-2011, 03:44 PM
"actual ballots"?

what do actual ballots have that billay's pole doesn't?

Fitting someone who rides my dick would talk about my pole.

Calcountry
06-07-2011, 03:45 PM
Besides, we don't need 4 more years of this shit.

Chocolate Hog
06-07-2011, 03:45 PM
Besides, we don't need 4 more years of this shit.

Mitt Romney will be exactly that.

BucEyedPea
06-07-2011, 03:46 PM
Let me be clear: Whomever the Republicans nominate, I will actively, and wholeheartedly support for President.

Not I. One party rule is scarey when a RINO is at the helm. So it better be someone serious about rolling things back.

mnchiefsguy
06-07-2011, 03:47 PM
Let me be clear: Whomever the Republicans nominate, I will actively, and wholeheartedly support for President.

I am undecided on who I will support in the primary, but, looking at each one of the announced candidates through the lens of Hussein Obama makes the choice crystal clear.

Exactly. I am with you. I am not sure who I will support come primary time, but it is a ways off, and I think the field will be different once the primary season gets underway. But whomever wins, they will be getting my vote.

Calcountry
06-07-2011, 03:47 PM
Not I. One party rule is scarey when a RINO is at the helm. So it better be someone serious about rolling things back.I have a strong inclination that it will be. Look at how Gingrich got skewered.

mnchiefsguy
06-07-2011, 03:47 PM
Not I. One party rule is scarey when a RINO is at the helm. So it better be someone serious about rolling things back.

So you are saying Obama in the White House would be better than a RINO? Really?

BucEyedPea
06-07-2011, 03:48 PM
He's polling even with Obama.

I'm leery of polls regarding insider corporatist Romney. For one he raised so much money last time when McCain was all forsaken as down and out but still won. His moneybomb which the media made a big deal about was not actual money raised but pledges. It's corporate money too.

Calcountry
06-07-2011, 03:49 PM
Not I. One party rule is scarey when a RINO is at the helm. So it better be someone serious about rolling things back.All the more reason why we make sure it is somebody besides a rhino, but not at the expense of Hussein getting another term. A rino would be better IMO. If you want purity for purity's sake, that is just another one party attidude but of a different color.

IMO, you just want someone in there that will stay out of the muslim brotherhoods business, and that's it. That is your litmus test.

Calcountry
06-07-2011, 03:50 PM
I'm leery of polls regarding insider corporatist Romney. For one he raised so much money last time when McCain was all forsaken as down and out but still won. His moneybomb which the media made a big deal about was not actual money raised but pledges. It's corporate money too.I don't want Romney because he is a Mormon, period.

Calcountry
06-07-2011, 03:50 PM
But I would STILL vote for him over Hussein.

mlyonsd
06-07-2011, 03:52 PM
I'm leery of polls regarding insider corporatist Romney. For one he raised so much money last time when McCain was all forsaken as down and out but still won. His moneybomb which the media made a big deal about was not actual money raised but pledges. It's corporate money too.I wouldn't put much into polls right now either, I just thought it was interesting one showed him even.

BucEyedPea
06-07-2011, 03:54 PM
All the more reason why we make sure it is somebody besides a rhino, but not at the expense of Hussein getting another term. A rino would be better IMO. If you want purity for purity's sake, that is just another one party attidude but of a different color.

IMO, you just want someone in there that will stay out of the muslim brotherhoods business, and that's it. That is your litmus test.

A RINO wouldn't be much different from Obama. For one Obamacare would remain like under Romney with just a few tweaks. So it has nothing to do with purity if there is no real difference. But keep believin' there would be a difference. For me things HAVE to move in the right direction enough. That alone requires a radical since other branches of govt have to be dealt with. This is practical...just any R is not practical.

Chocolate Hog
06-07-2011, 03:55 PM
But I would STILL vote for him over Hussein.

There is no difference between Romney and Obama's economics. They both support individual mandates too. Look at how Massachusetts performed while he ran the state. It's economy was second worse to Louisiana's and thats with Katrina.

BucEyedPea
06-07-2011, 03:58 PM
There is no difference between Romney and Obama's economics. They both support individual mandates too. Look at how Massachusetts performed while he ran the state. It's economy was second worse to Louisiana's and thats with Katrina.

People are leaving the state.

patteeu
06-07-2011, 03:59 PM
A RINO wouldn't be much different from Obama. For one Obamacare would remain like under Romney with just a few tweaks. So it has nothing to do with purity if there is no real difference. But keep believin' there would be a difference. For me things HAVE to move in the right direction enough. That alone requires a radical since other branches of govt have to be dealt with. This is practical...just any R is not practical.

There is no difference between Romney and Obama's economics. They both support individual mandates too. Look at how Massachusetts performed while he ran the state. It's economy was second worse to Louisiana's and thats with Katrina.

Political illiteracy.

mnchiefsguy
06-07-2011, 04:00 PM
A RINO wouldn't be much different from Obama. For one Obamacare would remain like under Romney with just a few tweaks. So it has nothing to do with purity if there is no real difference. But keep believin' there would be a difference. For me things HAVE to move in the right direction enough. That alone requires a radical since other branches of govt have to be dealt with. This is practical...just any R is not practical.

Well, unless the R's can take the Senate with a filibuster-proof majority and get the White House, I don't see how obamacare is going to get repealed.

go bowe
06-07-2011, 04:01 PM
Fitting someone who rides my dick would talk about my pole.

oh no, my sweet...

your pulsing throbbing internet dick is much too large for me to swallow all at once...

Chocolate Hog
06-07-2011, 04:05 PM
Political illiteracy.

What political company do you work for again? You've offered very little if any facts to support your claim.

go bowe
06-07-2011, 04:11 PM
What political company do you work for again? You've offered very little if any facts to support your claim.

no no no, sweet child...

as they say, the facts speak for themselves...

your statements are proof enough of your political illiteracy without any need whatsoever for further embellishment...

Calcountry
06-07-2011, 04:12 PM
A RINO wouldn't be much different from Obama. For one Obamacare would remain like under Romney with just a few tweaks. So it has nothing to do with purity if there is no real difference. But keep believin' there would be a difference. For me things HAVE to move in the right direction enough. That alone requires a radical since other branches of govt have to be dealt with. This is practical...just any R is not practical.Ron Paul or die? 4 more years, 4 more years, 4 more years.

Chocolate Hog
06-07-2011, 04:14 PM
no no no, sweet child...

as they say, the facts speak for themselves...

your statements are proof enough of your political illiteracy without any need whatsoever for further embellishment...

So the fact that Mitt Romneys state underperformed and lost 20,000 jobs is somehow irrelevant to the fact that 2012 will be about the economy and job creation? Maybe to a person from Independence whos under a meth psychosis.

Chocolate Hog
06-07-2011, 04:15 PM
This is hilarious. DA GUYZ WIT DA R NEXT TO THEM WILL WINZ

BucEyedPea
06-07-2011, 04:15 PM
Well, unless the R's can take the Senate with a filibuster-proof majority and get the White House, I don't see how obamacare is going to get repealed.

Even with that, there's no gaurantee it gets repealed either. Certainly not with Romney or even someone like Gingrich.

BucEyedPea
06-07-2011, 04:16 PM
This is hilarious. DA GUYZ WIT DA R NEXT TO THEM WILL WINZ

DA GUYZ WIT DA R NEXT TO THEM WILL WINZ will be different. o:-)

Calcountry
06-07-2011, 04:18 PM
Well, unless the R's can take the Senate with a filibuster-proof majority and get the White House, I don't see how obamacare is going to get repealed.If, and I realize it is a big if, the Wave last time was a tsunami that keeps going, rather than a one off, the likelyhood of that happening is better than 50/50.

6 years ago was the Nancy Pelosi wave of shithooks that voted in Obama care. Freshmen Senators in Red leaning states. It is not shaping up well for the D's purely from a mathematical standpoint.

Calcountry
06-07-2011, 04:19 PM
Even with that, there's no gaurantee it gets repealed either. Certainly not with Romney or even someone like Gingrich.I agree with this.

Bachmann is campaigning on repeal, and she has raised a lot of cash.

Calcountry
06-07-2011, 04:20 PM
Political illiteracy.You should have seen my retort before I back spaced it out. lol.

I decided it wasn't worth the post count.

Calcountry
06-07-2011, 04:20 PM
This is hilarious. DA GUYZ WIT DA R NEXT TO THEM WILL WINZJobs, bitches.

Chocolate Hog
06-07-2011, 04:23 PM
Jobs, bitches.

The guy who didn't create any as Gov. is going to as president?

BucEyedPea
06-07-2011, 04:24 PM
I agree with this.

Bachmann is campaigning on repeal, and she has raised a lot of cash.

Yes I know. I believe her to be sincere. However, she is a Christian warrior on the ME ( hardly a Tea Party position) and that is an issue with me. But I will wait and see. Santorum—NEVER!

go bowe
06-07-2011, 04:30 PM
So the fact that Mitt Romneys state underperformed and lost 20,000 jobs is somehow irrelevant to the fact that 2012 will be about the economy and job creation? Maybe to a person from Independence whos under a meth psychosis.

meth psychosis?

so THAT'S what's causing my general confusion and losing touch with reality...

for a second there, i thought you were actually smarter than the usual ignoramus, but i so disappoint in you now...

go back to dicks, at least it's familiar territory for you... :hump: :hump: :hump:

mnchiefsguy
06-07-2011, 04:39 PM
If, and I realize it is a big if, the Wave last time was a tsunami that keeps going, rather than a one off, the likelyhood of that happening is better than 50/50.

6 years ago was the Nancy Pelosi wave of shithooks that voted in Obama care. Freshmen Senators in Red leaning states. It is not shaping up well for the D's purely from a mathematical standpoint.

I hope you are correct. I see it as a possibility, but still not a probable situation. Still, the fact that it is not completely out of play gives us hope.

Chiefshrink
06-07-2011, 05:24 PM
A RINO wouldn't be much different from Obama. For one Obamacare would remain like under Romney with just a few tweaks. So it has nothing to do with purity if there is no real difference. But keep believin' there would be a difference. For me things HAVE to move in the right direction enough. That alone requires a radical since other branches of govt have to be dealt with. This is practical...just any R is not practical.

:thumb:

Bewbies
06-07-2011, 06:26 PM
The R's are going to get the Senate back, some mainstream media folks are already saying they could get fillibuster proof majority (which is short of the 60 the dems got in 08). They're also predicting more gains for R's in the House in 2012 as well.

If Obama were re-elected, which would be akin to finding a unicorn riding a rainbow, he's not going to be able to do shit but pardons and judges.

Chiefshrink
06-07-2011, 06:29 PM
However, she is a Christian warrior on the ME ( hardly a Tea Party position)

You sure about that, that the majority of the Tea Party has an issue about Jesus and Christianity? Seriously?

Maybe you do but I would bet the majority of the Tea Party have no problem with Chiristianity.

Chiefshrink
06-07-2011, 06:40 PM
The only thing this extreme point of view will accomplish will be to get Obama re-elected in 2012.

People who insist upon calling themselves "true conservatives" who will only support other "true conservatives" will be the downfall of the Republican party in 2012 and for years to come. They long for some idealistic "true conservative" utopia that will never be created because "true conservatives" are a tiny minority in this country, no matter how intensely they believe otherwise. Since they can't get what they want, they'll continue to sabotage the chances of any Republican who doesn't march to the beat of their drum. If they were to actually succeed at nominating someone like Palin or Bachman, Obama would win in a landslide.

I'll take a RINO every day over a bleeding-heart liberal or a "true conservative". A pragmatic approach to government is the only way to achieve long-term success in this eclectic society of ours, and the extremists on the Left and on the Right are incapable of such pragmatism.

I believe your so-called political "tea leaves" you are reading are actually 'mary jane' leaves going up in smoke that you are inhaling if you believe that a RINO is better than a conservative. A RINO is a "death by a thousand cuts" whereas a bleeding heart Marxist will "guillotine you in a heartbeat" if they could, but both political positions take you to the same outcome of destroying liberty and freedom(our country). One position just gets you there quicker than the other.

As Calcountry said, if a RINO is our representative in 2012 I will vote for the lesser of 2 evils. But real change back to our liberty and freedoms and what our Founders originally intended will 'only' happen with 'Conservatism'.:thumb:

Chiefshrink
06-07-2011, 06:50 PM
If, and I realize it is a big if,

IMO Cal, it is not a "big if" and this wave will continue and continue to get bigger especially if the Ryan plan continues to get "Alinskyized" by the RINO Repubs and the debt ceiling is raised(which it probably will) and supported by the RINOs as well.

"We The People"(You and I and other conservatives on this board) are extremely pissed and very concerned for our well being and future way of life that our ancestors died for that our Marxist opponents here seem to resent:rolleyes:

Chiefshrink
06-07-2011, 07:14 PM
I think Obama would love to run against a "staunch conservative"

Respectfully disagree. That is the last thing Obama wants to do is run against a "serious conservative". A serious conservative would eat Obama's lunch on the issues these last 3yrs of his tenure.

Romney f'd up by not coming out and doing what Santorum did when Rick admitted Cap and Trade was wrong. Romney by not admitting his Mass healthcare plan was a failure sheds a "HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE light" on him in more ways than one and it ain't good. Romney should have came out along time ago and said, "look, the states are like small laboratories for new ideas and we tried this healthcare idea in Mass a few yrs ago and now we now it doesn't work". If he would have come out and said that way back then he would not look like such a hard RINO now. And still by not doing this he is no different than Obama on the issue of "healthcare reform" which is a "HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE" issue for WTP(We The People) because we are seriously afraid of the state calling the shots on our healthcare:thumb:

Just imagine Bachmann/Gingrich/Ryan/Rubio/Palin/Paul debating "O" on "O"'s performance(except of course turning our country into a 'banana republic'-which is O's real goal but he can't say that of course) especially Gingrich if he chooses to bare his conservative teeth(which I am leery since I feel he has gone soft) but if he decided to bare them he would rip Obama a new a**hole. But any one of these others I mentioned could do the same. Which begs the question on how the MSMM will try to manipulate these debates in order to save Obama's a** at every turn especially as Obama's poll #'s continue to decline and bad economic #s rise.:thumb:

Chiefshrink
06-07-2011, 07:16 PM
She hates gays and minorities. Other than that she's fine.

Evidence please:shrug:

Chiefshrink
06-07-2011, 07:19 PM
You're comedy gold, my man.

Man, you are so substantive in your rebuttal!:thumb:

Chiefshrink
06-07-2011, 07:24 PM
You are delusional. Any of those that you suggested would lose by double digits.

Name the bet my man:thumb: Especially if Bachmann/Ryan or Gingerich is the candidate.

I already have a bet with "Mis-directed" to leave this forum for good if Obama wins in 2012.

What's the bet?

NewChief
06-07-2011, 07:25 PM
Man, you are so substantive in your rebuttal!:thumb:

What is there to rebutt? Seriously. Even your "side" thinks you're batshit crazy. I won't try to engage with you anymore than I'd try to engage with the lunatic ranting about the end times on the street corner. You do entertain, though. I'll give you that.

Brainiac
06-07-2011, 07:42 PM
And still by not doing this he is no different than Obama on the issue of "healthcare reform"


Recent quote from Mitt Romney
“If I am elected president, I will issue on my first day in office an executive order paving the way for waivers from ObamaCare for all 50 states. Subsequently, I will call on Congress to fully repeal ObamaCare.”

Sounds pretty different to me.

I agree that he'd be better off declaring that Romneycare was a failure. But there is still a huge difference between Obama and Romney on the issue of Obamacare.

Chiefshrink
06-07-2011, 07:45 PM
What is there to rebutt? Seriously. Even your "side" thinks you're batshit crazy. I won't try to engage with you anymore than I'd try to engage with the lunatic ranting about the end times on the street corner. You do entertain, though. I'll give you that.

Really? My side even? Hell NewChief just do a 'public poll' and state that 'only conservatives' can participate in this poll and ask them if I have gone Ernest T. Bass batshit crazy? And based on the who votes we will know who is conservative and psuedo conservative but BEP already sees me as psuedo and unless your a Libertarian you really can't be a conservative-roll eyes.

That would be a kick either way!!! Here is some inspiration for ya:thumb:

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MJUmIuc1X5s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Chiefshrink
06-07-2011, 07:47 PM
Sounds pretty different to me.

I agree that he'd be better off declaring that Romneycare was a failure. But there is still a huge difference between Obama and Romney on the issue of Obamacare.

RINO's are smart enough to sound conservative when they need be but it still remains to be seen since there track record is shall I say "horrific" when it comes to being conservative.

Chocolate Hog
06-07-2011, 07:52 PM
sportsshrink is awesome.

NewChief
06-07-2011, 07:53 PM
sportsshrink is awesome.

There ya go, SS. You've got at least one vote of confidence. ROFL

BucEyedPea
06-07-2011, 07:57 PM
And based on the who votes will know who is conservative and psuedo conservative but BEP already sees me as psuedo and unless your a Libertarian you really can't be a conservative-roll eyes.

I consider you a conservative generally—just not your FP on this current conflict. Although I think it stems more from your religious views than as a NeoCon per se. So I just don't see you as an Old Right conservative or what is also known as a Paleo-Con—what I am. Our FP is less aggressive and more restrained.

I am not a libertarian. I may have a few libertarian stands though. Some overlap with Old Right Conservatism.

Chiefshrink
06-07-2011, 07:58 PM
There ya go, SS. You've got at least one vote of confidence. ROFL

And there is your 'true straw poll' my man!!!

Got nothin against you NewChief and I never have. I just disagree with you politically. But any man who likes to fish is a good guy:thumb:

Chiefshrink
06-07-2011, 07:59 PM
I consider you a conservative generally—just not your FP on this current conflict. Although I think it stems more from your religious views than as a NeoCon per se. So I just don't see you as an Old Right conservative or what is also known as a Paleo-Con—what I am. Our FP is less aggressive and more restrained.

I am not a libertarian. I may have a few libertarian stands though. Some overlap with Old Right Conservatism.

Thank you for the clarification:thumb:

Chocolate Hog
06-07-2011, 08:00 PM
There ya go, SS. You've got at least one vote of confidence. ROFL

How is he or I worse than Patteau who just spouts off Fox News talking points, yet gets sucked off by the masses here?

Chiefshrink
06-07-2011, 08:01 PM
sportsshrink is awesome.

Nah, just a sinner(with feet of mud worse than clay) saved by the grace of Jesus who loves his country:thumb:

BucEyedPea
06-07-2011, 08:01 PM
You sure about that, that the majority of the Tea Party has an issue about Jesus and Christianity? Seriously?

Maybe you do but I would bet the majority of the Tea Party have no problem with Chiristianity.

No that's not what I mean. I don't generally have a problem with Christians or Christianity. I used the word "warrior" because of FP and war issues over there currently.
Today's Christians are the dupes for the NCs. One even made this claim.

BucEyedPea
06-07-2011, 08:02 PM
Sounds pretty different to me.

I agree that he'd be better off declaring that Romneycare was a failure. But there is still a huge difference between Obama and Romney on the issue of Obamacare.
Election-year posturing. He flip-flops way to much to be trusted.

patteeu
06-07-2011, 08:03 PM
How is he or I worse than Patteau who just spouts off Fox News talking points, yet gets sucked off by the masses here?

Correction: Fox News spouts off patteeu talking points.

Chiefshrink
06-07-2011, 08:05 PM
No that's not what I mean. I don't generally have a problem with Christians or Christianity. I used the word "warrior" because of FP and war issues over there currently.
Today's Christians are the dupes for the NCs. One even made this claim.

Got it! That is where we 'do' disagree.:thumb:

Chiefshrink
06-07-2011, 08:06 PM
Correction: Fox News spouts off patteeu talking points.

:LOL:

Chiefshrink
06-07-2011, 08:11 PM
How is he or I worse than Patteau who just spouts off Fox News talking points, yet gets sucked off by the masses here?

Patt's a true conservative but he just doesn't know it yet(in denial) and still gets caught up in the "pretty image of politics"(a la Romney) that some still think you need to win.;)

Nothing personal Patt although you think I am Ernest T. Bass's cousin:LOL:

Bewbies
06-07-2011, 08:29 PM
Billy Graham is probably a neo-con. So was Jesus.

Jenson71
06-07-2011, 08:39 PM
And there is your 'true straw poll' my man!!!

Got nothin against you NewChief and I never have. I just disagree with you politically. But any man who likes to fish is a good guy:thumb:

I thought NewChief was a Progressive (a la Marxist) who wants to destroy this great country and everything George Patton fought for. I would think you would have something against him on that.

InChiefsHell
06-07-2011, 08:50 PM
Herman Cain. I like that guy.

NewChief
06-07-2011, 08:52 PM
I thought NewChief was a Progressive (a la Marxist) who wants to destroy this great country and everything George Patton fought for. I would think you would have something against him on that.

I'm out to rob you of your freedom, enslave your children, and impregnate your women with my Marxist seed. Other than that, I'm an alright guy.

notorious
06-07-2011, 08:54 PM
Herman Cain. I like that guy.

This.

Chiefshrink
06-07-2011, 08:58 PM
Herman Cain. I like that guy.

So do I and if he is the elected one to represent the Repubs or is chosen as a VP running mate you can't go wrong. I mentioned him in an earlier post about possible combination of serious conservative tickets.

He might just be the one who will finally get it kick-started to wake up his fellow brothers and sisters that the Marxist Dem party is actually not only using them but keeping them stuck in poverty by supporting this phony "Down for da struggle"(the oppressive white man) BS:BS::thumb:

Chiefshrink
06-07-2011, 09:04 PM
I thought NewChief was a Progressive (a la Marxist) who wants to destroy this great country and everything George Patton fought for. I would think you would have something against him on that.

I'm out to rob you of your freedom, enslave your children, and impregnate your women with my Marxist seed. Other than that, I'm an alright guy.

You boys are so easy to tweek but then most Libs are overly sensitive. ;)

You see fellas, you learn to hate the sin not the sinner:thumb: And yes I can be salty at times:thumb:

mlyonsd
06-07-2011, 09:32 PM
:LOL:You and billay really don't pay attention do you. That's not a question, just an observation.

mlyonsd
06-07-2011, 09:36 PM
Herman Cain. I like that guy.If Obama was a mistake Cain is a mistake x2. And it has nothing to do with his skin color.

Chocolate Hog
06-07-2011, 09:48 PM
If Obama was a mistake Cain is a mistake x2. And it has nothing to do with his skin color.

Amen

Chocolate Hog
06-07-2011, 09:50 PM
You and billay really don't pay attention do you. That's not a question, just an observation.

Actually I do. I list facts when I debate something this section likes to ignore.

mlyonsd
06-07-2011, 09:54 PM
Actually I do. I list facts when I debate something this section likes to ignore.If you think pat draws his position from Fox you either haven't been around long enough or don't know what you're talking about.

Chocolate Hog
06-07-2011, 10:16 PM
If you think pat draws his position from Fox you either haven't been around long enough or don't know what you're talking about.

He shares the same views but I don't think he really gets his views from Fox though he didn't list anything of substance in this thread.

Iowanian
06-08-2011, 09:15 AM
Herman Cain. I like that guy.

I like what I've heard of his 'Concepts and Theories" but I'd like him to be more
specific than "well, we just fix the economy" type stuff.

InChiefsHell
06-08-2011, 09:41 AM
If Obama was a mistake Cain is a mistake x2. And it has nothing to do with his skin color.

Why? They couldn't be further apart...I don't understand your comparison. And obviously skin color has nothing to do with it.

mlyonsd
06-08-2011, 10:08 AM
Why? They couldn't be further apart...I don't understand your comparison. And obviously skin color has nothing to do with it.The country hired on an inexperienced/naive Obama which was a mistake. From the interviews I've seen Cain do he might know pizza but sounds just as inexperiend/naive when it comes to foreign policy and the economy.

Jaric
06-08-2011, 10:15 AM
Yes I know. I believe her to be sincere. However, she is a Christian warrior on the ME ( hardly a Tea Party position) and that is an issue with me. But I will wait and see. Santorum—NEVER!

This. Add Palin into that list as well.

InChiefsHell
06-08-2011, 10:24 AM
I like what I've heard of his 'Concepts and Theories" but I'd like him to be more
specific than "well, we just fix the economy" type stuff.

Same here. And frankly, I need an answer about the Aquila mess in the early 2000's. He was on the board when Aquila pulled an "Enron". Other than that, I can't find a problem...and if that's a big deal, I'm sure it will be made a bigger deal...

InChiefsHell
06-08-2011, 10:26 AM
The country hired on an inexperienced/naive Obama which was a mistake. From the interviews I've seen Cain do he might know pizza but sounds just as inexperiend/naive when it comes to foreign policy and the economy.

That's a good point, at least on foreign policy. I haven't heard much from him, but on the economy I believe he knows what he's talking about and he has practical, real world experience. Obama has never run anything in his life ever and had zero experience with pretty much anything. I don't see how Cain could possibly be worse, let alone twice as bad, as Obama.

DJ's left nut
06-08-2011, 10:53 AM
What makes Mitt Romney a credible candidate?

He actually does have a strong economic background and significant experience in executive governance.

The weight around his neck will be 1) The Mormon thing and 2) The healthcare experiment in Mass. But his answer to that should be an easy one and one that would appease the right: The individual states are free to enact healthcare policy as they see fit. In Mass, we saw it as an idea with potential. Unfortunately that potential didn't come to fruition. Even had it, it in no way suggests that I'm in favor of a federally run, nationalized healthcare system...

Blah blah blah.

Romney's a good candidate because he presents well to a national audience, because he's eloquent, because he's intelligent and because his education, private sector and background suggest that he can do the job.

SNR
06-08-2011, 11:06 AM
Let me know when you guys want more. I know this source says "Senator" instead of "Congresswoman", but if you google any of the quotes, you'll find a separate link that proves she actually said these things. At least that's the case with the first few. I assume it's true for the rest:

Bachmann on Same-Sex Marriage and Gay Americans.

On gay marriage: “This is probably the biggest issue that will impact our state and our nation in the last, at least, thirty years. I am not understating that.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

On public education: “That’s my number one issue.” — Senator Michele Bachmann quoted in Stillwater Gazette, July 24, 2006. K. Janisch, “Rove stumps for Bachmann in Stillwater ”

“This really is the number one issue for our country right now, how are we going to deal with this threat of radical Islam.”—Senator Michele Bachmann, Northern Alliance Radio Network, September 9, 2006.

On her March 2004 rally against same-sex marriage: “It will be an awesome day. We are going to be beseeching the Lord.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

On what will happen if her same-sex marriage ban amendment fails to pass in 2004: “It isn’t that some gay will get some rights. It’s that everyone else in our state will lose rights. For instance, parents will lose the right to protect and direct the upbringing of their children. Because our K-12 public school system, of which ninety per cent of all youth are in the public school system, they will be required to learn that homosexuality is normal, equal and perhaps you should try it. And that will occur immediately, that all schools will begin teaching homosexuality.” -- Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 6, 2004.

On the gay community and same-sex marriage: “This is a very serious matter, because it is our children who are the prize for this community, they are specifically targeting our children.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

If her same-sex marriage ban amendment does not pass in 2004: “The sex curriculum will be essentially by taught by the local gay community.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

“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.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 6, 2004.

“And so people have to make this call now. They have to go to mn.voter.com, they need to contact in particular their Senator, and they need to demand that the people be allowed to vote on this in November (of 2004). Because otherwise, our children will be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal and natural and that perhaps they should try it, and that’ll be very soon in our public schools all across the state, beginning in kindergarten.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 6, 2004.

On same-sex marriage: “… This is an earthquake issue. This will change our state forever. Because the immediate consequence, if gay marriage goes through, is that K-12 little children will be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal, natural and perhaps they should try it.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

On her March 2004 rally against same-sex marriage: “We need to have the phone lines melted this week. We need people to melt the phone lines. Not to the House members, you don’t need to call them, and you don’t need to call the Republican Senators. It’s the Democrat Senators that we need to melt their phone lines. Even more important, if anyone can come to the rally on Monday, they need to come, and we will give them maps with the offices of where the Democrat Senators are.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

“We are wide open and vulnerable and in all likelihood an activist judge will strike down our Defense of Marriage Act, our state law against gay marriage, this year. And in all likelihood, we will have gay marriage in 2004 in Minnesota , if we don’t get this amendment on the ballot for November.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

“We can only bring a constitutional amendment up (to ban same-sex marriage) in election years. That means we’d have to wait two more years. By that time, Jan, thousands of gays would legally be married in Minnesota .” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

On her same-sex marriage ban amendment: “We only have until May 17 (2004) at the latest. But really, it is this next week that the DFL is going to try to kill this bill. It’s within the Christian community’s hands to get face to face, in front of these Democrats.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004. This is important because it's a State Senator organizing religious demonstrators to go down to the Capitol, into the Rotunda, into the very offices of elected officials and intimidate the elected officials until they do their bidding. This quote is likely to upset other elected officials and people who believe in representative government. It's okay for you or me or some pastor to call for demonstrators to come down and get into the faces of legislators, but it's NOT okay for an elected official to organize a group of demonstrators to come down to the capitol, enter the capitol building and disrupt the business of the Senate and House.

Host: Now Michele, my understanding, I also got an email very early this morning, correct me if this is not true, that, let’s see here, your phone number has been given to members of the gay community and that they are to blitz you and harass you, is that correct? MB: That’s correct. We got a call yesterday, that at the Capitol brochures were being handed out with my photo on it, and I believe the photo of Representative Mary Liz Holberg. Our names, and the word “Shame” was written across my face, and my home phone number was put on that brochure, and people were instructed to call and make threatening calls to my personal home phone. Host: Alright, has that happened? MB: Uh, well, I have called Capitol Security, and I have called Washington County Sheriff, which is where we live, and they are on alert, and I can just tell you that precautions are being taken. I probably can’t tell your listeners any more than that, but precautions are being taken.” —Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

“It’s part of Satan I think to say that this is “gay.” It’s anything but gay.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

“If you’re involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

On her March 2004 rally against same-sex marriage: “And I want to tell you, that was probably the most loving, warm-spirited, most beautiful rally that I have ever seen at the Capitol.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

“They aren’t just kind of gay-friendly, they are gay advocates at Proctor and Gamble… Here’s just a few other companies that support the pro-homosexual agenda. They include Levi-Strauss, American Airlines, Sarah Lee Bakery, Jaguar and LandRover.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

“You have a teacher talking about his gayness. (The elementary school student) goes home then and says “Mom! What’s gayness? We had a teacher talking about this today.” The mother says “Well, that’s when a man likes other men, and they don’t like girls.” The boy’s eight. He’s thinking, “Hmm. I don’t like girls. I like boys. Maybe I’m gay.” And you think, “Oh, that’s, that’s way out there. The kid isn’t gonna think that.” Are you kidding? That happens all the time. You don’t think that this is intentional, the message that’s being given to these kids? That’s child abuse.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

On a leader of a teacher training workshop who cites discrimination as a cause of suicide among homosexual youth: “(He) also fails to acknowledge other psychological factors that could contribute to homosexual youth committing suicide, like family problems or abuse or maybe the fact of what they’re doing.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

“Normalization (of gayness) through desensitization. Very effective way to do this with a bunch of second graders, is take a picture of “The Lion King” for instance, and a teacher might say, “Do you know that the music for this movie was written by a gay man?” The message is: I’m better at what I do, because I’m gay.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

On homosexuality as a mental disorder: “Don’t misunderstand. I am not here bashing people who are homosexuals, who are lesbians, who are bisexual, who are transgender. We need to have profound compassion for people who are dealing with the very real issue of sexual dysfunction in their life and sexual identity disorders.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

“Two homosexuals that were holding up my picture this week at the Capitol and shouting that I want to hate people, I walked up to them and said: “I don’t hate you. I love you and the Savior who created you. He loves you, too, can I tell you why? This is not about hating them, this is about loving them into the Kingdom.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

“This is not about hating homosexuals. I don’t. I love homosexuals.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

Interviewer: “Answer the question, do you hate homos?” MB: “No, but ask my kids! (laughter)” — Senator Michele Bachmann, Tom Barnard Morning Show, KQRS, broadcast May 12, 2005.

go bowe
06-08-2011, 11:15 AM
burn those gay motherfuckers at the stake!

godless hedonists, sexual deviants and mad rapists...

they will turn all our children into icky homosexuals and condemn them to everlasting hell...

some of my best friends and relatives are gay...

oh wait...

SNR
06-08-2011, 11:21 AM
Patteeaeuaueueueueu is going to ask me how she is hating gays in any of those comments. I can sense it.

Well in preparation:

No, she didn't say "I hate homosexuals." But are you going to tell me that these are healthy, normal, reserved, and unparanoid opinions to have of homosexuality and homosexuals for a politician who doesn't just serve her state but the entire country?

mnchiefsguy
06-08-2011, 11:32 AM
Let me know when you guys want more. I know this source says "Senator" instead of "Congresswoman", but if you google any of the quotes, you'll find a separate link that proves she actually said these things. At least that's the case with the first few. I assume it's true for the rest:

Bachmann on Same-Sex Marriage and Gay Americans.

On gay marriage: “This is probably the biggest issue that will impact our state and our nation in the last, at least, thirty years. I am not understating that.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

On public education: “That’s my number one issue.” — Senator Michele Bachmann quoted in Stillwater Gazette, July 24, 2006. K. Janisch, “Rove stumps for Bachmann in Stillwater ”

“This really is the number one issue for our country right now, how are we going to deal with this threat of radical Islam.”—Senator Michele Bachmann, Northern Alliance Radio Network, September 9, 2006.

On her March 2004 rally against same-sex marriage: “It will be an awesome day. We are going to be beseeching the Lord.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

On what will happen if her same-sex marriage ban amendment fails to pass in 2004: “It isn’t that some gay will get some rights. It’s that everyone else in our state will lose rights. For instance, parents will lose the right to protect and direct the upbringing of their children. Because our K-12 public school system, of which ninety per cent of all youth are in the public school system, they will be required to learn that homosexuality is normal, equal and perhaps you should try it. And that will occur immediately, that all schools will begin teaching homosexuality.” -- Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 6, 2004.

On the gay community and same-sex marriage: “This is a very serious matter, because it is our children who are the prize for this community, they are specifically targeting our children.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

If her same-sex marriage ban amendment does not pass in 2004: “The sex curriculum will be essentially by taught by the local gay community.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

“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.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 6, 2004.

“And so people have to make this call now. They have to go to mn.voter.com, they need to contact in particular their Senator, and they need to demand that the people be allowed to vote on this in November (of 2004). Because otherwise, our children will be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal and natural and that perhaps they should try it, and that’ll be very soon in our public schools all across the state, beginning in kindergarten.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 6, 2004.

On same-sex marriage: “… This is an earthquake issue. This will change our state forever. Because the immediate consequence, if gay marriage goes through, is that K-12 little children will be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal, natural and perhaps they should try it.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

On her March 2004 rally against same-sex marriage: “We need to have the phone lines melted this week. We need people to melt the phone lines. Not to the House members, you don’t need to call them, and you don’t need to call the Republican Senators. It’s the Democrat Senators that we need to melt their phone lines. Even more important, if anyone can come to the rally on Monday, they need to come, and we will give them maps with the offices of where the Democrat Senators are.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

“We are wide open and vulnerable and in all likelihood an activist judge will strike down our Defense of Marriage Act, our state law against gay marriage, this year. And in all likelihood, we will have gay marriage in 2004 in Minnesota , if we don’t get this amendment on the ballot for November.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

“We can only bring a constitutional amendment up (to ban same-sex marriage) in election years. That means we’d have to wait two more years. By that time, Jan, thousands of gays would legally be married in Minnesota .” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

On her same-sex marriage ban amendment: “We only have until May 17 (2004) at the latest. But really, it is this next week that the DFL is going to try to kill this bill. It’s within the Christian community’s hands to get face to face, in front of these Democrats.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004. This is important because it's a State Senator organizing religious demonstrators to go down to the Capitol, into the Rotunda, into the very offices of elected officials and intimidate the elected officials until they do their bidding. This quote is likely to upset other elected officials and people who believe in representative government. It's okay for you or me or some pastor to call for demonstrators to come down and get into the faces of legislators, but it's NOT okay for an elected official to organize a group of demonstrators to come down to the capitol, enter the capitol building and disrupt the business of the Senate and House.

Host: Now Michele, my understanding, I also got an email very early this morning, correct me if this is not true, that, let’s see here, your phone number has been given to members of the gay community and that they are to blitz you and harass you, is that correct? MB: That’s correct. We got a call yesterday, that at the Capitol brochures were being handed out with my photo on it, and I believe the photo of Representative Mary Liz Holberg. Our names, and the word “Shame” was written across my face, and my home phone number was put on that brochure, and people were instructed to call and make threatening calls to my personal home phone. Host: Alright, has that happened? MB: Uh, well, I have called Capitol Security, and I have called Washington County Sheriff, which is where we live, and they are on alert, and I can just tell you that precautions are being taken. I probably can’t tell your listeners any more than that, but precautions are being taken.” —Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

“It’s part of Satan I think to say that this is “gay.” It’s anything but gay.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

“If you’re involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

On her March 2004 rally against same-sex marriage: “And I want to tell you, that was probably the most loving, warm-spirited, most beautiful rally that I have ever seen at the Capitol.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

“They aren’t just kind of gay-friendly, they are gay advocates at Proctor and Gamble… Here’s just a few other companies that support the pro-homosexual agenda. They include Levi-Strauss, American Airlines, Sarah Lee Bakery, Jaguar and LandRover.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

“You have a teacher talking about his gayness. (The elementary school student) goes home then and says “Mom! What’s gayness? We had a teacher talking about this today.” The mother says “Well, that’s when a man likes other men, and they don’t like girls.” The boy’s eight. He’s thinking, “Hmm. I don’t like girls. I like boys. Maybe I’m gay.” And you think, “Oh, that’s, that’s way out there. The kid isn’t gonna think that.” Are you kidding? That happens all the time. You don’t think that this is intentional, the message that’s being given to these kids? That’s child abuse.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

On a leader of a teacher training workshop who cites discrimination as a cause of suicide among homosexual youth: “(He) also fails to acknowledge other psychological factors that could contribute to homosexual youth committing suicide, like family problems or abuse or maybe the fact of what they’re doing.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

“Normalization (of gayness) through desensitization. Very effective way to do this with a bunch of second graders, is take a picture of “The Lion King” for instance, and a teacher might say, “Do you know that the music for this movie was written by a gay man?” The message is: I’m better at what I do, because I’m gay.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

On homosexuality as a mental disorder: “Don’t misunderstand. I am not here bashing people who are homosexuals, who are lesbians, who are bisexual, who are transgender. We need to have profound compassion for people who are dealing with the very real issue of sexual dysfunction in their life and sexual identity disorders.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

“Two homosexuals that were holding up my picture this week at the Capitol and shouting that I want to hate people, I walked up to them and said: “I don’t hate you. I love you and the Savior who created you. He loves you, too, can I tell you why? This is not about hating them, this is about loving them into the Kingdom.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

“This is not about hating homosexuals. I don’t. I love homosexuals.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

Interviewer: “Answer the question, do you hate homos?” MB: “No, but ask my kids! (laughter)” — Senator Michele Bachmann, Tom Barnard Morning Show, KQRS, broadcast May 12, 2005.

I have not read all the quotes, but from skimming it appears most of them came from interviews she did on KKMS in Minneapolis, which is a Christian/Religious station in the Twin Cities, so I am sure she is framing her response in the best possible way for the audience of that station, like all politicians do. She seems to be a long shot at best still, I am thinking that she would not be getting most of the attention she has been getting if she was not so active in the tea party, and if she was not a woman. The combination of those two factors are giving her a few more headlines than normal for a potential candidate in her position.

ROYC75
06-08-2011, 11:38 AM
Let me know when you guys want more. I know this source says "Senator" instead of "Congresswoman", but if you google any of the quotes, you'll find a separate link that proves she actually said these things. At least that's the case with the first few. I assume it's true for the rest:

Bachmann on Same-Sex Marriage and Gay Americans.

On gay marriage: “This is probably the biggest issue that will impact our state and our nation in the last, at least, thirty years. I am not understating that.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

On public education: “That’s my number one issue.” — Senator Michele Bachmann quoted in Stillwater Gazette, July 24, 2006. K. Janisch, “Rove stumps for Bachmann in Stillwater ”

“This really is the number one issue for our country right now, how are we going to deal with this threat of radical Islam.”—Senator Michele Bachmann, Northern Alliance Radio Network, September 9, 2006.

On her March 2004 rally against same-sex marriage: “It will be an awesome day. We are going to be beseeching the Lord.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

On what will happen if her same-sex marriage ban amendment fails to pass in 2004: “It isn’t that some gay will get some rights. It’s that everyone else in our state will lose rights. For instance, parents will lose the right to protect and direct the upbringing of their children. Because our K-12 public school system, of which ninety per cent of all youth are in the public school system, they will be required to learn that homosexuality is normal, equal and perhaps you should try it. And that will occur immediately, that all schools will begin teaching homosexuality.” -- Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 6, 2004.

On the gay community and same-sex marriage: “This is a very serious matter, because it is our children who are the prize for this community, they are specifically targeting our children.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

If her same-sex marriage ban amendment does not pass in 2004: “The sex curriculum will be essentially by taught by the local gay community.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

“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.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 6, 2004.

“And so people have to make this call now. They have to go to mn.voter.com, they need to contact in particular their Senator, and they need to demand that the people be allowed to vote on this in November (of 2004). Because otherwise, our children will be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal and natural and that perhaps they should try it, and that’ll be very soon in our public schools all across the state, beginning in kindergarten.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 6, 2004.

On same-sex marriage: “… This is an earthquake issue. This will change our state forever. Because the immediate consequence, if gay marriage goes through, is that K-12 little children will be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal, natural and perhaps they should try it.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

On her March 2004 rally against same-sex marriage: “We need to have the phone lines melted this week. We need people to melt the phone lines. Not to the House members, you don’t need to call them, and you don’t need to call the Republican Senators. It’s the Democrat Senators that we need to melt their phone lines. Even more important, if anyone can come to the rally on Monday, they need to come, and we will give them maps with the offices of where the Democrat Senators are.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

“We are wide open and vulnerable and in all likelihood an activist judge will strike down our Defense of Marriage Act, our state law against gay marriage, this year. And in all likelihood, we will have gay marriage in 2004 in Minnesota , if we don’t get this amendment on the ballot for November.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

“We can only bring a constitutional amendment up (to ban same-sex marriage) in election years. That means we’d have to wait two more years. By that time, Jan, thousands of gays would legally be married in Minnesota .” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

On her same-sex marriage ban amendment: “We only have until May 17 (2004) at the latest. But really, it is this next week that the DFL is going to try to kill this bill. It’s within the Christian community’s hands to get face to face, in front of these Democrats.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004. This is important because it's a State Senator organizing religious demonstrators to go down to the Capitol, into the Rotunda, into the very offices of elected officials and intimidate the elected officials until they do their bidding. This quote is likely to upset other elected officials and people who believe in representative government. It's okay for you or me or some pastor to call for demonstrators to come down and get into the faces of legislators, but it's NOT okay for an elected official to organize a group of demonstrators to come down to the capitol, enter the capitol building and disrupt the business of the Senate and House.

Host: Now Michele, my understanding, I also got an email very early this morning, correct me if this is not true, that, let’s see here, your phone number has been given to members of the gay community and that they are to blitz you and harass you, is that correct? MB: That’s correct. We got a call yesterday, that at the Capitol brochures were being handed out with my photo on it, and I believe the photo of Representative Mary Liz Holberg. Our names, and the word “Shame” was written across my face, and my home phone number was put on that brochure, and people were instructed to call and make threatening calls to my personal home phone. Host: Alright, has that happened? MB: Uh, well, I have called Capitol Security, and I have called Washington County Sheriff, which is where we live, and they are on alert, and I can just tell you that precautions are being taken. I probably can’t tell your listeners any more than that, but precautions are being taken.” —Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

“It’s part of Satan I think to say that this is “gay.” It’s anything but gay.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

“If you’re involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

On her March 2004 rally against same-sex marriage: “And I want to tell you, that was probably the most loving, warm-spirited, most beautiful rally that I have ever seen at the Capitol.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

“They aren’t just kind of gay-friendly, they are gay advocates at Proctor and Gamble… Here’s just a few other companies that support the pro-homosexual agenda. They include Levi-Strauss, American Airlines, Sarah Lee Bakery, Jaguar and LandRover.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

“You have a teacher talking about his gayness. (The elementary school student) goes home then and says “Mom! What’s gayness? We had a teacher talking about this today.” The mother says “Well, that’s when a man likes other men, and they don’t like girls.” The boy’s eight. He’s thinking, “Hmm. I don’t like girls. I like boys. Maybe I’m gay.” And you think, “Oh, that’s, that’s way out there. The kid isn’t gonna think that.” Are you kidding? That happens all the time. You don’t think that this is intentional, the message that’s being given to these kids? That’s child abuse.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

On a leader of a teacher training workshop who cites discrimination as a cause of suicide among homosexual youth: “(He) also fails to acknowledge other psychological factors that could contribute to homosexual youth committing suicide, like family problems or abuse or maybe the fact of what they’re doing.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

“Normalization (of gayness) through desensitization. Very effective way to do this with a bunch of second graders, is take a picture of “The Lion King” for instance, and a teacher might say, “Do you know that the music for this movie was written by a gay man?” The message is: I’m better at what I do, because I’m gay.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

On homosexuality as a mental disorder: “Don’t misunderstand. I am not here bashing people who are homosexuals, who are lesbians, who are bisexual, who are transgender. We need to have profound compassion for people who are dealing with the very real issue of sexual dysfunction in their life and sexual identity disorders.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

“Two homosexuals that were holding up my picture this week at the Capitol and shouting that I want to hate people, I walked up to them and said: “I don’t hate you. I love you and the Savior who created you. He loves you, too, can I tell you why? This is not about hating them, this is about loving them into the Kingdom.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

“This is not about hating homosexuals. I don’t. I love homosexuals.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

Interviewer: “Answer the question, do you hate homos?” MB: “No, but ask my kids! (laughter)” — Senator Michele Bachmann, Tom Barnard Morning Show, KQRS, broadcast May 12, 2005.



WOW, all of this bugs you soo much ?
You gay ? NTTATWWT Just thought I would ask .

patteeu
06-08-2011, 11:42 AM
Patteeaeuaueueueueu is going to ask me how she is hating gays in any of those comments. I can sense it.

Well in preparation:

No, she didn't say "I hate homosexuals." But are you going to tell me that these are healthy, normal, reserved, and unparanoid opinions to have of homosexuality and homosexuals for a politician who doesn't just serve her state but the entire country?

She actually said that she loves homosexuals and that she has compassion for them so to say she hates them seems to do her a serious injustice.

I don't agree with her position on gay issues and some of her fears seem unwarranted to me, but her positions on economic, tax, and foreign policy are far more important to me than whether she can temporarily hold back the tide on gay marriage (and I'm skeptical about her ability to do so anyway).

Iowanian
06-08-2011, 11:44 AM
I'm sure she'd be very pleasing to watch read a teleprompter, as well as the current dolt.


I'm guessing she could at least put the correct date within 1 year with her name today...

SNR
06-08-2011, 12:30 PM
WOW, all of this bugs you soo much ?
You gay ? NTTATWWT Just thought I would ask .Half of this shit makes her sound like a goddamned loon. You disagree?

DJ's left nut
06-08-2011, 01:00 PM
She actually said that she loves homosexuals and that she has compassion for them so to say she hates them seems to do her a serious injustice.

I don't agree with her position on gay issues and some of her fears seem unwarranted to me, but her positions on economic, tax, and foreign policy are far more important to me than whether she can temporarily hold back the tide on gay marriage (and I'm skeptical about her ability to do so anyway).

She also sounds like the poster child for the religious right.

In case you weren't aware, the national electorate isn't exactly a fan of the bible thumpers telling them what to do. Even on issues where they agree, nobody likes to be preached at.

SNR is right here, her beliefs aren't terribly critical to me in this realm, but the way she describes it makes her look like little more than a proselytizer.

I'm warming quickly to Pawlenty, that may be my guy. Even with him, I wonder if some of his social stances would keep him from getting a lot of national traction.

orange
06-08-2011, 01:22 PM
Let me know when you guys want more. I know this source says "Senator" instead of "Congresswoman", but if you google any of the quotes, you'll find a separate link that proves she actually said these things.

Nothing wrong with that. She was Senator Bachmann at the time - Minnesota State Senator.

patteeu
06-08-2011, 01:28 PM
She also sounds like the poster child for the religious right.

In case you weren't aware, the national electorate isn't exactly a fan of the bible thumpers telling them what to do. Even on issues where they agree, nobody likes to be preached at.

SNR is right here, her beliefs aren't terribly critical to me in this realm, but the way she describes it makes her look like little more than a proselytizer.

I'm warming quickly to Pawlenty, that may be my guy. Even with him, I wonder if some of his social stances would keep him from getting a lot of national traction.

I agree that a preachy social conservative is going to have electability hurdles (perhaps even insurmountable ones in some cases), but that's no reason to buy into the disingenuous characterizations of those who oppose her (e.g. "she hates gays").

Whoever the Republicans nominate, they need to place primary emphasis on the economy and leave controversial social issues on the back burner, IMO.

Chocolate Hog
06-08-2011, 01:45 PM
She also sounds like the poster child for the religious right.

In case you weren't aware, the national electorate isn't exactly a fan of the bible thumpers telling them what to do. Even on issues where they agree, nobody likes to be preached at.

SNR is right here, her beliefs aren't terribly critical to me in this realm, but the way she describes it makes her look like little more than a proselytizer.

I'm warming quickly to Pawlenty, that may be my guy. Even with him, I wonder if some of his social stances would keep him from getting a lot of national traction.

I agree Pawlenty has been talking about some great things lately but his downfall might be that he's just not an exciting guy.

DJ's left nut
06-08-2011, 02:04 PM
I agree Pawlenty has been talking about some great things lately but his downfall might be that he's just not an exciting guy.

He needs a very charismatic VP.

I wonder if Herman Cain isn't that guy. A Pawlenty/Cain ticket could be awfully tough for Obama to deal with.

ROYC75
06-08-2011, 02:58 PM
Half of this shit makes her sound like a goddamned loon. You disagree?

Not all of it. A good portion of it I can live with. I would say better than half where you sell her short of half or less.

ROYC75
06-08-2011, 02:59 PM
She also sounds like the poster child for the religious right.

In case you weren't aware, the national electorate isn't exactly a fan of the bible thumpers telling them what to do. Even on issues where they agree, nobody likes to be preached at.

SNR is right here, her beliefs aren't terribly critical to me in this realm, but the way she describes it makes her look like little more than a proselytizer.

I'm warming quickly to Pawlenty, that may be my guy. Even with him, I wonder if some of his social stances would keep him from getting a lot of national traction.

I'm wanting to take a long look at Tim Pawlenty as well.

Brock
06-08-2011, 03:08 PM
I have not read all the quotes, but from skimming it appears most of them came from interviews she did on KKMS in Minneapolis, which is a Christian/Religious station in the Twin Cities, so I am sure she is framing her response in the best possible way for the audience of that station, like all politicians do. She seems to be a long shot at best still, I am thinking that she would not be getting most of the attention she has been getting if she was not so active in the tea party, and if she was not a woman. The combination of those two factors are giving her a few more headlines than normal for a potential candidate in her position.

It's good to know she isn't afraid to "pretend" to be a blithering idiot to please other blithering idiots.

VAChief
06-08-2011, 03:12 PM
I agree that a preachy social conservative is going to have electability hurdles (perhaps even insurmountable ones in some cases), but that's no reason to buy into the disingenuous characterizations of those who oppose her (e.g. "she hates gays").

Whoever the Republicans nominate, they need to place primary emphasis on the economy and leave controversial social issues on the back burner, IMO.

If they nominate someone with a REAL plan for a sounder fiscal future that invests in OUR country versus the stone age middle east sh*tholes we have been flushing it down the past decade I would certainly give them a look and I think other left leaning independents would as well. You have to be realistic about what we are facing.

My biggest fear is that an undisputed idiot like Palin gets nominated. At that point there is no choice, and certainly no hope of a true debate about issues that are most important, it will boil down to hate filled rhetoric, most likely on both sides.

RedNeckRaider
06-08-2011, 03:18 PM
If this ditzy broad gets even single digit support I will lose faith in the American public. It is simply amazing she has been elected to any office~

patteeu
06-08-2011, 03:20 PM
If they nominate someone with a REAL plan for a sounder fiscal future that invests in OUR country versus the stone age middle east sh*tholes we have been flushing it down the past decade I would certainly give them a look and I think other left leaning independents would as well. You have to be realistic about what we are facing.

My biggest fear is that an undisputed idiot like Palin gets nominated. At that point there is no choice, and certainly no hope of a true debate about issues that are most important, it will boil down to hate filled rhetoric, most likely on both sides.

Undisputed idiot? I don't agree. I don't see how you can really believe that she's an idiot. I think you're judging her by her speaking style which is less formal than most politicians. "You betcha" rather than "Yes sir, that is correct".

Obama graduated from Harvard Law and he generally speaks the language of the elite so he gets a pass for gaffes like "57 states". Palin graduated from State U and uses more colloquial language so she gets hammered for her ignorance even when she's right about Paul Revere.

There isn't a single person who has considered running as a GOP candidate who I wouldn't vote for over Obama and that includes guys I'm not that thrilled about like Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee. My biggest qualm about Palin is that she might not be electable. If elected, I think she'd be a much better POTUS than the incumbent.

Calcountry
06-08-2011, 03:25 PM
The guy who didn't create any as Gov. is going to as president?Just like the guy who's only job was community agitator would create hope and change?

Calcountry
06-08-2011, 03:26 PM
Yes I know. I believe her to be sincere. However, she is a Christian warrior on the ME ( hardly a Tea Party position) and that is an issue with me. But I will wait and see. Santorum—NEVER!It is an issue with me as well. :D

Calcountry
06-08-2011, 03:32 PM
I believe your so-called political "tea leaves" you are reading are actually 'mary jane' leaves going up in smoke that you are inhaling if you believe that a RINO is better than a conservative. A RINO is a "death by a thousand cuts" whereas a bleeding heart Marxist will "guillotine you in a heartbeat" if they could, but both political positions take you to the same outcome of destroying liberty and freedom(our country). One position just gets you there quicker than the other.

As Calcountry said, if a RINO is our representative in 2012 I will vote for the lesser of 2 evils. But real change back to our liberty and freedoms and what our Founders originally intended will 'only' happen with 'Conservatism'.:thumb::clap:

Calcountry
06-08-2011, 03:36 PM
Respectfully disagree. That is the last thing Obama wants to do is run against a "serious conservative". A serious conservative would eat Obama's lunch on the issues these last 3yrs of his tenure.

Romney f'd up by not coming out and doing what Santorum did when Rick admitted Cap and Trade was wrong. Romney by not admitting his Mass healthcare plan was a failure sheds a "HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE light" on him in more ways than one and it ain't good. Romney should have came out along time ago and said, "look, the states are like small laboratories for new ideas and we tried this healthcare idea in Mass a few yrs ago and now we now it doesn't work". If he would have come out and said that way back then he would not look like such a hard RINO now. And still by not doing this he is no different than Obama on the issue of "healthcare reform" which is a "HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE" issue for WTP(We The People) because we are seriously afraid of the state calling the shots on our healthcare:thumb:

Just imagine Bachmann/Gingrich/Ryan/Rubio/Palin/Paul debating "O" on "O"'s performance(except of course turning our country into a 'banana republic'-which is O's real goal but he can't say that of course) especially Gingrich if he chooses to bare his conservative teeth(which I am leery since I feel he has gone soft) but if he decided to bare them he would rip Obama a new a**hole. But any one of these others I mentioned could do the same. Which begs the question on how the MSMM will try to manipulate these debates in order to save Obama's a** at every turn especially as Obama's poll #'s continue to decline and bad economic #s rise.:thumb:Yes, bring back the 1994 Gingrich, but, he had trouble with his wiener.

Kind of like another congressman.

DJ's left nut
06-08-2011, 03:47 PM
Yes, bring back the 1994 Gingrich, but, he had trouble with his wiener.

Kind of like another congressman.

A 'serious conservative' would allow Obama to deflect.

If Obama can make this election about social issues, he'll win. Frankly, I don't give a wet fart about social issues so I'll take a guy that's a moderate Republican on social issues but a guy that's a bit of a hawk economically.

Paul Ryan may be that guy, Rubio may be that guy, but I don't think they're ready. Cain might be that guy, but doesn't have much of a political track record.

Ultimately I'm very worried we'll put out a candidate that will give Obama the opportunity he needs to speak past economic issues. Give me someone that aligns point by point with Obama on social issues for all I care, that way there's no way he can change the subject.

Calcountry
06-08-2011, 03:56 PM
A 'serious conservative' would allow Obama to deflect.

If Obama can make this election about social issues, he'll win. Frankly, I don't give a wet fart about social issues so I'll take a guy that's a moderate Republican on social issues but a guy that's a bit of a hawk economically.

Paul Ryan may be that guy, Rubio may be that guy, but I don't think they're ready. Cain might be that guy, but doesn't have much of a political track record.

Ultimately I'm very worried we'll put out a candidate that will give Obama the opportunity he needs to speak past economic issues. Give me someone that aligns point by point with Obama on social issues for all I care, that way there's no way he can change the subject.Yep, were gonna make this election about social issues, with this social issue at the very top of the list.

The Dad, who has been out of work for 3 years. The Mom, who has to rely on food stamps to keep from starving.

Massive unemployment without a single solitary freaking clue what to do about it, because the real world, is not congruent with the faulty and untrue socialist Marxist paradigm.

RedNeckRaider
06-08-2011, 04:00 PM
Yep, were gonna make this election about social issues, with this social issue at the very top of the list.

The Dad, who has been out of work for 3 years. The Mom, who has to rely on food stamps to keep from starving.

Massive unemployment without a single solitary freaking clue what to do about it, because the real world, is not congruent with the faulty and untrue socialist Marxist paradigm.

Hey only 1 out of 7 people are on food stamps! If those 6 other people would just work harder...

DJ's left nut
06-08-2011, 04:06 PM
Yep, were gonna make this election about social issues, with this social issue at the very top of the list.

The Dad, who has been out of work for 3 years. The Mom, who has to rely on food stamps to keep from starving.

Massive unemployment without a single solitary freaking clue what to do about it, because the real world, is not congruent with the faulty and untrue socialist Marxist paradigm.

Go ahead and give it a shot.

But I guarandamntee you that if you put up someone like Bachmann, the battles that will be waged in the MSM will be all about how she hates gays and wants to make all abortion illegal and blah blah blah...

The incumbent gets an advantage when drawing the battle lines. He's the familiar face, he's the guy that has had the ear of the public for so long. He's absolutely going to have the upper hand in framing the debate. Someone like Bachmann would be perfect for him because he and his minions could constantly turn your attention back to hard right social morays (which are, like it or not, out of step with a majority of voters). Those issues are much easier for moderates to grasp and will give Obama the foothold he needs.

Rest assured, if you put a social conservative out there, the election cycle will constantly center around said conservative defending his social ideals, his religion and his moral compass rather than the economic abyss that Obama has plunged us into.

The Republicans cannot continue to cater to the religious right, IMO, not with the economic stakes so high. It's a surefire way to get beat and leave us with this empty suit of a President for another 4 years.

dirk digler
06-08-2011, 04:06 PM
Undisputed idiot? I don't agree. I don't see how you can really believe that she's an idiot. I think you're judging her by her speaking style which is less formal than most politicians. "You betcha" rather than "Yes sir, that is correct".

Obama graduated from Harvard Law and he generally speaks the language of the elite so he gets a pass for gaffes like "57 states". Palin graduated from State U and uses more colloquial language so she gets hammered for her ignorance even when she's right about Paul Revere.

There isn't a single person who has considered running as a GOP candidate who I wouldn't vote for over Obama and that includes guys I'm not that thrilled about like Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee. My biggest qualm about Palin is that she might not be electable. If elected, I think she'd be a much better POTUS than the incumbent.

JFC you are as delusional as SS is. Palin is a quitter who couldn't handle running a small state like Alaska, her approval numbers are in the shitter even in Alaska, and can't get even basic history or facts right.

But other than that she is awesome

Jaric
06-08-2011, 04:24 PM
Undisputed idiot? I don't agree. I don't see how you can really believe that she's an idiot. I think you're judging her by her speaking style which is less formal than most politicians. "You betcha" rather than "Yes sir, that is correct".

Obama graduated from Harvard Law and he generally speaks the language of the elite so he gets a pass for gaffes like "57 states". Palin graduated from State U and uses more colloquial language so she gets hammered for her ignorance even when she's right about Paul Revere.

There isn't a single person who has considered running as a GOP candidate who I wouldn't vote for over Obama and that includes guys I'm not that thrilled about like Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee. My biggest qualm about Palin is that she might not be electable. If elected, I think she'd be a much better POTUS than the incumbent.
Sorry Pat. She's a moron.

VAChief
06-08-2011, 05:31 PM
Undisputed idiot? I don't agree. I don't see how you can really believe that she's an idiot. I think you're judging her by her speaking style which is less formal than most politicians. "You betcha" rather than "Yes sir, that is correct".

Obama graduated from Harvard Law and he generally speaks the language of the elite so he gets a pass for gaffes like "57 states". Palin graduated from State U and uses more colloquial language so she gets hammered for her ignorance even when she's right about Paul Revere.

There isn't a single person who has considered running as a GOP candidate who I wouldn't vote for over Obama and that includes guys I'm not that thrilled about like Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee. My biggest qualm about Palin is that she might not be electable. If elected, I think she'd be a much better POTUS than the incumbent.

I'm not talking about gaffes that crop up for a good deal of politicians from time to time...I'm not talking partisan bs here...the idea of a Palin Presidency truly scares the shit out of me. I thought W was a pretty shallow unprepared for the presidency candidate and even in retrospect I would vote for him 100 times over instead of Palin. Obama was green, idealistic, probably naive and probably not really ready for this job...however that doesn't mean I want to turn over the "go codes" to someone who at least in my opinion doesn't really seem serious about trying to learn, understand or reflect intelligently about the complex issues that face us. I hear sound bytes, usually bitter rants against the "lamestream" media, but usually no substance.

I think Bachmann is batshit crazy, but I would vote for her over Palin in a heartbeat too.

Ugly Duck
06-09-2011, 02:11 AM
I don't see how you can really believe that (Palin)'s an idiot.

Now I know patteeu isn't serious. He's gotta be a lib plant.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oS4C7bvHv2w?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oS4C7bvHv2w?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

patteeu
06-09-2011, 06:52 AM
Now I know patteeu isn't serious. He's gotta be a lib plant.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oS4C7bvHv2w?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oS4C7bvHv2w?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

It turns out that she got that right. The newscaster and all the hyenas who made fun of her for it were wrong.

Dave Lane
06-09-2011, 08:01 AM
WOW, all of this bugs you soo much ?
You gay ? NTTATWWT Just thought I would ask .

I'm not gay, but were I, it would be far, far better than what afflicts you.

NewChief
06-09-2011, 08:06 AM
It turns out that she got that right. The newscaster and all the hyenas who made fun of her for it were wrong.

I can't figure out if her little alt-history "flubs" that she does are cleverly calculated traps that she's laying for the media or if she just thinks she's really clever when she issues them.

One problem is in her delivery when she says these things. Her Paul Revere delivery was so poorly-articulated and hesitantly delivered that even if she is, technically, correct, she comes off sounding moronic because of how she delivers it.

Of course, maybe that is calculated and intentional as well. She's laying a bloody piece of meat out there for the circling sharks. They, then, go into a feeding frenzy. She can then whip out her "I'm technically correct" card, and play the "vicious Marxist media" (see what I did there?) are savaging poor Sarah. If it's this latter scenario, then she's a much shrewder politician than many give her credit for.

stevieray
06-09-2011, 08:18 AM
it's amazing how some people still can't stop talking about Palin when they've already tried to marginialize her for the last couple of years.

NewChief
06-09-2011, 08:21 AM
it's amazing how some people still can't stop talking about Palin when they've already tried to marginialize her for the last couple of years.

It's amazing that you're still amazed by this.

stevieray
06-09-2011, 08:22 AM
It's amazing that you're still amazed by this.

I'm amazed that you think you're being clever.

Dave Lane
06-09-2011, 08:38 AM
It turns out that she got that right. The newscaster and all the hyenas who made fun of her for it were wrong.

Explain the logic underlying that conclusion.

NewChief
06-09-2011, 08:42 AM
Explain the logic underlying that conclusion.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/sarah-palin-says-paul-revere-warned-the-british.html

The well-known fable is Revere's late-night ride to warn fellow revolutionaries that....

...the British were coming. Less known, obviously, is the rest of the evening's events in which Revere was captured by said redcoats and did indeed defiantly warn them of the awakened militia awaiting their arrival ahead and of the American Revolution's inevitable victory.
Palin knew this. The on-scene reporters did not and ran off like Revere to alert the world to Palin's latest mis-speak, which wasn't.

Like a number of famous faux gaffes in American politics, the facts of the situation no longer really matter.


Good article that goes on to recount some other famous non-gaffes.

patteeu
06-09-2011, 08:55 AM
I can't figure out if her little alt-history "flubs" that she does are cleverly calculated traps that she's laying for the media or if she just thinks she's really clever when she issues them.

One problem is in her delivery when she says these things. Her Paul Revere delivery was so poorly-articulated and hesitantly delivered that even if she is, technically, correct, she comes off sounding moronic because of how she delivers it.

Of course, maybe that is calculated and intentional as well. She's laying a bloody piece of meat out there for the circling sharks. They, then, go into a feeding frenzy. She can then whip out her "I'm technically correct" card, and play the "vicious Marxist media" (see what I did there?) are savaging poor Sarah. If it's this latter scenario, then she's a much shrewder politician than many give her credit for.

I don't think the word "technically" is required here. She got it right and those who jumped on her (like Ugly Duck) were wrong.

But I think you're right about the fact that her delivery is an issue. That's what I was talking about when I said that people think she's a moron because of the way she says things (e.g. using colloquialisms) not because she's actually demonstrated a low IQ. Rush Limbaugh used to advertise some audio tapes that taught you how to speak in a more sophisticated way. One of the themes he always used in those ads was that people judge you by the way you talk and I think there's a lot of truth to that. It makes his current uncritical support of Palin a little ironic.

I guess it's possible that this Paul Revere thing was calculated, but I don't really think so. I think she's just a bright lady who is articulate and charismatic in a more "country" way rather than a slick, big city, elite way. I think GWBush was similar, but he had more exposure and practice in "elite" so he was a little more polished.

dirk digler
06-09-2011, 08:59 AM
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/sarah-palin-says-paul-revere-warned-the-british.html


Good article that goes on to recount some other famous non-gaffes.

No she got it wrong. What is even worse and pathetic they had to lock down Paul Revere's wikipedia page because Palin supporters were trying to change what he did to make Palin look like she was right.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/268933/what-sarah-palin-got-wrong-and-we-did-too-joel-j-miller


What Sarah Palin Got Wrong — And We Did, Too (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/268933/what-sarah-palin-got-wrong-and-we-did-too-joel-j-miller)


Before we all ride the Palin-Revere fiasco utterly into the ground, it’s worth noting what she really got wrong, and what the rest of us did as well.

Sarah Palin said that Paul Revere “warned the British that they weren’t gonna be taking away our arms, by ringing those bells and making sure, as he’s riding his horse through town, to send those warning shots and bells that we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free.”

As the author of a book about Revere’s life, when I heard this, I groaned. From Revere’s own account, it’s clear that he didn’t fire a shot, he didn’t ring a bell, and he didn’t intend to warn the British of anything (unless you count the townsfolk as British, which they technically were for a little while longer).

The unarmed Revere left Boston in total silence. He muffled the oars of his boat as men rowed him to Charlestown, and he rode in silence after leaving Charlestown by horseback. He was, after all, on a secret mission to alert John Hancock and Samuel Adams in Lexington that they were in danger.

Only after scaring up two redcoats on horseback and turning away to Medford did he begin waking the countryside. He first woke the militia captain in Medford and then rode to Lexington raising the alarm — by shouting, mind you, not shooting or ringing bells.

In short, Palin basically got the whole story wrong. So people piled on to imply that she was ignorant, dumb, daffy, whatever. Most quotes of her comments even featured the uh’s and um’s which, for simple courtesy’s sake, are usually removed from transcribed comments. Everyone looks dimwitted on the page when umm-ing unevenly through a statement.

But that, of course, wasn’t the end. Palin doggedly insisted that she was right, that she knew her history better than her detractors.

That’s when the counterattack was launched, and so we must return to Revere’s famous ride.

Revere made it to Lexington and then later set off for Concord, stirring up the countryside, but was captured about halfway there. While in British custody, Revere warned his captors about mobilizing militias.

Not much to work with, really, but this is politics. Palin’s defenders jumped in to say, See! She was right all along. Never mind that he only warned the redcoats because he was captured; it had nothing to do with his original mission. Never mind that his warning did not come while riding through town and was attended by neither gunfire nor the peal of bells.

A gun was heard as Revere and his captors came back toward Lexington — fired by the Minute Men massing in the town. The redcoats, spooked, took off and left Revere to find his way back on foot.

It was a harrowing night for Revere. Meanwhile, our episode is thoroughly absurd. Palin got the story wrong. Big deal. It’s not worth mocking her and saying she’s a dummy. Nor is it worth trying to pull her bacon out of the fire with a lame and halfblind excuse for how she was really correct, sort of, if you look at it from the right angle, while basically ignoring her actual words. Both sides look foolish.

Palin should have been humble and admitted she got the story wrong. She could have spun it to say that she got the spirit of the thing right. She could have done a lot of things. But persisting in a flashing-neon error as she’s done is prideful, and that kind of pigheadedness is very unattractive in someone vying for public office. Sarah’s sin was in her lack of humility.

But then there’s us, we who revel in the cheap shot and the takedown. People make mistakes. People say cockamamie things. But high-vaulting and jumping down their throats is rarely called for. Still, we’ve cultivated a whole media culture of such acrobatics. That is also prideful and unattractive.

NewChief
06-09-2011, 09:02 AM
I don't think the word "technically" is required here. She got it right and those who jumped on her (like Ugly Duck) were wrong.

But I think you're right about the fact that her delivery is an issue. That's what I was talking about when I said that people think she's a moron because o the way she says things not because she's actually demonstrated a low IQ. Rush Limbaugh used to advertise some audio tapes that taught you how to speak better. One of the themes he always used in those ads was that people judge you by the way you talk and I think there's a lot of truth to that. It makes his current uncritical support of Palin a little ironic.

I just can't figure out the purpose in these attempts to correct the American mythology moments. If she's trying to instruct and show that she knows more about American history than others (which would be politically shrewed because a large part of her co-opted Tea Party message is the Glen Beck: return to the real principles and idea of America deal) then she needs to do th at. Don't start making some halting, weird pronouncement without confidently going on to explain that, "Many Americans don't realize that Paul Revere was actually captured that night. When he was, he defiantly told the British that they better run! Now that's a Patriot who gets the job done even in the face of overwhelming odds." Instead you get the whole, "He was warning the... uhhh.. british... and....uhhh... the colonists...british soldiers" or whatever. She doesn't even acknowledge that the commonly believed version of events isn't historically accurate.

That's why I wonder if she's not playing political games with this sort of thing. She wants the media to come after her for these events because it plays to her base and strategy. Once again, I might be giving her more credit than she deserves, but it's an interesting idea.

Iowanian
06-09-2011, 09:15 AM
She might be an idiot, but I'll wager she knows It's not 2008.

patteeu
06-09-2011, 09:23 AM
Sorry dirk, this is where "technically" comes into play. For all practical purposes, she got the story right. She wasn't defending a thesis, she was making a political speech. She got the part about warning the British right and she never said anything about that being his original intention. When you punctuate her statement the way your article does, it makes it look like she was saying that Revere personally fired guns and rang bells, but I don't think that's a fair interpretation of her comments. If you give her the benefit of the doubt and separate the warning ride from the warning delivered to the British while in captivity, she leaves it ambiguous as to who is doing the shooting and ringing. Revere was one piece of the warning system and he became the face of that system, but the warning system was far larger than Revere himself.

Palin was ridiculed specifically for saying Revere warned the British. On that point she is definitely correct and her critics were wrong.

On the peripheral issue that you can say she got technically wrong (Revere personally shooting and ringing), they're far less embarrassing accidental slip-ups than saying we have 57 states.

NewChief
06-09-2011, 09:31 AM
Sorry dirk, this is where "technically" comes into play. For all practical purposes, she got the story right. She wasn't defending a thesis, she was making a political speech. She got the part about warning the British right and she never said anything about that being his original intention. When you punctuate her statement the way your article does, it makes it look like she was saying that Revere personally fired guns and rang bells, but I don't think that's a fair interpretation of her comments. If you give her the benefit of the doubt and separate the warning ride from the warning delivered to the British while in captivity, she leaves it ambiguous as to who is doing the shooting and ringing. Revere was one piece of the warning system and he became the face of that system, but the warning system was far larger than Revere himself.

Palin was ridiculed specifically for saying Revere warned the British. On that point she is definitely correct and her critics were wrong.

On the peripheral issue that you can say she got technically wrong (Revere personally shooting and ringing), they're far less embarrassing accidental slip-ups than saying we have 57 states.

So you're conceding the "technically" now. Watch out, Patt... if you concede an inch, us marxists will take a mile. That's Alinsky 101.

DJ's left nut
06-09-2011, 09:57 AM
Why would the left bother listening to what she actually said?

For instance, I presume everyone's aware that she never actually said she could see Russia from her house, right? In fact she said only that you could see Russian soil from islands off the coast of Alaska (which is undeniably true). She also never said that she had great insight into Russian diplomacy on account of this fact, only that Russia was a very close neighbor and that it would be in America's best interests to maintain strong relations with them.

Yet Tina Fey makes a wisecrack on SNL and suddenly "Palin said she would be able to negotiate with Russia because she can see it from her house...."

It's kinda par for the course; y'all just keep making things up and ascribing them to her.

And again - I don't even like Palin. At this point I find her to be a useful tool for the Republican Party (just keep drawing that fire, Sarah), but I wouldn't vote for her.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-09-2011, 10:18 AM
I just can't figure out the purpose in these attempts to correct the American mythology moments. If she's trying to instruct and show that she knows more about American history than others (which would be politically shrewed because a large part of her co-opted Tea Party message is the Glen Beck: return to the real principles and idea of America deal) then she needs to do th at. Don't start making some halting, weird pronouncement without confidently going on to explain that, "Many Americans don't realize that Paul Revere was actually captured that night. When he was, he defiantly told the British that they better run! Now that's a Patriot who gets the job done even in the face of overwhelming odds." Instead you get the whole, "He was warning the... uhhh.. british... and....uhhh... the colonists...british soldiers" or whatever. She doesn't even acknowledge that the commonly believed version of events isn't historically accurate.

That's why I wonder if she's not playing political games with this sort of thing. She wants the media to come after her for these events because it plays to her base and strategy. Once again, I might be giving her more credit than she deserves, but it's an interesting idea.

Way too many intellectual gymnastics going on here.

Occam's Razor would tell us that she's just a fucking moron.

If you prefer Freud, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, just like sometimes a dumbass is just a dumbass.

patteeu
06-09-2011, 10:46 AM
So you're conceding the "technically" now. Watch out, Patt... if you concede an inch, us marxists will take a mile. That's Alinsky 101.

She's only technically wrong if you cast her statement in the worst possible light with your choice of punctuation and even then it's not on the main point of contention. Stop Alinsking Sarah!

DJ's left nut
06-09-2011, 11:07 AM
Way too many intellectual gymnastics going on here.

Occam's Razor would tell us that she's just a fucking moron.

If you prefer Freud, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, just like sometimes a dumbass is just a dumbass.

Wrong.

Occam's Razor would tell use that she's accurate.

That's all.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-09-2011, 11:18 AM
Wrong.

Occam's Razor would tell use that she's accurate.

That's all.

No, it wouldn't.

When presented with two equally likely scenarios, the one that presents the fewest new assumptions, such as not re-writing established American History, is most likely correct.

Cave Johnson
06-09-2011, 11:19 AM
I'm warming quickly to Pawlenty, that may be my guy. Even with him, I wonder if some of his social stances would keep him from getting a lot of national traction.

What's his appeal?

From my admittedly left-leaning perspective, his proposals are profoundly unserious (i.e., f'ing bonkers). Like, for example, eliminating the capital gains tax.

http://www.gfsnews.com/article/2059/1/Pawlenty_vows_to_end_capital_gains_tax

orange
06-09-2011, 12:01 PM
It turns out that she got that right. The newscaster and all the hyenas who made fun of her for it were wrong.

Utter BULLSHIT.

"He who warned the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms by ringing those bells, and makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free," she said.

Nonsense. Revere fired no shots. Revere rang no bells. His mission was cloaked in secrecy. He only "warned" the British - make that lied to the British - because he was caught.

Second verse, worse than the first: "You know what? I didn't mess up about Paul Revere," she said over the weekend. "Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there. That, 'Hey, you're not going to succeed. You're not going to take American arms.'"

No it wasn't. No part of his ride was ever to "warn the British" of anything. It never was, no matter how many idiots try to change the Wiki.

But as scary-stupid as Sarah Palin is, she's nowhere near as scary-stupid as people who would rewrite history to cover her imbecility.

DJ's left nut
06-09-2011, 12:04 PM
No, it wouldn't.

When presented with two equally likely scenarios, the one that presents the fewest new assumptions, such as not re-writing established American History, is most likely correct.

Yeah...uh, that's not what she did.

But whatever makes you feel better.

DJ's left nut
06-09-2011, 12:09 PM
What's his appeal?

From my admittedly left-leaning perspective, his proposals are profoundly unserious (i.e., f'ing bonkers). Like, for example, eliminating the capital gains tax.

http://www.gfsnews.com/article/2059/1/Pawlenty_vows_to_end_capital_gains_tax

That his proposals at least start with a decidedly fiscally conservative bend.

Anyone that comes out with 'moderate' proposals like McCain is going to end up actually passing bloated tax/spend garbage once it gets through the negotiation process, etc...

With Pawlenty, I can at least look at what his 'unfiltered' proposals are and see that he's clearly an economic conservative at heart. I'm more concerned with the fundamental underpinnings of his policies than I am the proposals themselves, knowing full well that no proposals ever put forward against an empty chair end up even remotely similar to where they started.

But like a lot of the other candidates currently being floated about, his social views are pretty damn far right and are likely to get him in trouble in a national election.

Like I said, I'm not certain he's a guy I like just yet, but from what I've seen he's the best put forward thus far.

orange
06-09-2011, 12:09 PM
She got the part about warning the British right and she never said anything about that being his original intention.

No, even this is a lie. He didn't WARN the British of anything. He FABRICATED a non-existant situation to scare them off.

SNR
06-09-2011, 12:13 PM
The fact that this Bachmann thread has bled over into Palin talk is reason enough.

People aren't going to be able to differentiate the two women. I think even Bachmann's political strategists won't do enough for her. I doubt she wins even one delegate

orange
06-09-2011, 12:36 PM
If it's this latter scenario, then she's a much shrewder politician than many give her credit for.

She's as shrewd as a pound of bacon. This went over about as well as her "blood libel" howler.

"These people who support Palin are a right-wing group of extremists who will stop at nothing short of altering history in order to vindicate her inane statements," one editor wrote.

In the wake of her Revere remarks, a new Washington Post/ABC News poll says two-thirds of Americans "definitely would not" vote for Palin for president of the United States, even though she placed second behind Mitt Romney among Republican voters as their favoured presidential candidate.

There was more bad news for Palin on Tuesday. She told a British newspaper over the weekend that she hopes to meet this summer with her longtime idol, former prime minister Margaret Thatcher.

That isn't happening.

"Lady Thatcher will not be seeing Sarah Palin," an unnamed Thatcher aide told The Guardian. "That would be belittling for Margaret. Sarah Palin is nuts."

Canadian Free Press (http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gh9cWC7QXx7UZijqjiyv47LxvDLQ?docId=7080259)

Brock
06-09-2011, 12:37 PM
Old Mags is no dummy.

Pitt Gorilla
06-09-2011, 12:45 PM
She's as shrewd as a pound of bacon. This went over about as well as her "blood libel" howler.

"These people who support Palin are a right-wing group of extremists who will stop at nothing short of altering history in order to vindicate her inane statements," one editor wrote.

In the wake of her Revere remarks, a new Washington Post/ABC News poll says two-thirds of Americans "definitely would not" vote for Palin for president of the United States, even though she placed second behind Mitt Romney among Republican voters as their favoured presidential candidate.

There was more bad news for Palin on Tuesday. She told a British newspaper over the weekend that she hopes to meet this summer with her longtime idol, former prime minister Margaret Thatcher.

That isn't happening.

"Lady Thatcher will not be seeing Sarah Palin," an unnamed Thatcher aide told The Guardian. "That would be belittling for Margaret. Sarah Palin is nuts."

Canadian Free Press (http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gh9cWC7QXx7UZijqjiyv47LxvDLQ?docId=7080259)LMAO

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-09-2011, 01:12 PM
Yeah...uh, that's not what she did.

But whatever makes you feel better.

How does one contort oneself into a position that would make her statements appear as anything other than patently false?

Dave Lane
06-09-2011, 01:18 PM
How does one contort oneself into a position that would make her statements appear as anything other than patently false?

DJ is smart enough to know she's a moron. He's just fucking with people.

patteeu
06-09-2011, 01:20 PM
No, it wouldn't.

When presented with two equally likely scenarios, the one that presents the fewest new assumptions, such as not re-writing established American History, is most likely correct.

You don't have to rewrite American history, you just have to have better than a multi-culturally-diminished, white-European-redacted, high-school-survey level understanding.

SNR
06-09-2011, 01:22 PM
You don't have to rewrite American history, you just have to have better than a multi-culturally-diminished, white-European-redacted, high-school-survey level understanding.You mean history courses that don't portray American Indians as terrorists and spend more than one day of the whole year talking about how America enslaved black people that one time?

ROYC75
06-09-2011, 01:27 PM
I'm not gay, but were I, it would be far, far better than what afflicts you.

And, just what does afflict me ? Now it appears that you know me better than I know myself? You and Zach been putting down a few cold ones shooting the bull?

Brock
06-09-2011, 01:41 PM
WOW, all of this bugs you soo much ?
You gay ? NTTATWWT Just thought I would ask .

The idea of a public official who wants to run for president seriously worrying about kids getting the gay steered into them isn't something that should bug people?

You stupid? NTTATWWT Just thought I would ask.

dirk digler
06-09-2011, 01:42 PM
Sorry dirk, this is where "technically" comes into play. For all practical purposes, she got the story right. She wasn't defending a thesis, she was making a political speech. She got the part about warning the British right and she never said anything about that being his original intention. When you punctuate her statement the way your article does, it makes it look like she was saying that Revere personally fired guns and rang bells, but I don't think that's a fair interpretation of her comments. If you give her the benefit of the doubt and separate the warning ride from the warning delivered to the British while in captivity, she leaves it ambiguous as to who is doing the shooting and ringing. Revere was one piece of the warning system and he became the face of that system, but the warning system was far larger than Revere himself.

Palin was ridiculed specifically for saying Revere warned the British. On that point she is definitely correct and her critics were wrong.

On the peripheral issue that you can say she got technically wrong (Revere personally shooting and ringing), they're far less embarrassing accidental slip-ups than saying we have 57 states.

I understand she is not defending a thesis but when she is standing in Paul Revere's house she should get the story straight especially since her bus tour was to educate Americans on our history.

patteeu
06-09-2011, 01:42 PM
You mean history courses that don't portray American Indians as terrorists and spend more than one day of the whole year talking about how America enslaved black people that one time?

I mean history courses that don't cover the enough of the entire story of Paul Revere to enable their students to recognize that Palin was right.

patteeu
06-09-2011, 01:43 PM
I understand she is not defending a thesis but when she is standing in Paul Revere's house she should get the story straight especially since her bus tour was to educate Americans on our history.

She did get the story straight.

Jenson71
06-09-2011, 01:49 PM
I mean history courses that don't cover the enough of the entire story of Paul Revere to enable their students to recognize that Palin was right.

Palin said that Revere warned the British by ringing bells. You think that's correct?

DJ's left nut
06-09-2011, 01:51 PM
DJ is smart enough to know she's a moron. He's just fucking with people.

I've said several times I don't believe she's particularly bright - it's recorded around here somewhere.

I just can't help but wonder why the left is so fascinated with railing on her. Seemingly intelligent people are hell bent on chasing her around waiting for her to say something stupid. And they do so without paying attention the fact that folks like Biden and Obama have no shortage of stupid quips of their own. It's just bizarre to me.

Seriously - look at the spew from Joe Biden sometimes; it's astonishing. Yet I don't get any sort of jollies by calling him a moron for it (contemporaneous speaking is very difficult). And I damn sure don't fabricate quotes, assign them to him then parrot them as 'proof' of his idiocy (i.e. "I can see Russia from my house").

And I most assuredly don't pre-suppose that the simplest explanation is that he's a moron, though he's given us just as much evidence of same as Sarah Palin has.

It's why I say that the Republicans can't run a social conservative against Obama - if you give the Democrats a change to avoid substantive discussion, they'll do so. The fact that they continue to chase Sarah Palin around speaks loudly to that - they have their pincushion and they hope people will focus on her instead of the mountain they're driving us into.

Jenson71
06-09-2011, 01:51 PM
The likely scenario is she heard the tour guide say something about Revere's run in with the Redcoats, and she was flailing off that tidbit.

Jenson71
06-09-2011, 01:52 PM
I just can't help but wonder why the left is so fascinated with railing on her.

She's an easy target.

dirk digler
06-09-2011, 01:54 PM
She did get the story straight.

In your eyes she did but you have beer googles.

ROYC75
06-09-2011, 01:55 PM
The idea of a public official who wants to run for president seriously worrying about kids getting the gay steered into them isn't something that should bug people?

You stupid? NTTATWWT Just thought I would ask.

Not stupid one bit, it should bug people who do not want their kids associated with it. How long before it becomes a required class in public school? I can see it now, home economics, the reach around factor about selecting your beef.

It use to be, a husband and a wife was the norm for a family, now we get the alternate lifestyle to marriage, marry anything you want straight from the new kids on the block.

With society changing all the time, before long we will have in the classrooms, how to live next door to terrorist neighbors that you are too afraid to stand up to.

Not all change in the world is good.

DJ's left nut
06-09-2011, 01:56 PM
You mean history courses that don't portray American Indians as terrorists and spend more than one day of the whole year talking about how America enslaved black people that one time?

My High School history class spent 1 day...FIFTY MINUTES...on the American Revolution. We then spent a week designing and preparing 'colonial clothing catalogs'. The dumb bitch didn't know what grape shot was and had no idea that Fort Knox was actually named for a pretty important dude...

Of course I got a B on the course because I have no artistic ability and couldn't make a damn clothing catalog (actually ended up costing me a decent chunk of change in scholarship money).

History classes in public schools are a damn joke.

Cave Johnson
06-09-2011, 01:56 PM
That his proposals at least start with a decidedly fiscally conservative bend.

Anyone that comes out with 'moderate' proposals like McCain is going to end up actually passing bloated tax/spend garbage once it gets through the negotiation process, etc...

With Pawlenty, I can at least look at what his 'unfiltered' proposals are and see that he's clearly an economic conservative at heart. I'm more concerned with the fundamental underpinnings of his policies than I am the proposals themselves, knowing full well that no proposals ever put forward against an empty chair end up even remotely similar to where they started.

But like a lot of the other candidates currently being floated about, his social views are pretty damn far right and are likely to get him in trouble in a national election.

Like I said, I'm not certain he's a guy I like just yet, but from what I've seen he's the best put forward thus far.

So, if cap gains cuts stimulate the economy (in ways that are relevant to our current situation), one would have expected robust job growth after the last round in 2003. Instead, we saw very limited growth before the whole cheap money house of cards collapsed in 2008.

DJ's left nut
06-09-2011, 01:57 PM
She's an easy target.

So is the backstop.

They make a strike zone for a reason. Then again, if you guys try throwing at it with the weak stuff you're slinging, you'll probably get taken deep.

So yeah, throwing it at the bull might not be a bad idea afterall.

Chocolate Hog
06-09-2011, 01:58 PM
Can Palin still see Russia from her house?

orange
06-09-2011, 01:59 PM
The fact that this Bachmann thread has bled over into Palin talk is reason enough.

People aren't going to be able to differentiate the two women. I think even Bachmann's political strategists won't do enough for her. I doubt she wins even one delegate

Maybe. But Rollins, for one, isn't going down without a fight.

A high-profile ally of Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) went after Sarah Palin on Tuesday, previewing what could be a contentious rivalry on the 2012 campaign trail.

Veteran GOP strategist Ed Rollins -- who has signed up to advise Bachmann's presidential campaign-in-waiting -- criticized Palin, the former Alaska governor, for lacking seriousness since serving as the Republican vice presidential nominee in 2008.

"Sarah has not been serious over the last couple of years," Rollins said on Fox News personality Brian Kilmeade's radio show. "She got the vice presidential thing handed to her. She didn’t go to work in the sense of trying gain more substance. She gave up her governorship."

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/165139-bachmann-aide-goes-after-palin-for-not-being-serious

Maybe. But Rollins, for one, isn't going down without a fight.

Er... never mind.

Michele Bachmann adviser Ed Rollins' response to the sharp criticisms from Sarah Palin's world just now was to "let it go."

But he didn't go quietly, telling me, "I haven't lived in Washington D.C. in 15 years, and I've been taken to the woodshed by the big boys."

"As far as we're concerned, it's not" an ongoing fight, he insisted. "This was my one comment, which I shouldn't have made, at the end of the day this has nothing to do with Michele, Michele's campaign, or any of the rest of it. This was my transition from being an analyst to a political strategist, and I missed a step."

Rollins had suggested to POLITICO that Bachmann would fare well in a Palin contrast, and told a radio interviewer that the former vice presidential contender is "not serious."

Of Team Palin's call for a retraction, he said, "What's the retraction? I say she's serious?"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56518.html#ixzz1Oo5PPKLR

DJ's left nut
06-09-2011, 02:02 PM
So, if cap gains cuts stimulate the economy (in ways that are relevant to our current situation), one would have expected robust job growth after the last round in 2003. Instead, we saw very limited growth before the whole cheap money house of cards collapsed in 2008.

Except that in 2003 unemployment was below 6% so the incentives to bring in another worker when so many employers were already well staffed needed to be more significant. You'll note, however, that unemployment went from 5.99 to 5.53 to 5.08 to 4.63 and .61 from 2003 to 2007. Cutting unemployment by 25% over a 4 year span seems pretty robust to me.

I'd damn sure take it this time around.

DJ's left nut
06-09-2011, 02:03 PM
Can Palin still see Russia from her house?

Hey Jenson, Hamas, Orange----I rest my !@#$ing case.

Dollars to donuts says this moron hasn't read the thread and doesn't have any earthly idea that he's just playing right into what I've been trying to say here.

Hey Billay - try reading a newspaper instead of parroting SNL quips if you intend to discuss politics, m'kay?

Dipshit.

EDIT: For your own education - here's the actual exchange:

PALIN: "They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."

Look at a map and google 'Diomede Islands' - it's absolutely an accurate statement.

Jesus you're a tool.

Jenson71
06-09-2011, 02:05 PM
So is the backstop.

They make a strike zone for a reason. Then again, if you guys try throwing at it with the weak stuff you're slinging, you'll probably get taken deep.

So yeah, throwing it at the bull might not be a bad idea afterall.

It's not like we're making some sort of political argument. She is a complete attention-seeker. We're happy to oblige because it's good for some laughs.

ROYC75
06-09-2011, 02:06 PM
Palin said that Revere warned the British by ringing bells. You think that's correct?

Maybe he had to ring a few redcoats bells along the way ? Who knows ? :shrug:

But she is an easy target for the left when Joe Biden is equally as gaff prone, very little mention of him in the press.

I agree with some that Palin and Bachman are out of the same mole, the left will have a field day with them.

I still find it fascinating that Palin is the attack by so many people, liberals, D's, I's, media when she is not electable. It's amazing that she can garner this much attention.

orange
06-09-2011, 02:09 PM
Hey Jenson, Hamas, Orange----I rest my !@#$ing case.

Palin's Delusions of Grandeur

by Alex Massie (rightwinger)

Sarah Palin does not, I think, like to be thwarted. Nevertheless, there are some opponents she cannot hope to best—among them, the loyal guardians of Margaret Thatcher's dignity, reputation, and legacy.

"I am going to Sudan in July and hope to stop in England on the way," Palin said this week. "I am just hoping Mrs. Thatcher is well enough to see me as I so admire her."

She can think again. One Thatcherite ally told The Guardian: "Lady Thatcher will not be seeing Sarah Palin. That would be belittling for Margaret. Sarah Palin is nuts." Indeed. Or as Tim Montgomerie, editor of the influential Tory website ConservativeHome put it, "She is an embarrassment for mainstream Conservatives." Quite so.

There is something loathsome about this attempt to use a frail 86-year-old stroke victim (who has largely retired from public life) as fodder to enhance your own domestic political agenda. It is vulgar and it is vainglorious and therefore entirely typical of Palin's political style.

But Lady Thatcher is not a boardwalk attraction to be gawped at by tourists from Palookaville. It takes a special kind of self-absorption, even in the competitive political field, to suppose that ill health must be the only thing that could prevent a Thatcher-Palin photo op.

Why should Lady Thatcher have any interest in meeting Palin? Even if the Iron Lady were not in such rusty health, what would be the point or purpose of any such encounter? What possible interest could she have in meeting a two-bit, half-term governor of Alaska? To ask the question is to make the answer so clear that even Palin's most deluded admirers might be able to understand it.

What, assuming the former prime minister were in the habit of receiving guests (which she is not), could they possibly talk about? One is a giant figure; the other, politically speaking, a carnival pygmy better suited to life on a second-rate reality television show.

This is not the first time Palin has attempted to sun and preen herself in the heat of a Thatcherite sun. Two years ago, for no obvious reason beyond self-promotion, she "offered" the former prime minister her birthday congratulations. Last year, in a note posted on her Facebook page, Palin revealed she had "received an invitation for a visit to London, and part of that invitation included the offer of arranging a meeting between myself and one of my political heroines, the 'Iron Lady,' Margaret Thatcher. I would love to meet her and hope I’ll be able to arrange the trip in the future."

Readers will note that this invitation—of unknown provenance—did not actually include a meeting with Lady Thatcher, merely the "offer" to perhaps "arrange" such a meeting. Nevertheless, Palin was happy to foster the impression that a meeting was all but finalized. "I cherish her example and will always count her as one of my role models," she added, once again attempting to forge a spurious link between her career and Thatcher's. At this rate, and the next time she tries this trick, we may expect her more devoted supporters to start suggesting that it's Lady Thatcher who'd be flattered by meeting with Sarah Barracuda.

All in all it's a piece of megalomania not witnessed on these shores since Rudy Giuliani popped up in London to deliver, as it happens, the Margaret Thatcher Memorial Lecture, during which he boasted he was one of the "four or five" most famous Americans on the planet.

More pertinently, though Hizzoner's London trip—which included meetings with Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, and, for some reason, Winston Churchill's grand-daughter—was designed to burnish his foreign-policy credentials and was treated seriously by supposedly sage and serious commentators in Washington, it made no impression whatsoever on the people who actually voted in the 2008 Republican primary.

There is no reason to think that Palin's jaunt abroad will be any more successful. If some voters are tempted to endorse her putative candidacy because they have been impressed by a couple of photo ops overseas, then it's time to question the usefulness of the universal franchise.

For that matter, one lesson to be drawn from this minor episode is that Palin should be relieved that her grim and tasteless photo op will not take place. After all, putting Palin and Thatcher in the same room invites voters to make a comparison between the two ladies that cannot possibly end well for the erstwhile governor of Alaska.

Alex Massie is a former Washington correspondent for The Scotsman and The Daily Telegraph. He currently writes for The Spectator and blogs at www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-06-08/sarah-palins-delusions-of-grandeur-margaret-thatcher-declines-meeting-/

And I rest my case.

DJ's left nut
06-09-2011, 02:09 PM
It's not like we're making some sort of political argument. She is a complete attention-seeker. We're happy to oblige because it's good for some laughs.

Really?

So the several weeks the Democrats spent attacking Republicans in general for their 'violent rhetoric' after the AZ shooting wasn't attempting to score broadly based political points?

Don't play coy. Democratic strategists everywhere are dying to paint her as the 'face' of the Republicans so they can take shots at her in an attempt to undermine the party generally.

patteeu
06-09-2011, 02:09 PM
Palin said that Revere warned the British by ringing bells. You think that's correct?

No she didn't. She said he warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms and she also said that he sounded the alarm for the country to be sure we were going to be free.

He who warned the British that they weren't gonna be taking away our arms.

By ringing those bells, and making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed.

Now I agree that the second part is a little jumbled, but unless you read it uncharitably and take it hyper-literally, it's correct.

DJ's left nut
06-09-2011, 02:11 PM
And I rest my case.

I believe I stipulated, did I not?

Just as long as we're together on this:

A) Palin is not a serious candidate for office
B) The lefts fascination with her is pretty pathetic (and often based on bullshit).


Truce?

|Zach|
06-09-2011, 02:12 PM
Democratic strategists everywhere are dying to paint her as the 'face' of the Republicans so they can take shots at her in an attempt to undermine the party generally.

Why wouldn't they?

The Republican party hasn't done anything to create a face for itself.

orange
06-09-2011, 02:14 PM
I believe I stipulated, did I not?

Just as long as we're together on this:

A) Palin is not a serious candidate for office
B) The lefts fascination with her is pretty pathetic (and often based on bullshit).


Truce?

That article - and several others I've referenced - is from the right. The left's fascination with her is largely due to watching her defenders do the Rumplestiltskin dance over her every utterance.

patteeu here, Limbaugh earlier this week ... they never tire of spinning in her defense. With birtherism doa, Palin is the next best object of hilarity.

patteeu
06-09-2011, 02:15 PM
So, if cap gains cuts stimulate the economy (in ways that are relevant to our current situation), one would have expected robust job growth after the last round in 2003. Instead, we saw very limited growth before the whole cheap money house of cards collapsed in 2008.

Are you ready to indict the democrat economic plan on the basis of the even more anemic growth (not to mention out of control unemployment and dollar-crushing deficit levels) of the past couple of years?

DJ's left nut
06-09-2011, 02:19 PM
That article - and several others I've referenced - is from the right. The left's fascination with her is largely due to watching her defenders do the Rumplestiltskin dance over her every utterance.

I'm aware of the articles origin.

And, like Jenson, you're playing coy. Don't act like those folks taking potshots at Palin aren't doing so with the express purpose of earning cheap political points. I'm sure they're just fighting the good fight to ensure that her 'defenders' don't get out of hand.

Though I have to wonder - if the potshots are in response to 'defenders' - what exactly needed defending to begin with? By definition, her defenders come out in response to an assault. Useful idiots like Billay have been yapping about Palin for 2 largely irrelevant years now exclusively to divert attention from the shit job their own chosen leaders have done.

Hell, I watched Jon Stewart spend 10 minutes railing on her and Trump for going to a shitty pizza place on the day that Weiner pretty much got exposed as a clown (he gave that maybe a minute).

Jenson had it right - she's an easy mark so you folks use her to obfuscate. Don't act like white knights here - you most assuredly aren't.

orange
06-09-2011, 02:24 PM
Her detractors are seeking to derail her potential candidacy because they don't want her to win - is that what you're saying? Do you see something odd about that? Unexpected? Unusual?

Perhaps you find it strange that the media would cover a media figure on a media tour?

dirk digler
06-09-2011, 02:26 PM
Her detractors are seeking to derail her potential candidacy because they don't want her to win - is that what you're saying? Do you see something odd about that? Unexpected? Unusual?

Perhaps you find it strange that the media would cover a media figure on a media tour?

I wish the media would just ignore her. Up till last week they had done a good job of it after her Arizona speech debacle.

orange
06-09-2011, 02:28 PM
I wish the media would just ignore her. Up till last week they had done a good job of it after her Arizona speech debacle.

Her poll numbers and her FOX audience are real, as are her speaker's fees and the crowds she pulls. You can't just ignore it.

patteeu
06-09-2011, 02:30 PM
I wish the media would just ignore her. Up till last week they had done a good job of it after her Arizona speech debacle.

:LOL: You're a trip.

The far bigger story from that episode is the mystery about where all the democrats who were calling for a kinder, gentler political discourse have gone.

ChiefsCountry
06-09-2011, 02:32 PM
History classes in public schools are a damn joke.

I was lucky and my best teacher was my history teacher. He was so good I ended up taking all of his electives instead of some blow off classes my senior year. Learned alot from him. :thumb:

orange
06-09-2011, 02:32 PM
Her poll numbers and her FOX audience are real, as are her speaker's fees and the crowds she pulls. You can't just ignore it.

She also seems to have become a Republican fourth rail (Limbaugh is third, of course)

I haven't lived in Washington D.C. in 15 years, and I've been taken to the woodshed by the big boys.

Chocolate Hog
06-09-2011, 02:41 PM
Hey Jenson, Hamas, Orange----I rest my !@#$ing case.

Dollars to donuts says this moron hasn't read the thread and doesn't have any earthly idea that he's just playing right into what I've been trying to say here.

Hey Billay - try reading a newspaper instead of parroting SNL quips if you intend to discuss politics, m'kay?

Dipshit.

EDIT: For your own education - here's the actual exchange:

PALIN: "They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."

Look at a map and google 'Diomede Islands' - it's absolutely an accurate statement.

Jesus you're a tool.

She said it enhanced her foreign policy credentials try reading the context you piece of shit.

Chocolate Hog
06-09-2011, 02:43 PM
http://youtu.be/gk8moOxzlGQ

DJ is a total dipshit.

dirk digler
06-09-2011, 02:43 PM
:LOL: You're a trip.

The far bigger story from that episode is the mystery about where all the democrats who were calling for a kinder, gentler political discourse have gone.

She should have listened to her boss Ailes who told her to shut up and lay low. Instead she opened her big mouth and came across as a whiny bitch that the majority of America hates. It is her own fault.

Chocolate Hog
06-09-2011, 02:46 PM
She didn't even know Africa was a continent ROFL

Chocolate Hog
06-09-2011, 02:49 PM
Come on DJ bring some more high school rhetoric to this thread I can't wait!

HEY GUYZ DID U SEE WUT THIS DUMBASS SAID! SARAH PLAIN IS THE SMART!

NewChief
06-09-2011, 02:49 PM
FYI: billay is a libertarian, not a liberal. Using him as evidence of the liberal mindset is fallacious.