jump to last post 1-17 of 17 discussions (239 posts)

Bye Bye Bachman

  1. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    Congresswoman Michelle Bachman of Minnesota announced today she will not seek another term in Congress.
    She maintains that ethics and financial invesigations had nothing to do with her decision.
    smile. Do you believe it?
    What does her departure mean for the Tea Party?

    According to the NY Times article, Ms. Bachmann will not become a Fox News commentator.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/us/po … .html?_r=0

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I would imagine she would like to stop being attacked for her conservatism,  maybe lead a halfway normal life without liberals and gay activists harrassing her like they've done for so long.   And I'm sure she's hopeful that sometime, God help us all, the fraudulent lying tyrants that are running the Administration now (and the Senate) will be booted out so that we can all relax a bit knowing that decent leaders are gonna do their jobs instead of us all having to be political activists at the expense of our personal lives.   The way it is now,  we have to be politically active, because otherwise the creeps will never be called to any transparency nor responsibility for the carp they're pulling on America.
      I personally wish Michelle Bachmann the very best; some peace, I'm sure, would be nice, away from the target of those who (like you, I assume) do not.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image92
        Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        http://www.politifact.com/personalities … e-bachmann

        Fraudulent remains to be proven in Ms. Bachmann's case.
        Lying -- here's her Politifact record. Lots of falsehods emanating from her lips!

        There is also the matter of her record in Congress. Basically, she has done NOTHING there except spread hysteria.
        4 terms.
        No committees chaired.
        A grand total of 1 bill passed.

        The constituents of her district deserve much better.

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well, well.  I'd say, on that record,  she deserves to be President automatically.  LOL.
          After all, the man who holds that Office now,  voted "present" on most issues while HE was in the Senate.    And indeed has a record of "spreading" much more than perceived "hysteria"!  LOLOL.   AND a record of not only passing, but instigating and pushing,  LOTS of Bills that should've never even been considered in the first place!     Case in point---Obama(non)care.    So if Bachmann has erred, at least she has erred for the right causes (like discretion and future-thinking) instead of for wrong.

          As far as lying,  no one has the right to even talk about Bachmann lying,  in the wake of all of the Obama Administration's multiple huge lies.
          Oh man!   What liberals will defend and what they will attack is.........wild, to say the least.

        2. 61
          retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What credibility would you place in an opinion sourced by Fox News.  Politifact is not as factual and far more political than liberals wish to accept.

        3. 60
          Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Sounds like she is now qualified to be President.

          Obama legislation passed? Zero.

          He didn't really vote present much, he was absent 80% of the time.

          And now he is clueless as to the government he runs actions.

          The American people deserve better, half of us anyway, the other half deserve exactly what they voted for.

          1. 0
            Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yep.  Problem is, they're takin' us down with them.

          2. Mighty Mom profile image92
            Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "And now he is clueless as to the government he runs actions."
            ????

        4. Uncle Nutsack profile image61
          Uncle Nutsackposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Deleted

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Obama was a community organizer, then a member of the state Senate and then a member of the US Senate, plenty of political experience.

            Much more than say Romney for example.

            1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
              Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              He also forgets to mention what scandals were supposed to forget...

              I believe most of them have been either debunked or generally been considered to be nothing more than the tantrums of Darrell McCarthy.

              1. Uncle Nutsack profile image61
                Uncle Nutsackposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Deleted

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                  Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The economy is improving, albeit too slowly. It would have improved much faster but for the ignorant, unpatriotic GOP TP partisans in the House of Representatives.

                  1. Uncle Nutsack profile image61
                    Uncle Nutsackposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Deleted

                    1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
                      Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Only the GOP right now...

                  2. 61
                    retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Hilarious, when Clinton was President it was all his success, alone, despite the vigorous and active conservative Republicans in the Gingrich House and the Senate.  When Bush was President the economy recovered from the dual hit of a small recession in 2001 and the enormous economic hit that 9/11 precipitated while Republicans controlled the House and there was a deadlocked Senate.  In 2006, the Democrats retook the House and the Senate, the economy went SPLAT and that is all Bush's fault, no blame available for a vengeful Democrat Congressional Majority seeking redress of the illegitimate 2000 election.

                    Now the economy remains in the toilet, the Democrats have an unshakable grip on the Senate( the same active Democrat House that started this mess continued long enough to shackle the economy with Obamacare) and it isn't Obama's fault at all.

                      Nothing is Obama's fault. Nothing is the Democrat Party's fault.

                    Obama can't do anything about anything because the evil and unpatriotic forces arrayed against him.

                      It must be that villain Emmanuel Goldstein. 

                    The GOP is to blame for everything, wherever it is and whatever mechanisms of government it does or does not control. Liberal bellyfeel. Liberal erzatz truthiness.  Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Obamasoc.  It is always easier to grab the tiny minded template than to exercise the intellect.

                    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Yeah, it's really hilarious!

                      On January 20, 2009 Republican Leaders in Congress literally plotted to sabotage and undermine U.S. Economy during President Obama's Inauguration. 

                           In Robert Draper's book, "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives" Draper wrote that during a four hour, "invitation only" meeting with GOP Hate-Propaganda Minister, Frank Luntz, the below listed Senior GOP Law Writers literally plotted to sabotage, undermine and destroy America's Economy.

                          The Guest List:
                          Frank Luntz - GOP Minister of Propaganda
                          Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)
                          Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA)
                          Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA),
                          Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX),
                          Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX),
                          Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI)
                          Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA),
                          Sen. Jim DeMint (SC-R),
                          Sen. Jon Kyl (AZ-R),
                          Sen. Tom Coburn (OK-R),
                          Sen. John Ensign (NV-R) and
                          Sen. Bob Corker (TN-R).

                          Non-lawmakers present Newt Gingrich

                          During the four hour meeting:
                           The senior GOP members plotted to bring Congress to a standstill regardless how much it would hurt the American Economy by pledging to obstruct and block President Obama on all legislation.

                          These Republican members of Congress were not simply airing their complaints regarding the other party's political platform for four long hours.  No, these Republican Congressional Policymakers, who were elected to do 'the People's work' were literally plotting to sabotage, undermine and destroy the U.S. Economy. 

                         On January 20, 2009 Republican Leaders in Congress literally plotted to sabotage and undermine U.S. Economy during President Obama's Inauguration. 

                           In Robert Draper's book, "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives" Draper wrote that during a four hour, "invitation only" meeting with GOP Hate-Propaganda Minister, Frank Luntz, the below listed Senior GOP Law Writers literally plotted to sabotage, undermine and destroy America's Economy.

                          The Guest List:
                          Frank Luntz - GOP Minister of Propaganda
                          Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)
                          Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA)
                          Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA),
                          Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX),
                          Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX),
                          Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI)
                          Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA),
                          Sen. Jim DeMint (SC-R),
                          Sen. Jon Kyl (AZ-R),
                          Sen. Tom Coburn (OK-R),
                          Sen. John Ensign (NV-R) and
                          Sen. Bob Corker (TN-R).

                          Non-lawmakers present Newt Gingrich

                         http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/0 … rank-Luntz

                2. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  If our country was business then I would agree, thankfully we are not a business nor is our government run for a pure profit motive.

        5. Paul Wingert profile image79
          Paul Wingertposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Bachmann is a complete idiot and psychopath along with the morons that voted for her. Congress and the Republicans need to start cleaning house in order to be taken seriously. My message to Bachmann is "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out and Walmart has bibles on sale!"

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
            Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            She would have been demolished in the next election and she knows it. She only cares about herself and her career, don't kid yourself. Any hatefulness aimed at her has been a result of what she has said.

      2. HowardBThiname profile image91
        HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I have a hard time understanding why the Left obsesses so much with Bachman. She's a lone wolf with limited support.

        It would like the GOP insisting that all Democrats were represented by Wiener.

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
          Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          All Weiner did was show his weiner...

        2. 61
          retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Given the classy people representing Democrats, I thought they were all represented by wieners.

      3. 61
        retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Don't worry about "the tea party" the IRS has that handled.

      4. rhamson profile image76
        rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        This is at least a step in the right direction for some validity in the GOP. She was a nuisance and distraction from reality that made serious change impossible.

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
          Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          She can go back to St. Olaf now... they were missing their villiage idiot smile

        2. habee profile image91
          habeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I agree. I can't say I'm sorry to see her go.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Liberal wink

            1. habee profile image91
              habeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I'm a liberal conservative...or a conservative liberal...take your pick. lol

        3. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          We'll have to wait to see who replaces Bachmann. Apparently there's an inexhaustible supply of fundamentalist cretins who can get elected in gerrymandered GOP House districts.

    2. Reality Bytes profile image93
      Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago

      Maybe she will go to work for TheBlaze.  They do own a network.

    3. Zelkiiro profile image85
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

      Michelle Bachmann is a secret Muslim!

      1. Zelkiiro profile image85
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The best part:

        "Michelle Bachmann...she thinks 9/11 should be a day of fasting and prayer. I think 9/11 should be a day of sex, and drugs, and debauchery. 'Cause, I mean...what do the Muslims, the radical Muslims that attacked us, hate more than that?"

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Christianity.   They hate Christianity more than that.

          1. Zelkiiro profile image85
            Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Clearly not, or else they would've attacked Vatican City, Ecuador, Poland, Ireland, Puerto Rico, or any of the 50 or so countries with a higher percentage of Christians in the population.

            1. 61
              retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The assassination attempt against JPII was by  a Muslim extremist.  Remember the bombing in Spain?  remember the Irish Nun who was murdered during the Danish Mohammed Cartoon outrage?  Do you think Muslims consider the United States a secular state or a crusader state?  There is the sphere of Islam and the sphere of Jihad, if one is not in the sphere of Islam than one is in the sphere of Jihad. Sadly liberals still refuse to accept the obvious.

              What will happen when Bachmann announces she is running for the Senate seat held by the tragically unfunny microcepahlic Al Franken?

              1. Zelkiiro profile image85
                Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                What about the dirt-poor nations of Central America? Why don't they attack them?

                I'll tell you why: Radical Muslims don't care about Christianity in their enemy nations--they care about military overreaching, financial corruption, and cultural decadence.

                If the goal of the radicals was to deal a crushing blow to Christianity, they would've flown the planes into St. Peter's Basilica, not the World Trade Center.

                1. 61
                  retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  How many divisions does the pope have?  Time enough for that.

                2. 61
                  retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  They do a fine job destroying Christianity in the nations they do control.

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                    MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Stop making them sound so good.

              2. Mighty Mom profile image92
                Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Should Bachmann make such an impractical decision, the voters of Minnesota need
                look no further than the congressional records of Senator Franken and Congresswoman
                Bachmann.
                Franken. 1 term. 67 bills introduced.
                Bachmann. 2 terms. 58 bills introduced. Although at least 1 of them is a duplicate
                introduced two years in a row...
                Time flies when you're spreading conspiracy theories and unfounded fears....

                http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members … ken/412378

                http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members … ann/412216

              3. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
                Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                If she announces her run, the people of Minnesota will most likely laugh.

                1. 61
                  retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You mean the same people who elected a paranoid ex-professional wrestler and a volatile unfunny former comedy writer to high offices?  How could Bachmann miss with a goofy electorate like that?

                  1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
                    Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Al Franken is funny

                    1. 61
                      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      funny, strange thus qualifying him as both a liberal and a Minnesota politician

                    2. bBerean profile image61
                      bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Pretty much the only things I find funny are the things he says in seriousness.  Those gems are hilarious! lol

                2. habee profile image91
                  habeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yeah? How many times did they elect her to public office? Voters in MN seem to have some strange ideas. Maybe it's the cold weather...

                  1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
                    Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Eh, considering it was a House seat, its most likely just good drawing of her district.

                    1. habee profile image91
                      habeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Did you know she was a Dem before becoming a Repub?

    4. Mighty Mom profile image92
      Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

      As queen of the "tea party hobbits" – the little people who inhabit Middle-earth in the Lord of the Rings series -- maybe Bachmann will to back there.
      Note: Tea party hobbits appeared in Wall Street Journal and was quoted by none other than John McCain. Although to be fair, Senator McCain has no right to bash the tea party,
      having selected the queen bee of the TP as his running mate!!

      1. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        McCain has done and said some disappointing things.
        Nobody's perfect.   And I think Sarah Palin got a bad deal from the start.   She was used as a pawn.   
        But to this day, America would be much better off if he had become President instead of Obama.   Because all of Obama's cronies use each other.   I doubt there's even one person in that Administration that is secure enough in their own integrity and intent to even HAVE opposing views.   They're all in some sort of mesmerized state of idol-worship or something.

    5. ahorseback profile image45
      ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

      Mighty mom ! , Bachmann has done nothing of significance -  Sounds just like this whole OBAMA administration to me , wuddaya think ?

    6. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago

      WHY do people insist on mocking and attacking a decent, articulate, intelligent woman like Bachmann?
      That's what's odd.   Must be because she has the whole package------she's beautiful, smart, hard-working, reliable, speaks well, wants good things for America, has spent years as a reliable public servant.........
      Misplaced jealousy is soooo insidious.
      Oh  and.....yeah..........she's CONSERVATIVE and a .........gulp........CHRISTIAN.

      1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
        Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You sure you're talking about Michelle Bachmann?

        The same one that once got schooled on the facts by a elementary school student?

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You must mean the one who got insulted by a mother who was indecent enough to teach her own child wrong and cruel enough to use her own child to verbally insult the Congresswoman.
          Yes, that Michelle Bachmann.
          She wasn't "schooled" by anyone in that incident.   The misguided hateful mother of that child is the one who wasn't taught right, and subsequently, that child suffers at her abusive hand.

          1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
            Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Is that a serious post?

          2. habee profile image91
            habeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Brenda, I have no problem with Bachmann's being a Christian or for being a conservative. I'm a Christian and a fiscal conseravtive. But you have to admit she's said some pretty crazy things, and she seems to have little knowledge of our nation's history - the founding fathers, slavery, the Revolution, etc.

          3. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I agree with you on this one... sort of.

            A child shouldn't be used to prove a political point. The same thing goes for that little girl that did that speech at the anti-abortion rally.

            But the mother didn't teach the child wrong, the error was using him to convey a political message... encouraging him to give a speech he was obviously too shy to want to give willingly.

            The message was absolutely correct.  The messenger was a bad choice.

            It is not abusive to teach your child tolerance and acceptance.  It is not abuse to teach your child that homosexuality isn't a condition that needs fixed.

      2. 61
        retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Don't forget she has as much education as Obama - except in the (PROUD) consumption illegal drugs. (Chum Gang - anyone, anyone)

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Did she really? Was she a member of the Harvard law review and a recipient of the highest Harvard scholarship?

          As for trying marijuana (which is now legal in several states) anyone who thinks it's worth discussing obviously has nothing important to say, 50% of the American population has used it and it's actually a positive that the president was honest enough to admit it.

          1. Superkev profile image86
            Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            What the hell does "highest Harvard Scholarship" mean? If it means that Obama was probably high when he got the scholarship I would agree with you.

            Obama was the EDITOR of the Harvard Law Review and yet is the only editor to have exactly ZERO published scholarship. According to Politico, Obama’s name does not appear on any legal scholarship during his time at Harvard.

            Riddle me this Batman: How does a guy who admittedly "used drugs enthusiastically" during his final two years of high school (and after) and was by all accounts a mediocre student at best, get in to Harvard Law?

            And why to this day does he refuse to release his academic records from Occidental, Columbia, Harvard and even High School? If he is indeed the "smartest man ever elected President", surely his grades would reflect such a lofty characterization...right?

            1. Zelkiiro profile image85
              Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              And Einstein did poorly in high school math. What's your point? Nobody takes high school seriously.

              1. Superkev profile image86
                Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                My point?

                Obama is a fraud and a liar. He was a D student at best and got in to Harvard because of affirmative action. Prove me wrong.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  There is a miniature yellow woolly mammoth under my bed.  Prove me wrong.

                  1. Superkev profile image86
                    Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Mammoths are extinct. Obama's school records are not, just hidden by executive order. Funny that.

                    One would think the 'smartest man ever to be elected president' would be proud of his grades instead of hiding them huh?

                    You could prove me wrong quite easily, that is if Obama would unseal his academic records. Funny how all you 'critical thinkers' never question that action in any way. LOL

                    I guess Kool-Aide does that to a person.

                    1. Mighty Mom profile image92
                      Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Are you quoting Rush Limbaugh circa 2012 or is this immature and completely obsolete line of suspicision being circulated afresh by Obamasmear central?
                      I saw today that Lt. Governor candidate in Virginia kibbutzing with Victoria Jackson,
                      late (very late) of SNL, that Obama cannot be a Christian.
                      What's next? Birtherism II?
                      roll

                      On the plus side, this must signify an admission of defeat on the so-called "trifecta of scandals." Regroup and revert.

              2. 61
                retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                True, but Einstein published world shaking papers and never wrote one autobiography - let alone two before he was fifty or before he published his truly significant work.  Where is Obama's body of work as member of the Law Review at Harvard.  Where is his significant work at all prior to his adoption by the Chicago political machine?  Einstein actually had a real job as a patent clerk.  Obama eschewed real work as, to paraphrase the dear leader, working for the enemy.

            2. 0
              Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              They won't answer that,  I bet.
              Conveniently ignoring, and distraction, are their tools.

        2. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah.  lol.
          I think Obama inhaled way too much.

      3. 60
        Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "WHY do people insist on mocking and attacking a decent, articulate, intelligent woman like Bachmann?"

        Politics of personal destruction, its how they roll.

        1. 61
          retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Don't forget she is also a WOMAN and therefore off the liberal reservation for being pro-life and conservative.  Just as Herman Caine was off the reservation because he was black.  If being a harassing womanizing scoundrel was the real problem why did that evaporate immediately after his destruction?  If being a pig was enough than why are Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, etc... still honored by liberals.  Obviously treating women like meat isn't a disqualification for office if one is a WHITE liberal Democrat or a Black leader but the still unproved allegation of your pighood is enough to destroy you  if you are a BLACK conservative.

          1. 60
            Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You mean there is hypocrisy on the left?

            Shocking.

            1. 61
              retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No, that ascribes too much meaning and reason to the positions they adopt.  Liberals live in an alternate reality, a bizzaro world where just being liberal makes one moral and reason has no place.

              1. 60
                Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That too.

              2. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
                Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry for bothering to question things based on the facts and common sense and not just on a 2000 year old book and whatever Rush Limbaugh tells us.

                1. 61
                  retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Nonsequitor

                  1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
                    Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Except that its true....

                    1. 61
                      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      It is dark at night, the rain is wet, winter is cold, aspirin tastes bitter - true and Nonsequitor.  Perhaps I should have begun with delusional assumption - conservatism existed long before Rush Limbaugh - who ever he is and transcends the secular idea of the Bible - since Henry Hazelett and many like him were atheists, agnostics, Jewish and Muslim - not just Christians.

                      It is sad that so little thought goes into the knee jerk response Limbaugh-Bible.  Conservatism has a much richer and varied philosophical history than what the benighted assume.  Perhaps some reading and thinking would help.

          2. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
            Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Is that a serious critique?

            1. bBerean profile image61
              bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              retief2000 has articulated an "inconvenient truth".

              1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
                Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I feel like black conservatives shoot themselves in the foot for the same reason other conservatives do. They think that marriage needs to be defined and that workers don't deserve a decent wage for their work.

                "If you don't have a job, it's your own fault"- Herman Cain

                1. 61
                  retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  How about the Black ministry that tends to support Democrats, do they shoot themselves in the foot over defining that which is defined by thousands of years of civilization?  Blacks in California were a driving force behind defeating Prop. 8.  Were they shooting themselves in the foot or will Democrats just "tut-tut" them, pat them on the head and welcome them back on to the reservation.  It is when Blacks who would be acknowledged leaders slip off the reservation and become conservatives that they must be hounded and destroyed. 

                  Perhaps liberals would welcome Herman Caine, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Condi Rice and other Black Republicans and conservatives back on the reservation if they could cut off one of their feet to make sure they don't escape again.

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No, they would have to have brain and heart transplants.

                    1. 61
                      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      And there it is.

                  2. Mighty Mom profile image92
                    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Wherever the "Black people passed Prop 8" myth is coming from it's wrong.

                    http://www.letcaliforniaring.org/site/c … 8_Vote.htm

                    Since the passage of Proposition 8, much has been said about the supposed dramatic opposition to marriage equality among African Americans, fueled by National Election Pool (NEP) figures based on sampling in only a few precincts that erroneously indicated 70 percent of California’s African Americans supported Proposition 8.

                    The study found that when church attendance was factored out, however, there was no significant difference between African Americans and other groups.

                    So to start with, it's only CHURCHGOING Blacks that voted for Prop 8.


                    But more to the point, there aren't enough Blck people here to have made a significant
                    statistical difference.
                    As of the 2000 census, 6.7% of California's population was Black - 2,one time 6.depending on whether you go with the 2000 Census.  However, the more up-to-date ACS estimates indicate that in 2006, only approximately 2.26 million Black people lived in the state.  Just 6.2% of the entire state's population.

                    Even if every Black person in California voted and voted for Prop 8 (which we know
                    is not the case) 6.2 percent of the population would not be enough to sway the Prop 8 vote.

            2. 61
              retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It is an observation not a critique.  One critiques things that one believe can be changed for the better.  I do not believe liberals can be changed for the better.

        2. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
          Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          See, this is why no one takes the GOP seriously....

      4. Zelkiiro profile image85
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Because she is not decent, articulate, or intelligent? Because she is the antithesis of all of those things? Because she's also bat-shyte insane and wants to turn this country into a theocracy by forcing her religious bile into political discourse?

        1. PrettyPanther profile image85
          PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Brenda's dream "lady."

          1. Mighty Mom profile image92
            Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Brenda's dreams may well come true.
            Bachmann says she may run for office in the future.
            When she gets cleared of all charges, of course.
            smile

            1. PrettyPanther profile image85
              PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, the Christian right will delight in welcoming back the sinner who has repented.  They love that.

              1. 0
                Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You mock,
                but I do have a response to part of that.
                As far as I or anyone knows, Bachmann hasn't got anything to repent for in this case.
                But at least Christians (and other conservatives usually) do repent.   Liberals have as much or more to repent about as anyone else, but they usually have no shame at all for the horrid things they say and do.   Their audacity knows no bounds.   And yet they claim to know what repentance and forgiveness is and that it's a good thing.    Pretenders they are for the most part.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                  PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, as I type this I am gleefully reliving all of the horrid things I've said and done, because my audacity knows no bounds.

                  I think I once told you that I was nominated for Miss Spirituality in high school?  This was back in the 70s, when people automatically equated "spirituality" with being a good Christian.  Apparently, I was nominated based upon my good character and behavior.  Funny thing, though, I was and am an atheist. 

                  Interesting how Christians think they own goodness.  Their audacity knows no bounds, to coin a Brenda phrase.

                  1. 0
                    Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Interesting.
                    Did you 'fess up and tell 'em you were an atheist?   And hopefully tell them not to assume that because someone is well-behaved and "good" that they're a Christian?   Or did you just think ill of them inwardly and not say anything?
                    Just asking.  I've probably made that mistake before too---assuming that someone's a Christian because they were so friendly and all..........
                    I don't think it's audacity;  it's simply error;  we sometimes assume when we should get to know the person first.

                    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                      PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      I quietly told my fellow students not to vote for me.  It worked and I didn't win (teachers nominated students, then students voted to select the "winner").  Instead, I was voted "Miss Scholastic" that year.

                  2. habee profile image91
                    habeeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm a Christian, and I don't think we "own" goodness. An atheist I taught with for years was one of the most altruistic people I've ever known.

                    1. 0
                      Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      I love how everyone thinks that whatever group they are a part of owns all kinds of great things, while the others own all the crap.  Here's the deal folks.  If you're human, you'd better learn to own the fact that you are/can be a liar, a cheat, a hypocrite, a generous soul, a kind individual, a person of integrity, or a completely dishonest mess.

                      When it all boils down to it, pointing out the human faults of those who oppose you just makes you observant, not right.

                      That was an in-general comment, btw, habee, not directed to you specifically.

                      big_smile

                    2. PrettyPanther profile image85
                      PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      I should have said "some" Christians.  I know not all Christians are so arrogant.

    7. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago

      What did I tell ya?
      Distraction.
      As usual.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Not really... I disagree with pretty much every thing Bachman stands for.  I'd vote against her... it doesn't really matter who that was... unless it was another one like her.

        Obama really doesn't come into it... except to say that if he DID manage to keep everything hidden despite being a D student... and still became president then he's likely smarter than most.

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That would be sneaky or sly or dishonest.
          Not smart.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Same difference... you have to be smarter than your opponent to fool them.

            1. 61
              retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              As GWB fooled the Democrats in Congress and the United Nations and the 30 plus countries who supplied troops to attack Iraq?  WOW, BRILLIANT!! Apparently he is still tricking Obama into  doing things that Obama had campaigned against.  Dang GWB must be a genius.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Wow... that was kinda random.

                1. 61
                  retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  "you have to be smarter than the opponent you fool" - GWB fooled everyone including the smartest woman in the world Hillary - he must be a genius.  Hardly Random.

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                    MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    *Shrugs*  I never said Bush was stupid.  That's why your response was random.

                    I actually voted for him... or rather against Kerry...in 2004

                    1. 61
                      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      To quote an opinion your offered on a different forum post - Obama scandals - "I think he is the utmost village idiot"  Hardly random, given that opinion and the constant and consistent drum beat among liberals that GWB was an idiot and yet everyone then and, apparently, everyone now, dances to his tune.  Given the brilliant if you fool them position you have staked out, than GWB was far more brilliant than all those numb skulls like Hillary, the Congressional Democrats, The UN, etc....  QED

    8. Mighty Mom profile image92
      Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

      Daily Kos August 2, 2012 had a discussion of Rush Limbaugh's reasons for
      smearing Obama's Harvard Record.
      The Week took a broader view.
      Enjoy.
      Why fringe conservatives are obsessed with Obama's college grades: 4 theories

      Birthers are so 2011 — meet the "transcripters," who fervently believe Obama was a lousy student and vow not to rest until you know how he did in school 30 years ago

      By The Week Staff | August 8, 2012

      The conspiracy theory about President Obama's birth certificate and supposed ineligibility to be president has mostly died down, but if "birtherism" is out, "transcripterism" is back in style. In a Tuesday article in Glenn Beck's The Blaze that circulated widely in conservative circles, Wayne Allyn Root — a conservative radio host and, by his own description, "one of the most accurate Las Vegas oddsmakers and prognosticators" — says his infallible "gut" tells him that Obama's undergraduate transcript from Columbia University contains scandalous info "that threatens to bring down his presidency." Root believes that Obama earned poor grades and was a beneficiary of affirmative action, and maybe even a "foreign student." This isn't the first time the fringe Right has been obsessed with such matters: In May, conservative blogger Brooks Bayne offered $20,000 for Obama's Columbia, Occidental College, and Harvard Law transcripts. What's behind the insistence that Obama release his college records? Here, four theories:

      1. Transcripters want to paint Obama as a dumb, affirmative-action fraud
      In his $20,000 offer for Obama's transcripts, Bayne lays out his rationale: "We're not convinced that Barack is as smart as you media elitists keep insisting he is." The charge that the president got bad grades 30 years ago doesn't hold water, however: Biographer David Maraniss says Obama got a 3.7 GPA at Columbia and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law, something you can't do with bad grades. But unless Obama agrees to release his transcripts, says Nadra Kareem Nittle in Loop 21, these activists can keep on insinuating "that Obama made his way to the Ivy League by way of affirmative action, that he’s just another undeserving minority who played the system."

      2. Transcripters are obsessed with "vetting" Obama
      The play to shame Obama into releasing his college grades "is nothing more than a pathetically desperate effort to find something, anything that they can use against him in the upcoming election," says Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway. It's part of the Right's effort to "vet" Obama, four years after the media made him "one of the most vetted presidential candidates in recent memory." The whole idea that we don't know Obama is "simply absurd," rooted in the fact that extreme conservatives "still cannot accept that he beat them in 2008."

      3. This is just birtherism warmed over
      When you "get to the bottom of the conspiracy," says Sarah Jones at Politicus USA, it's clear that Wayne is a birther, and his "foreign exchange student" theory is part of the claim that Obama isn't really American. Indeed, this "irrelevant nonsense about college transcripts... has been a central part of birtherism from the beginning," says Outside the Beltway's Mataconis. Essentially, Root is pushing both "'Obama isn’t very smart' and 'Obama is a foreigner' arguments," and voters still aren't buying it.

      4. The Right is desperate to distract from Romney's taxes
      The reason transcripters are "freaking out in unison" about Obama's college grades "couldn't be more obvious," says Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs: They're trying anything they can to "divert attention away from Mitt Romney's refusal to release financial information." Donald Trump gave the game away when he told CNBC Tuesday that, if he were Romney, he'd offer to turn over more of his tax returns if Obama released "the information that we want." Even with "the best-known Transcript Truther," Trump, peddling this nonsense, it won't be "enough to get the country to stop wondering about Mitt Romney's tax returns," says Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog. Still, expect to hear a lot about Obama's grades over the next few weeks.

      Note: Apparently we have not heard the end of it, 9 months later. *sigh*

      1. Superkev profile image86
        Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Do you have any original thoughts on the subject or just going keep cutting and pasting from the most left-partisan web site out there?

        "He's SO smart!!!"

        "but you can't see his grades he has sealed them by executive order, but trust us, he's really, really smart"

        So smart we still have unemployment above 7% and 48 million+ people on food stamps to go along with 5 trillion in new debt and record gas prices.

        Yep, he's smart alright.

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, he's BRILLIANT!  lol   At least that's what I've heard liberals and admiring narcissists say. 
          He can catch flies well too.   And he WOULD hurt a fly!
          AND he can dodge questions really well.

          ...I wonder, though, how well he would dodge shoes..........

          I bet somewhere in the warehouse (or maybe in Joe Biden's pocket) there's a special teleprompter that says "DUCK NOW" all wired up and ready to go,  just in case anyone dares to diss the great lip syncher.   LOLOL.

    9. habee profile image91
      habeeposted 3 years ago

      For what it's worth, I don't think Obama is as brilliant as some people claim, and I don't think W is nearly as dumb as some folks think he is. To me, Clinton seems smarter than Obama, and he also has a way of connecting to people on a personal level, which is sometimes rare with super-smart individuals.

      BTW, I read that Nixon had the highest known IQ of any POTUS. Perhaps it would be better to have a leader with some common sense?

      1. Superkev profile image86
        Superkevposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Bill Clinton was certainly a much better politician than Obama.

        Obama comes from the most corrupt and thugish political machine in the country, and now we are seeing the results of that upbringing.

    10. Mighty Mom profile image92
      Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

      What an arrogant assumption. Set of assumptions, actually.
      Christian does not equal spiritual and spiritual does not equal Christian.

      1. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So.....you're judging those schoolmates of Pretty Panther's?
        How do you know what their thought processes were or their intentions?

        And yes, Christian does equal Spiritual.
        But all that is spiritual does not equal Christian.
        Surely you're aware that there are other spirits besides the Holy Spirit.
        A Christian would surely know that.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image85
          PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I'll indulge you, Brenda, and answer all of your questions.

          Why didn't you tell your class that you weren't a Christian?
          My close friends knew.  I felt no need to discuss it with others, except to tell them not to vote for me because I was not the best candidate.

          Were you afraid they'd try to witness to you?  LOL, no.  As an aside, one of my best friends was a Pentecostal holy roller (sorry if that term is offensive but that's what we called them then).  I went with her to church once; it was quite the experience watching people speak in tongues and roll around on the ground. And, of course, listen to the preacher plead for the sinner (me) to be saved.  Another friend invited me to Sunday School, Episcopalian I think.  It was mostly dull and stifling. 

          Were you afraid they'd think less of you or shun you? No, but I knew some would judge me.  Again, I felt no need to share my personal beliefs with people who were not my close friends.  I was 16 years old and in high school.

          Were you pleased that they considered you "good" and therefore didn't want to disappoint them, or didn't want to be thought of as not "good"?  Um, I didn't think most people would automatically think I was not "good" just because they suddenly knew my personal religious beliefs.  Maybe I was wrong about that.

          Were you ashamed that you weren't a Christian?  Hell no.

          Were you ashamed that you WERE thought of as a Christian?  Ashamed, no.  Bemused, yes.

    11. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago

      Yep, loudmouth whining babies on all sides.

      So it's kinda silly to point fingers.

      "I know you are but what am I"

      Everybody looks like children.  Just hope everyone knows that.

    12. habee profile image91
      habeeposted 3 years ago

      I've noticed that some Christians feel they can do whatever they like, as long as they ask for forgiveness afterwards. Really, I've known some mean, stingy, dishonest, very judgmental individuals who call themselves Christians. It's like they think as long as they have the appropriate label, then everything's okay. Sort of gives the rest of us a bad name.

    13. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

      Adieu, Michele Bachmann

      Gigantic tears into our eyes now well
      As we prepare to say farewell, Michele.
      We pliers of the small joke trade are grieving,
      We so regret to hear that you are leaving.
      Oh, sure, we often managed to make merry
      with gaffes by Sarah Palin or by Perry.
      And Cain was grand; with Trump we had a ball,
      But you Michele, were wackiest of all.

      Calvin Trillin, Deadline Poet
      The Nation

      1. Mighty Mom profile image92
        Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Touche.

    14. Mighty Mom profile image92
      Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

      Did you mean deficit or debt?
      If the latter, here are some very, very interesting stats by president:

      http://www.skymachines.com/US-National- … l-Term.htm

    15. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

      NYTimes Editorial:  Release the "Facts" Now About the IRS "Scandal"

      For Republican leaders in Congress, the Internal Revenue Service scandal always had a higher purpose. They had no interest in fixing the clear management problems at the agency, or tax-exemption laws so vague they are an invitation to misinterpretation, leading to the singling out of Tea Party groups for special scrutiny. All they wanted was a connection to the White House, no matter how slim, so they could accuse President Obama and his administration of using the tax agency as a political weapon.
      Today's Editorials

      But the furious efforts of Republican bloodhounds have not turned up any such connection over the last month. So lawmakers have now decided to claim one anyway, insisting recently that the improper focus on conservative groups could not possibly be the result of misguided employees in the Cincinnati I.R.S. office.

      “The administration’s still trying to say there’s a few rogue agents in Cincinnati when in fact the indication is they were directly being ordered from Washington,” said the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Darrell Issa of California.

      Harold Rogers of Kentucky, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, referred to “the enemies list out of the White House that I.R.S. was engaged in shutting down, or trying to shut down the conservative political viewpoint across the country.” And according to the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Dave Camp of Michigan, “We know it didn’t originate in Cincinnati.”

      Really, Mr. Chairmen? On what basis are you making those serious allegations? There isn’t the slightest bit of public evidence that the White House or the leadership of the I.R.S. ordered low-level Cincinnati employees to make life difficult for Tea Party groups seeking a tax exemption. In fact, there is growing evidence that they didn’t.

      The oversight committee’s investigators spoke to the screening manager in Cincinnati — a self-described conservative Republican — who said that the idea for the Tea Party scrutiny originated in his office, not in Washington, and had no political motivation. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the committee, says this is clearly established in the transcript of the interview with the manager, and by other employees in the office. Last week, he wrote a letter to Mr. Issa, demanding that the full transcripts of all interviews be released, so the public can be told what committee members have already seen.

      But Mr. Issa is mysteriously refusing to make public the full text of those interviews. He claims that would reveal the road map of the committee’s investigation to future witnesses, but that hasn’t stopped him from releasing a few misleading excerpts that only sound as if they bolster his case. It’s far more likely that he knows the full interviews would put an end to his fruitless witch hunt. If he refuses to do his job as chairman, Mr. Cummings should release the transcripts and help get to the truth.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/17/opini … ef=opinion

      1. 61
        retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I am a self described liberal Democrat atheist Aztec vegan - I wonder if my self description means a thing?

        I wonder if I reprint an editorial from Wesley Pruden or R. Emmett Tyrrell it would be accepted without comment as if it is a pronouncement of the Almighty.  The NYT is just another failing newspaper populated with people who do little more than writers on Hubpages but get paid more and get more attention from the uncritical left.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The Times is far from perfect, but it's the nearest publication we have to a newspaper of record. It's news is pretty reliable, and it's editorials are usually center or center left. Multiple sources are required to get close to a complete picture.

          1. 61
            retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yes record decline, record foolishness, record layoffs, record cases of plagiarism, record crater left behind when it finally flares out and subsumes the NEWSWEEK crater and waits for the Obama crater to subsume it.  Newspaper of record, cage liner, fish wrap - who the hell reads newspapers.  Is it pressed into clay tablets with a little wooden stylus and written in Cuneiform?  The NYT is ancient and shameful history.

            1. Zelkiiro profile image85
              Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              >Disregards newspaper as outdated medium
              >Fully trusts Fox News, a news program on an outdated medium

              1. 61
                retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You know nothing about me or my news sources and you have called me a racist and misogynist - so we are done, go away.

              2. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
                Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                that would be an awesome meme

                1. 61
                  retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  tiny ideas appeal to some

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    How do you like these tiny ideas from George Carlin?

                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO … e=youtu.be

                    1. Zelkiiro profile image85
                      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this
                    2. 61
                      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      You mean the dead comedian?  I was hoping for Burke or Locke or Hobbes or Voltaire or Montesquieu or De Tocqueville or Smith or Bastiat or Friedman or Aristotle or Augustine or Aquinas or .... Thank God for dead Comedians the source of reason and enlightenment

            2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
              Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You must read the Times every day to be so sure of your opinions about it.

              1. 61
                retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I need only watch as it loses readership.  The market place is the ultimate arbiter of success or failure.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                  Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Suggest you check your facts:

                  "The 593 audited daily newspapers had a 0.7 percent daily circulation decline, the group reported. The Wall Street Journal had the highest circulation, at 2,378,827, a 12.3 percent jump from the same time the year before.

                  "The New York Times overtook USA Today for second place with a circulation of 1,865,318, a 17.6 percent rise from a year ago. USA Today’s circulation was down 7.9 percent, dropping to 1,674,306. The Los Angeles Times and New York Daily News followed in fourth and fifth places....

                  "For the 519 Sunday newspapers audited, total circulation declined 1.4 percent. The New York Times ranked first with an average circulation of 2,322,429, a 15.9 percent increase from the same time the year before....

                  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/busin … ation.html

                  Wikipedia on NYTimes

                  "The New York Times (or NYT) is an American daily newspaper, founded and continuously published in New York City since September 18, 1851. It has won 112 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization.[3][4] Its website is America's most popular news site, receiving more than 30 million unique visitors per month.[5]

                  "The paper's print version remains the largest local metropolitan newspaper in the United States and third-largest newspaper overall, behind The Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Following industry trends, its weekday circulation has fallen to fewer than one million daily since 1990.[6] Nicknamed The Gray Lady, The Times is long regarded within the industry as a national "newspaper of record".[7] It is owned by The New York Times Company, publisher of 18 other newspapers including the International Herald Tribune and The Boston Globe. The company's chairman is Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., whose family has controlled the paper since 1896.[8]"

                  1. 61
                    retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I wonder where the fact is in what I wrote?  However, it is interesting to go to the object of the "facts" to get the "facts" about the object's decline.  The daily print version of the NYT continues its decline while its online daily , heavily discounted and sometimes free, out draws the WS's online editionJ.  However, both the WSJ and USAtoday print versions out strip the NYT by a two to one margin.  I am not at all surprised by the NYT Sunday edition's high real world circulation.  After all, there is the crossword puzzle.

                    If your scenario was so compelling a measure of valid news, than why aren't you a big FOXnews viewer.  After all it out draws all of its competition, year after year.

                    Try going to the actual source of the NYT numbers - the Audit Board of Circulations

                    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                      Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      I watch Fox occasionally. It's quite biased toward the Tea Party right and not very factual.

          2. 61
            retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            There is no center-left.  If you mean Democrat that is hard left.  If you really mean center, that would be a newspaper that worships the constitution - there hasn't been one of those in a long time, if ever.

    16. bplusbob profile image59
      bplusbobposted 3 years ago

      Pardon my intrusion, please.

      "Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong. All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others. His culture is based on "I am not too sure." -H.L. Mencken, writer, editor, and critic (1880-1956)

    17. Uninvited Writer profile image83
      Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago

      Why does every single conversation come down to my facts are better than your facts?

      1. 61
        retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Every is an impossibly big word.

      2. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
        Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I think its time to stop feeding the trolls....

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yep. It's not exactly a fun experience, let alone a learning experience.

          1. 61
            retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I find it fun and informative beyond belief.

      3. 61
        retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Isn't it useful to go to the original source of a set of facts than to an outlet or individual who can benefit from a specialized interpretation of those facts? 

        Imagine, if you will, a thought experiment.  Fox News reports on how well their Spring numbers look - earnings, audience share, raw audience numbers, cable channel ranking, etc....  Would that information be trusted by any liberal?  Now imagine that the same type information came from NBC or CBS or ABC, should it be any more or less trusted?  Why, because one does not deliver news to fit ones personal view and taste?  Is it actually about the news or the information or is it about one's own personally held political beliefs?

        In that case wouldn't it be far more prudent and reasonable to pursue the original sources of the data and verify the report?  Is that pursuing one's own "facts" or the facts?  Too often liberals have so decided that conservatives are mindless drones that nearly all facts are suspect.

        That is why I will always maintain there is no real common ground and seeking it is a waste of time.

        1. Zelkiiro profile image85
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I still wouldn't trust it, as the report would most likely be coming from someone standing outside the room where they keep those records as they peep through the window and make guesses on what their earnings, audience share, raw audience numbers, etc. are based on how many boxes they can see and asking random people walking by.

          Hey, that's how they report everything else.

     
    working