Bye Bye Bachman
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.
. 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=0I 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.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.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.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.
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.Deleted
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.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.Deleted
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.
Deleted
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.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-LuntzTiny thoughts can be very appealing, especially the paranoid ones. Isn't the madness of others hilarious? Oh, no, Republicans met with Republicans to discuss slowing an agenda that they believed would be damaging to the country or at least to their party. I am certain the Democrat Party never had such meetings, ever. Interestingly enough I am pretty certain that neither party ever had a Ministry of Hate. But don't let that stop the spew. It never stops being funny.
I wonder how much credibility would be given by Democrats, liberals and lefties to an article gleaned from Breitbart, Fox, PJmedia, Townhall, Washington Times, etc...yet the Dailykos is treated like a legitimate news outlet.Not much. You must have seen McConnell on TV three years ago pledging to do whatever it took, even if it meant running the economy on the rocks, to defeat Obama. It didn't work, but it prolonged the recovery. Since then the Tea Partiers and Libertarians in the House have done their best to block measures that would have speeded up the recovery. Thank goodness for Bernanke.
Ben Bernanke the man inflating the bubble even further by monetizing the debt? Awesome, if we really want that kind of progress maybe we can get Robert Mugabe to come design a recovery plan.
There are those congenitally incapable of laying the real blame where it belongs when a Democrat is President. Obama can do no wrong. He talks down every sector of American business. He mocks and criticizes whole professions. He transfers vast sums of wealth to green companies that eat that wealth or further transfer it to China and then collapse. Through his wild and irresponsible deficits he has made the United States taxpayer the primary investor in the Chinese Peoples Army.
Yet it is the Republicans who are at fault, again, regardless of what mechanisms of the State they do or do not control. Wrap your self in the flag when nurse Ratchet brings your meds, you won't look so paranoid.Last week the International Monetary Fund, whose normal role is that of stern disciplinarian to spendthrift governments, gave the United States some unusual advice. “Lighten up,” urged the fund. “Enjoy life! Seize the day!”
O.K., fund officials didn’t use quite those words, but they came close, with an article in IMF Survey magazine titled “Ease Off Spending Cuts to Boost U.S. Recovery.” In its more formal statement, the fund argued that the sequester and other forms of fiscal contraction will cut this year’s U.S. growth rate by almost half, undermining what might otherwise have been a fairly vigorous recovery. And these spending cuts are both unwise and unnecessary.
Unfortunately, the fund apparently couldn’t bring itself to break completely with the austerity talk that is regarded as a badge of seriousness in the policy world. Even while urging us to run bigger deficits for the time being, Christine Lagarde, the fund’s head, called on us to “hurry up with putting in place a medium-term road map to restore long-run fiscal sustainability.”
So here’s my question: Why, exactly, do we need to hurry up? Is it urgent that we agree now on how we’ll deal with fiscal issues of the 2020s, the 2030s and beyond?
No, it isn’t. And in practice, focusing on “long-run fiscal sustainability” — which usually ends up being mainly about “entitlement reform,” a k a cuts to Social Security and other programs — isn’t a way of being responsible. On the contrary, it’s an excuse, a way to avoid dealing with the severe economic problems we face right now.
What’s the problem with focusing on the long run? Part of the answer — although arguably the least important part — is that the distant future is highly uncertain (surprise!) and that long-run fiscal projections should be seen mainly as an especially boring genre of science fiction. In particular, projections of huge future deficits are to a large extent based on the assumption that health care costs will continue to rise substantially faster than national income — yet the growth in health costs has slowed dramatically in the last few years, and the long-run picture is already looking much less dire than it did not long ago.
Now, uncertainty by itself isn’t always a reason for inaction. In the case of climate change, for example, uncertainty about the impact of greenhouse gases on global temperatures actually strengthens the case for action, to head off the risk of catastrophe.
But fiscal policy isn’t like climate policy, even though some people have tried to make the analogy (even as right-wingers who claim to be deeply concerned about long-term debt remain strangely indifferent to long-term environmental concerns). Delaying action on climate means releasing billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere while we debate the issue; delaying action on entitlement reform has no comparable cost.
In fact, the whole argument for early action on long-run fiscal issues is surprisingly weak and slippery. As I like to point out, the conventional wisdom on these things seems to be that to avert the danger of future benefit cuts, we must act now to cut future benefits. And no, that isn’t much of a caricature.
Still, while a “grand bargain” that links reduced austerity now to longer-run fiscal changes may not be necessary, does seeking such a bargain do any harm? Yes, it does. For the fact is we aren’t going to get that kind of deal — the country just isn’t ready, politically. As a result, time and energy spent pursuing such a deal are time and energy wasted, which would be better spent trying to help the unemployed.
Put it this way: Republicans in Congress have voted 37 times to repeal health care reform, President Obama’s signature policy achievement. Do you really expect those same Republicans to reach a deal with the president over the nation’s fiscal future, which is closely linked to the future of federal health programs? Even if such a deal were somehow reached, do you really believe that the G.O.P. would honor that deal if and when it regained the White House?
When will we be ready for a long-run fiscal deal? My answer is, once voters have spoken decisively in favor of one or the other of the rival visions driving our current political polarization. Maybe President Hillary Clinton, fresh off her upset victory in the 2018 midterms, will be able to broker a long-run budget compromise with chastened Republicans; or maybe demoralized Democrats will sign on to President Paul Ryan’s plan to privatize Medicare. Either way, the time for big decisions about the long run is not yet.
And because that time is not yet, influential people need to stop using the future as an excuse for inaction. The clear and present danger is mass unemployment, and we should deal with it, now.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/17/opini … ef=opinion
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.
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!"
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.
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.All Weiner did was show his weiner...
Given the classy people representing Democrats, I thought they were all represented by wieners.
Don't worry about "the tea party" the IRS has that handled.
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.
She can go back to St. Olaf now... they were missing their villiage idiot
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.
Maybe she will go to work for TheBlaze. They do own a network.
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?"Christianity. They hate Christianity more than that.
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.
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?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.How many divisions does the pope have? Time enough for that.
They do a fine job destroying Christianity in the nations they do control.
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/412216If she announces her run, the people of Minnesota will most likely laugh.
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?
funny, strange thus qualifying him as both a liberal and a Minnesota politician
At least no one from Minnesota claims that rape may only be legitimate in some cases.
Are you sure, is Whoopie Goldberg from Minnesota? There are staunch defenders of rapist and pedophile Roman Pulanski all over the liberalverse.
Whoopie Goldberg is from her own little world in which she alternates between being unduly defensive to being outrageously offensive. Yep, she would probably defend Roman Polanski while cussin' Michelle Bachmann.
I saw her on the View once gettin' offended at 3 or 4 guest male models because none of them were black. She crosses her arms and sulks like a little kid when she don't get her liberal way in every area.She did, as many liberal celebs do, defend that rapist pig - "It wasn't rape, rape...." Hence the "liberalverse." Feel free to use it. Much like newspeak it sums up the alien view liberals - ALL LIBERALS - have of real events.
She's nasty, she really is. A lot of Hollywood liberals are just plain nasty-minded and hateful. Roman Polanski didn't even get charged, did he? I'm trying to remember the last news I heard of him in that rape case..........I remember being shocked that anyone would defend his actions.
He cannot return to the United States because of the existing charges against him have no statute of limitations. Periodically he makes a big movie and the actor/parasite community protests his exclusion from American shores.
As in a reallly reallly twisted view. I agree that's evident in their words and actions.
Pretty much the only things I find funny are the things he says in seriousness. Those gems are hilarious!
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...
Eh, considering it was a House seat, its most likely just good drawing of her district.
Did you know she was a Dem before becoming a Repub?
I don't think she ever ran for office as a Democrat and hasn't been one in decades if her account of switching during college is true.
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!!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.
- ahorsebackposted 10 years ago
0Mighty mom ! , Bachmann has done nothing of significance - Sounds just like this whole OBAMA administration to me , wuddaya think ?
- Brenda Durhamposted 9 years ago0
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.You sure you're talking about Michelle Bachmann?
The same one that once got schooled on the facts by a elementary school student?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.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.
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.
Don't forget she has as much education as Obama - except in the (PROUD) consumption illegal drugs. (Chum Gang - anyone, anyone)
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.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?And Einstein did poorly in high school math. What's your point? Nobody takes high school seriously.
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.There is a miniature yellow woolly mammoth under my bed. Prove me wrong.
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.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?
On the plus side, this must signify an admission of defeat on the so-called "trifecta of scandals." Regroup and revert.You don't scrub your past unless you have something to hide. So that would naturally beg the question, what is he hiding?
I just want some proof that he is as smart as all the Obamazombies claimed he is. But, we are not allowed to see his grades, why oh why would that be??
But, let's hear it from the man himself, shall we?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhFB7-w2MY8On a side subject, grades are not a measure of intelligence... I know plenty of idiots who got straight A's and plenty of scary bright people who got C's and D's.
This may very well be true. After all Albert Gore Junior flunked Divinity School in Tennessee but was still able to trick all the liberal enviro-bedwetters into watching Current TV right before he sold it the OIL RICH so he could become part of the 1% and leave all his values behind. WOW, we really missed having a brilliant leader in Al Gore. Con Man, Liar, Psycho, Phony, Greedy and a Hypocrite on his family-values-don't-mind-my-tongue-awakward-fake-kiss-tipper-while-I-plan-to-cheat-on-you and on his "eviro-MENTAL" values selling his purity to the OIL RICH. Dang I miss the real President he would have been an awesome liar in chief - if he had run as a Republican he would have won because he was greedy, dirty and slimy enough.
Just listening to him speak should be all you need to assess his obviously high intelligence. Not to mention his Harvard law degree and election to managing editor of the Harvard Law Review. Just curious, what are your credentials?
I'm not aware that it's been a custom, let alone a requirement, for candidates or presidents to publish copies of their high school through graduate school transcripts. You might be more persuasive if you explained which of his policies you disagree with and why.
As I recall, Romney wasn't very forthcoming about his income tax returns OR his college grades. It's obvious why he released only one year's tax return. He had plenty to hide. He obviously is plenty smart as is Obama. Their educational backgrounds are similar. I don't recall anybody asking to see his grades.You mean when the teleprompter is working? Corpseman Obama - Brilliant.
You have an unerring instinct for the capillaries. Virtually all public speakers use teleprompters for important, formal speeches. Bush had difficulties reading from a teleprompter.
Obama has no trouble thinking from a teleprompter. Perhaps he was letting the teleprompter handle the Bengahzi calls the night Chris Stevens was slaughtered? Perhaps it was just reading him a bed time story like "My Pet Goat" when that famous Hillary 3am call came in? So you are saying that Obama and Bush - you mean the old guy in Texas who rides mountain bikes with wounded warriors - the BUSH who hasn't been president for years and years - are on a par with each other - at least when it comes to letting the teleprompter do their talking? Did you see the stall out by Obama while his remarks had to be delivered to him - what a brilliant and skilled speaker.
I don't recall him being touted as the 'smartest man ever to become president' or sealing his records from public scrutiny either Ralph.
But I sure saw that with Barack "57 states" Obama.
He SEALED his records for a reason Ralph. Which is ironic seeing as that's how he won one election by miraculously getting his opponents SEALED divorce records unsealed and running essentially unopposed after that.
"You have an unerring instinct for the capillaries. Virtually all public speakers use teleprompters for important, formal speeches. Bush had difficulties reading from a teleprompter."
- Obama needed one to address a 1st grade class. Nuff said.Yeah, he couldn't even read a book upside down like Bush.
What a loser!"- Obama needed one to address a 1st grade class. Nuff said."
Where did you get that? From Glenn Beck or Michelle Bachmann? Or Rush Limpbaugh? You need to broaden your sources of information, IMHO.
"He SEALED his records for a reason Ralph."
What makes you think "he" sealed his records. Schools don't release transcripts to the public. I don't recall any president's school transcripts being released. Many candidates have released their tax returns, but Romney only released one year's return. And that one was enough to show that he was a tax dodger. Why are you picking on Obama? I'm sure it has nothing to do with his race!???
Again, do you take exception to his policies? Which ones, and why? You are revealing more about yourself than about the president with these childish, silly attacks.Ralph, here's one I have a problem with:
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/113485Me, too. WRT Nixon. He proved that character is more important than intelligence. The presidency doesn't require a genius. Lincoln had both intelligence and character. So did Harry Truman. Obama is plenty smart enough to be president.
But is he moral enough? Is evidence mounting that he is a poor judge of character or are those who would gladly rid him of his enemies exactly the kind of people he wanted in powerful office. Are IRS officials acting as they believe their boss would have them act or are they acting as directed? Remember, the head of Internal Revenue visited the White House more often than the Secretaries of State, Treasury and Defense - combined.
What exactly was Nixon's failure - covering up and covering for scandalous conduct by his subordinates. Isn't this what we see in the IRS and Data gathering scandals? Perhaps Republicans have been wrong this whole time. Obama is not the second Jimmy Carter but, rather, the second Richard Nixon." Is evidence mounting that he is a poor judge of character or are those who would gladly rid him of his enemies exactly the kind of people he wanted in powerful office. Are IRS officials acting as they believe their boss would have them act or are they acting as directed?"
Holder is Obama!
Sebelius is Obama!
Napolitano is Obama!
Rice is Obama!
These people are exactly like him, their goals are the same, they don't have to be told.
But they probably were.
Ralph, just because you choose not to see, doesn't make it go away:
on Jan. 21, 2009, Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13489, states Mr. Murse and he continues, “That the first order of business Obama took care of on day one of his Presidency was to sign off on an Executive Order that states that only the records he chooses to be made public will be released. This is the subject that was at the absolute top of his agenda. If this isn’t proof that Obama is hiding something, I don’t know what is.”
Yes, he sealed his records, and no amount of double talk or obfuscation can change that.
But I bet he can read a teleprompter standing on his head. Seems to be about his only talent cause it sure as hell ain't being a leader.
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.
They won't answer that, I bet.
Conveniently ignoring, and distraction, are their tools.
Yeah. lol.
I think Obama inhaled way too much.
"WHY do people insist on mocking and attacking a decent, articulate, intelligent woman like Bachmann?"
Politics of personal destruction, its how they roll.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.
You mean there is hypocrisy on the left?
Shocking.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.
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.
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.You see conservatism WAS something that once was a valid and logical approach to government.
Unfortunately, conservatism in the past 30 years means go to church, don't be gay and make sure that only business owners can succeed.So now we have your definition of conservatism. I am so glad, now I can ignore an entire history of thought from Natural Law Theory through the Scottish Enlightenment through the American Revolution to today. If I need to know anything about conservatism I need come to only one source, you. Awesome.
Most excellent, because his definition is the correct one.
Well, it seems as if the GOP of the past 30 years has ignored it.
And I wouldn't exactly accuse these current Republicans of thinking anyway.
One more side note:
Conservatism is always relative as time passes and society changes.So we switch from conservative, a philosophy to Republican, a political party - two different things, entirely. Liberals perception of what they mean by anything is transient and ephemeral. The philosophy of conservatism hasn't changed in over 200 years, that however would be a squandered lesson.
And therein, my dear boy, lies the problem--misogyny, racism, xenophobia, and an invincible upper class are antiquated oddities that should have been erased long ago, yet you and your peers still cling to them.
So I am a misogynist, racist, xenophobic aristocrat? How sad that so little thinking actually happens in your life.
I can't confirm the aristocratic portion, as there are so many in the lower and middle classes that have been tragically duped by the Religious Right, but as long as you align yourself with conservatism, then yes. You are, indeed, a misogynistic, racist xenophobe, and that is a fact; a fact that your ideology was founded upon.
Great, name calling - the ultimate in reasoned argument. i sure have been put in my place. You are so much better, smarter, wiser, taller and prettier than me. I have been shamed into changing everything about reality that makes you uncomfortable. I feel so much better now and isn't that what really counts.
How easily and carelessly they throw around such terms, while insisting on tolerance from others.
And what is the progressive vision for this country?
People sitting around a burning cow pie in a thatched hut eating their sustainable algae cakes and planning an organic bake sale to benefit the Guatemalan water snake.Or....
Equal rights, a living wage for workers, energy independence with new energy sources leading the way.
Things that will actually help society in the future...You mean from companies like Solyndra, Ener1 and Fisker? Yeah, that will be grand!
No we mean countries like Norway, Sweden and New Zealand that produce pretty much all of their power from renewable sources.
But Sweden and Norway don't spend their every waking hour, as George Carlin put it, bombing brown people in impoverished countries, so clearly they're not important in the world's stage.
The United States produces 24.7% of the worlds energy from renewable sources, yet, as liberals constantly remind us, has only 8% of the worlds population. Seems AMERICA is doing its FAIR SHARE.
Try readinglessons.com or myschoolhouse.com - I am sure they can help with the problem.
Why do I doubt that a website titled myschoolhouse.com is going to
mention anything about renewable energy.
BTW, renewable energy is really ironic topic, given the subject of the OP.Has far more to do with reading comprehension. Since when do these widely and wildly varying forums ever stick close to the OP? It was, after all, a response to a posting about how renewable energy. Maybe that schoolhouse site really could help.
Wow. Subtlety is really lost on some people.
Let's try to follow along, shall we?
1. YOU mentioned renewable energy and American's role in it.
2. Why is renewable energy important?
Well, independence from reliance on OPEC is one reason.
3. But another reason - one that goes to the discussion about other countries
around the world adopting renewable energy sources, is to combat greenhouse
gases.
4. What is the connection with Michele Bachmann, and the reason I mentioned the OP here (has nothing to do with being the actual Original Poster, which I also am), is
Ms. Bachmann's views on said subject.
To wit:
"The big thing we are working on now is the global warming hoax. It's all voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax."
~ March 15, 2008 speech at the Sherburne County Republican Nominating Convention.
"There isn’t one such study because carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas. Carbon dioxide is natural. It is not harmful. It is part of Earth’s life cycle...And yet we’re being told that we have to reduce this natural substance and reduce the American standard of living to create an arbitrary reduction in something that is naturally occurring in the earth."
- 2009 Earth Day speech on the House floor. .
Source: West Sherburne Tribune, Wonk Room
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/michele- … z2Vs4AchvJLet me know when a windmill will get me to work. Renewable energy is a scam to transfer money from taxpayers to political allies, nothing more. We are not dependent on OPEC for oil we are dependent on Canada for oil. We also have billions of barrels of oil in this country untapped because of the barriers the government and enviro-loons put in the way of production.
By the way, no one drives windmill turbine blades to the assembly site on an electric truck.Delusions are so entertaining, aren't they. No time in the near future will semi-trailers be hauled by electric trucks.
You'd be amazed at how fast technologies can take off. Just 5 years ago, the iPad was an oversized joke--a curious oddity from the rancid armpits of Apple--but look at it now, posing a serious threat to the traditional console gaming market and putting a sizable dent in laptop sales.
Considering how high gas prices have been this past decade, I wouldn't be surprised if electric vehicles took off, as well.Not likely that a semi-trailer will be pulled by an i-pad either.
No, your request and opinions carry zero weight with me under all circumstances since you labeled me a racist and misogynist. Two words that should always be fighting words.
Ugh.....where did he call you a racist in that post?
Not in that post - he knows and there is little more offensive than being called a racist.
Trucks large enough with sufficient tonnage capacity and range to transport massive wind turbines cross country from the port cities where they pick up the Chinese made turbines?
The trucks that use CNG do not travel cross country because no delivery system of sufficient scope exists. The only trucks that do use CNG are service vehicles and some delivery vehicles. Despite the state of Indiana's efforts to expand CNG service state wide it hasn't begun yet and it has limitations even where state government is friendly to the idea.
These things are still fantasies because petroleum fuels are not obsolete. Obsolete things get replaced and rather quickly. Standard Oil had a nation wide gas station chain before its 1911 break up. There will be nothing to compare with gasoline until you can haul tons of freight long distances without complicated or lengthy refueling stops.
Let me know when they develop an electric car that will go 400+ miles on a charge, refuel in less than five minutes and has enough capacity to carry 7 people in comfort on the hottest or coldest days without diminishing range for under $15000. All at speeds in excess of 70 mph. I will buy one.
There is no "fair share" about it, this isn't a competition so we can thumb our nose at China it's an effort to prevent devastating climate change and become energy independent. What's good enough is when we can compete percentage wise with say Norway at 99% of energy production or New Zealand at 97%.
Anthropogenic climate change is a political and financial scam. Real, naturally occurring climate change is inevitable and unstoppable. Green energy is a giant polluter. Cling to the silliness if you like.
Could it be cuz were a big country that has access to a lot of resources?
That's like someone in Saudi Arabia complaining that America isn't pulling its fair share of oil because they only have a few million people in the country and they have all of the oil.
Or how about that Tesla company that paid back all of its loans early and just posted a profit?
Remember the 5 million 'Green Jobs' Obama promised? Man, that was awesome!!
Yeah, pay no attention to the 535 million (that's over 1/2 a BILLION to you and me) that the American taxpayer will never see back from Solyndra alone.
Oh, and never mind that one of the principals in that company was a major Obama donor. Move along, nothing to see here.You're right, let's never progress or get anywhere cuz it might cost a little money.
Besides 535 million is what, like 1 day of the Iraq war?
retief2000 has articulated an "inconvenient truth".
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 CainHow 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.No, they would have to have brain and heart transplants.
Yes, conservative can attack and insult and do whatever but liberals are not allowed to respond in like. That is what they want, your silence.
LOL, liberals attack and insult constantly.
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.
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.
See, this is why no one takes the GOP seriously....
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?
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.Yes, the Christian right will delight in welcoming back the sinner who has repented. They love that.
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.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.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.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.
I wasn't telling you the story for congratulations. I was telling you in hopes you might develop a bit of humility when it comes to judging goodness, that is all.
I don't judge goodness in the way that you seem to think.
The Bible says there is none good but the Lord. That includes everyone except Him. It includes me, other Christians, atheists, murderers, abortionists, you, plain ol' "good" people, everyone. None of us are really "good", though we often use that term to describe people who do behave well for the most part.
What I can judge (like anyone else can judge if they have a lick of moral sense) is overt words and actions.
Maybe it will help if I clarified my statement about the "horrid things" that people do.
Not all liberals, I imagine, say and do horrid things.
But indeed, on this site and on other sites and in the "real world" too........the vast majority of liberal-minded people that I've seen and heard who've voiced opinions politically and personally.....usually are behaving in horrid ways and saying horrid things.
No, a person cannot judge EVERY person's behavior by the majority's behavior, but we can indeed judge the behavior of that majority that does insert their words and actions into the mix.
Now, I am still interested in your story, but you don't have to answer if you don't wanna, of course.
Why didn't you tell your class that you weren't a Christian?
Were you afraid they'd try to witness to you?
Were you afraid they'd think less of you or shun you?
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"?
Were you ashamed that you weren't a Christian?
Were you ashamed that you WERE thought of as a Christian?
I'm just asking how that all went down.
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.
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.
I should have said "some" Christians. I know not all Christians are so arrogant.
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.That would be sneaky or sly or dishonest.
Not smart.Same difference... you have to be smarter than your opponent to fool them.
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.
"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.
*Shrugs* I never said Bush was stupid. That's why your response was random.
I actually voted for him... or rather against Kerry...in 2004To 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
HeHe... I did say that didn't I?
I probably meant it at the time, although I can't remember the context.
If you want to run with that assessment, then yes GWB was brilliant at that maneuver.
I'm sure you have a point?Basically you just agreed with me, so I'm still not getting the point. Are you now willing to admit that Obama is intelligent... or do you think I was wrong in my assessment that sly equals intelligent... on some level?
Thinking that they speak 'Austrian' in Austria sure doesn't equal intelligent
I know it is hard to understand but your assumption is yours. I have made my point, perhaps you will see it perhaps you won't - that is immaterial.
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*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.Oh, he's BRILLIANT!
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.
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?What an arrogant assumption. Set of assumptions, actually.
Christian does not equal spiritual and spiritual does not equal Christian.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.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.
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.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.
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 NationDid 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.htmNYTimes 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=opinionI 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.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.
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.
>Disregards newspaper as outdated medium
>Fully trusts Fox News, a news program on an outdated mediumYou know nothing about me or my news sources and you have called me a racist and misogynist - so we are done, go away.
How do you like these tiny ideas from George Carlin?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO … e=youtu.beHere's more!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_zwB6GLpo4You 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
Only a tiny mind would dismiss someone's ideas because of their profession.
I hardly dismiss Carlen any more than you would dismiss Limbaugh. He is not, however, Aristotle, et al.... (...someone's ideas...HIS profession.)
You must read the Times every day to be so sure of your opinions about it.
I need only watch as it loses readership. The market place is the ultimate arbiter of success or failure.
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]"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 CirculationsI watch Fox occasionally. It's quite biased toward the Tea Party right and not very factual.
Do you mean the news or the editorial content. I have tried to find news on MSNBC but can't find any. As for THE tea party - haven't been able to find A "THE" tea party yet. What does slanted toward the tea party mean if there is no single tea party. When a liberal says tilted toward the tea party do they mean racist, inbred, small brained imbeciles or do they mean part of the long standing political philosophy that dates from the Scottish Enlightenment through the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to the Emancipation Proclamation and the speeches of Abraham Lincoln to today? Or is that too difficult to fully comprehend? Perhaps just reading Russel Kirk's The Conservative Mind would help.
I mean both the news and the editorial content.
"When a liberal says tilted toward the tea party do they mean racist, inbred, small brained imbeciles or"
That puts it quite nicely. Do you think Sara Palin or Glenn Beck or Lou Dobbs has read or even heard of the conservative philosophers you mentioned?Any response would be a waste of effort because Neanderthals like me or Lou Dobbs or Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck are too stupid, narrow minded, racist and inbred to bother with political philosophy. How fun.
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.
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)Why does every single conversation come down to my facts are better than your facts?
I think its time to stop feeding the trolls....
Yep. It's not exactly a fun experience, let alone a learning experience.
I find it fun and informative beyond belief.
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.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.
Related Discussions
- 40
Bachman Migrane
by American View 11 years ago
Well the left media is at it again In their constant attempt to tear down Bachmann because they see her as a threat to Obama, not they are claiming she cannot be President because she gets a headache. PLEASE. Being a fellow Migrane sufferer for many years, you can tell when they are coming,called...
- 9
If it came down between Sarah Palin & Michelle Bachman, who would you go for?
by MonetteforJack 11 years ago
If it came down between Sarah Palin & Michelle Bachman, who would you go for?
- 20
Huckabee's out.
by Holle Abee 12 years ago
Do you think this will open the gate for Palin and/or Bachmann??I hope not!
- 6
Has Michelle Bachmann had plastic Surgery?
by JT Walters 9 years ago
Has Michelle Bachmann had plastic Surgery?
- 3
Do you agree that Michelle Bachman should be the Republican Nominee?
by FOOFOO GUY 11 years ago
Do you agree that Michelle Bachman should be the Republican Nominee?So that the Democrats that trash them soundly in what may be the proverbial ''mother of all battles''.
- 27
Michele Bachmann's Speech -- Harmful to GOP?
by Susan Reid 12 years ago
Here is the text from the speech Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn)gave at the invitation of the Tea Party after tonight's SOTU. I have heard a lot of criticism from GOP spokespeople that Bachmann undercut/competed with the official GOP rebuttal given by Paul Ryan (R-WI). What do you think?What do you...