For those of us who have been wondering what the heck Michele Bachmann is doing in the US Congress, we now have an answer!
Her comment vis a vis yesterday's House repeal of the Health Care Law:
Said Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.): "To those . . . who think this may be a symbolic act, we have a message for them: This is not symbolic. This is why we were sent here, and we will not stop."
Interestingly, her language is very, very similar to that of Sarah Palin during an interview with Sean Hannity.
Mrs. Palin said, "I will not sit down. I will not shut up."
Could this "will not"be the new Tea Party mantra?
"I will not_______"
"We will not ______"
Makes the party of "No" look downright cooperative, doesn't it ???
Worked for the hippies didn't it?
"Hell no we won't go". Or maybe they were nazi's as well.
Good! We don’t want Her to stop at least not before our country is returned to its original charter!
The Articles of Confederation? Again....please think at least a little bit before you write. This is getting beyond ridiculous and moving into outrageously comical.
There are certain posters you can count on for that..
The Articles of Confederation were awesome. I love Article 2:
"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
Article 3 was pretty good, too:
"The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever."
I like these mostly because they sound just like the Constitution's 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Good I hope she runs for president as a GOP or third party candidate.
Americans shouldn't take stuff laying down, and I don't understand the suggesting that they should. Good for her for backing up how Americans voted, and what they really want. That is thinking a bit more constitutional, I hope she and others keep it up. People are tired of what they have been seeing. They got out and voted too. Facts like that matter.
Nope. She simply knows that the proposed health care is unconstitutional.
And she took an oath to uphold that Constitution.
IN this ONE instance (i don't know her other stances) I can agree with her.
The "patriot act" is unconstitutional, but the GOP enacted that sick bit of police state legislation, so Sir, there is nothing "Constitutionally Righteous" about the Republican party.
Much agreed with you, actually... at least in terms of that disgustingly titled bit of legislation... although that doesn't excuse the present administration for continuing it.
Hush your mouth! The very act of being a Republican makes every thing they do and say right and don't you dare forget it.
Shane on you for speaking out against your natural betters and leaders!
Ever occur to you some of us might actually be "independants" whom only side with hard core republicans because many of the present political movements are dragging us away from the Constitution and towards socialism?
I'm a pro-choice athiest who supports equality for all, including issues like gay's being alowed to openly serve or get married. I want the border sealed and locked down, but at the same time, I think our present legal immigration system is just assinine and needs to be thrown out and/or dramatically simplified.
Problem is, the same freedom that should allow a person to openly live an "alternative lifestyle" should just as equally apply to another to bust their ass and get rich... followed by justifiably being allowed to kick back and enjoy the fruits of their labors without having to be subjected to increasingly rediculous theft of their wealth through an equally asinine tax burden. Why should someone who makes millions pay 50%-60% of the income that they EARNED while some one who makes less only pays 0%-10%? Just because they CAN?
Live, and let live, my friend. You might not like the moral implication that a rich person should not be required to "share their wealth", but how is that any different from the "moral" questions many religious people have about the gay community? One persons moral beliefs should not be allowed to dictate laws governing another persons life.
First, I doubt if in either of our countries are millions paying 50-60% of the income they earn in taxes. Unless of course you are referring to the hidden tax payers who, in the UK at least, can be taxed at 100%.
But somehow, I don't think that you are referring to them. I think that you refer to what are called colloquially higher tax payers which in fact means that many of them pay little or no tax at all because they have the dosh to avoid paying taxes.
Why should they, or we, pay taxes? I personally think we're all better off if some things like education,police, roads and the like are paid for centrally. Obviously a fit and healthy and well educated population has to be better than the alternative were perhaps the bright and eager ut poorly educated decides that his road to riches is at the other end of the barrel of a gun.
I'm decidedly in favour of live and let live, I'm not constantly saying I did this so everybody else should. But then neither do I particularly like walking across corpses or even having to deal with beggars.
You know that's not what I meant. I'm not a complete idiot, and I understand the purpose of taxes. I'm not saying we just shouldn't have to pay them... I'm asking why it's fair for one "class" in society to pay little or nothing, in terms of a percentage of thier income, while another is taxed at well over 50% (and YES, in the U.S., there are MANY who pay taxes at that rate or higher).
And in terms of helping the poor, I'm not saying that welfare en mass should be abolished... but some reform would definitly be in order, at least on this side of the pond. If our welfare system is meant to "teach a man to fish", than why are there so many who live off of it for their entire lives?
Why is our welfare system so heavily geared towards merely supporting those "in need" (and just barely at that) as opposed to helping them in the way of providing the education you speak so highly of, or at least providing them job training and assistance in finding a job? God-forbid they should actually break the welfare/poverty cycle and the left lose 80% of it's voter base.
And again, you know I'm not talking about those who are truly incapable of supporting themselves, such as the physically or mentally handicapped.
They make up a very small percentage of our welfare burden and, ironically enough, are the ones who want help the least. Almost every handicapped person I've ever known, including my step-sister who suffers severe fetal alcohol syndrome thanks to her worthless you-know-what of a mother, or my wife's aunt who has down syndrome, wants nothing more than to be ABLE to work and be independant.
I don't see why somebody on high earnings should not pay their fair share of taxes, those on 5060% could well argue that they pay their fair share but what of those who earn very large amounts of money but pay only a token amount in taxes?
I wasn't erm, S****ing you when I said that there is a class of people in the UK taxed at 100% and these are not the ones with vast disposable incomes, they are the ones at the bottom of the stack.
I'll be radical and say the reason why so many seem happy to live off benefits for life and that is that benefits are too low, they don't allow for dreams, and that the restrictions on claimants too rigid not allowing people the room to work themselves off benefits but being an all or nothing income and taxing any additional income at 100%.
You again have a dig at the left for wanting to maintain their voter base. You obviously aren't aware that in the UK the right was responsible for the unemployment benefit system, the left were opposed to it foreseeing a work force subdued just enough to take unemployment without too much anger, with no fight left in them and lost to all intents and purposes.
It has been maintained at that level which exercises social control ever since, believe me, no true leftie wants a subdued work force.
In the 50s, the top earners were taxed at about 90%, and we still managed to have vast economic growth.
Now the top earners are taxed somewhere close to 30%, but that's only 30% off of their top earnings. The first 15K aren't taxed at all, the next 30 K are taxed at the same rate that all people who earn that much are taxed, and so on. And that's only earned income, that is, money you get in exchange for your work.
Investment dividends, capital gains, etc, are all taxed at a lower rate.
Seems to me, if dividends, savings interest, capital gains, &c were taxed as earned income, it would be fairer than to tax those income streams (to which only a relative few have access) at a lower rate.
If we're going to tax income at all, that is.
Yes so? Obama voted for it as Senator and he has extended it as well while President.
Let's not forget under Obama our children are being sexually molested at airports!
LOL I'm sure you'll just stand happily by while your 13 year old daughter gets her coochie probed by some bad ass TSA agent all in the name of your safety!
Please, don't stop. If you just say something a little bit more insane than what you just said I'll have a really funny Twitter update.
Plenty of Democrats voted for that travesty, too.
Though as far as I know, the only people with the courage to vote against it were Democrats.
More than plenty, 47 of 49 D's voted Yea in the Senate. Only one Senator voted against Feingold (D-WI). One Senator did not vote.
Not Voting - 1
In fact Democrats used the Patriot Act as a campaign issue in 06. While the vote to repeal healthcare may be a symbolic measure, at least they are responding to the voter.
Good for her. And good for the USA.
If the Party of "NO" had actually kept saying NO (and backed it up with action) when it should've, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.
Yeah, like NO to the Patriot Act, NO to torture, NO to Iraq invasion, NO to Cheney's secret energy meetings, NO to not paying for the "war", NO to tax cuts during a "war", NO to moving US jobs overseas, NO to the TARP bail-out under Paulson's threat of Marshall Law.
Like, NO to immoral hogwash laws and bowing down to China's dictator.
Like, NO to socialism when the instigator first mentioned it.
Like, NO to the very fact that people viewed Obama's nomination as a valid option.
Among other things.
"NO to immoral hogwash laws"
Like the PATRIOT Act!
You're finally getting it!
"NO to the very fact that people viewed Obama's nomination as a valid option."
There you go, pooping all over the Constitution again. You don't seem to care a darn bit about the Constitution when Constitutional processes have results you don't like.
I hope she does stop. Stops and thinks before she speaks. She comes across as a poor womans Sarah Palin. which isn't saying much.
Sounds like a new format for a meme, kinda like lolcats. I'm thinking her chances would be better if she went with...
Good for her. It's about time we had some serious adults in government, people who will actually do something, like repeal 50 years of horrendous nonsense.
Ha ha -- good one!
"No" is a lot stronger than "Yes" isn't it?
We are on the right track now. Don't worry we will save the left from self destruction!
Sorry all I can say is that I am LMAO lady. You must have purchased the same Ronco be a comic in 5 easy lessons that Jim bought.
One party definitely cares about what American's actually want. The other cares about telling them what they want, and if its not attractive to make it a little more attractive with the ear tickling we saw from the beginning.
Many people bought it, but no more. Less health care, but costing more now because of the changes Obama brought to health care? NO thanks..and great for American's for speaking out for all.
18% of Americans want the healthcare bill re-pealed.
Who is she working for? The people? Or her peeps?
Let's see.......72% of Americans disagree with her.
yeah, keep telling those whoppers Michelle...and while yer at it, tell us why YOU felt entitled to $250,000 from all of US for YOUR private farm.
AND......since you guys have been in charge now for a while....WHERE ARE THE JOBS?
We've had healthcare re-peal, now we'll have abortion.....OF COURSE, base base base base base base base base
OH yeah....and tax cuts for the Uber Rich, which increases the deficit they pretend to care about.
Cut defense--55% of Americans want THAT, and GIVE US JOBS. 100% there!!
Boehner, I'm surprised at you! Where is your daily refrain......Jobs Jobs Jobs?
Again, the constant misrepresentation of platforms.
Don't you ever tire of spreading the same inaccurate statements?
"One party definitely cares about what American's actually want."
Yes, they tried to meaningfully reform our healthcare system.
"The other cares about telling them what they want, and if its not attractive to make it a little more attractive with the ear tickling we saw from the beginning. "
Yes, they'll say anything to convince the people they don't want healthcare reform, from calling it socialist, communist, or fascist (and pretending that those things are synonymous), to making up stories about death panels, to who knows what all else they'll come up with.
Incisive analysis, oceansunsets!
"One party definitely cares about what American's actually want."
"Yes, they tried to meaningfully reform our healthcare system."
That must be why Americans reelected so many of those people.
"That must be why Americans reelected so many of those people."
No, so many Republicans got elected this last time around because of them saying "anything to convince the people they don't want healthcare reform, from calling it socialist, communist, or fascist (and pretending that those things are synonymous), to making up stories about death panels, to who knows what all else they'll come up with."
Wow, taking Michele Bachmann to task for having the audacity to say they were actually going to do what they were sent to Washington for.
I guess life as we know it has ended, huh?
Oh yeah....and most Americans want the rich to pay MORE in taxes.......people, or peeps???
Michelle should give up her and her family's healthcare toot sweet too...and all the rest of the people in Congress who say it's unconstitutional. Show some real spine.
Give back the $250,000, and give back your fabulous healthcare which we all provide. OR provide it for the rest of us too!!
AND...do you know how many Welfare Queens it would take to fill that $250,000?
phew....that Michelle is ONE grabby welfare momma!
I agree with you that Congress men and women should give up their health care privileges. But I must insist that, unfortunately, THEIR health care IS constitutional.
Oh, and a side note: I know of ONE Congressman who DID renounce his Health care.
RON PAUL, BABY!!
"Congress men and women should give up their health care privileges."
--ONLY the ones who say it's unconstitutional.
You know, John Kerry has been saying for years that all Americans should have the same plan he has....
It's not about making them suffer like WE do, it's about letting us ALL benefit like THEY do!!
You do realize that, if everyone had their coverage, we'd all be poor... right?
Oh, and you seemed to ignore the fact that Congress giving US health care would be Unconstitutional, but them giving themselves health care is Constitutional.
If you find this vile and disgusting, then I encourage you to become a Libertarian.
All 545 should give back their health care privileges and pay as much out of their pocket as the rest of us have to.
WHY? Why don't we make it so that the REST of us can have the same great deal they have now?
This is why you are laughed at. Your inability to comprehend math, for instance. Have you ever done the math, to figure out what that kind of "coverage" costs?
Do you have the money to pay for it? If not, then stop whining. The only what you're going to get everything, is to pay for everything. And you're not that rich.
Is everyone in England poor? France? Finland? Norway?
I don't think so.
I mean, there's enough wealth aggregated to the very few at the tippy-top here, just changing the tax codes to make it even with the rest of us would solve everything!!!
Because some of us believe in working for what we have, not changing the rules so everybody can have the same amount of stuff in the interests of what somebody defines as "fair".
Some of us wish we could get a job to maintain what we have. The rules have been changed everybody gets the same stuff, made in China and sold at Wal-mart.
But some who believe in working for what they have are blocked from doing that by a system that depends on unemployment. They are forced to do without so you can have stuff.
Do you define that as fair?
Lol A system that depends on unemployment? What kind of production system depends on not having workers? Lol
I'd by lying if I said I understood that. I'd also be lying if I said I cared.
Success stories are always made in the times of economic downturn.....more people need to pull up their man britches and find a way to earn a living. That's what the rest of us do.
It's pretty obvious that you don't care!
You're all right, everybody else can go hang for all you care.The very young and the very old don't count in your world, neither do the sick or incapacitated.
At the end of the day....it's called personal responsibility. I don't expect anybody else to be responsible for me.
Apparently, that offends. Sorry about that (well, not really...)
Personal responsibility:, no man is an island in this society. We are all interdependent, you must depend on others to protect you from your own body waste and garbage. Personal responsibility is what the haves tell the have-not to get. Some have-not repeat what they hear.
I'll go along with that. I used to be a "have-not". I exercised some personal initiative, and now I am a "have".
The sad part is that some would find this offensive.....
Like the ones who circumstances mitigated against, and were unable to replicate your actions?
The offensive thing isn't that you've had economic success (which is awesome, and good for you!) but that you seem to assume that everyone who doesn't have economic success could have it if they'd only just bootstrap themselves to it.
The perceived assumption that if you're poor, it's all your fault, and you could be rich if you would just get up off your butt and go to work is what's offensive.
Of course, it's entirely possible that you're not making these assumptions and I've inferred too much into your statement. If so, I'd gladly be corrected.
That's the argument the left uses when they're called on their insane and oppressive ideas! Oh we don't care! blah...blah...blah... What do you know how we feel? The truth is we DO care ... greatly! We ant an environment where everyone can prosper, but what does the left want? Fairness and shared misery! Fairness as defined by the elites that exempt themselves from their own rules and regulations, yes, that's fair! And shared sacrifice, shared by everyone except the ruling elites! Socials justice for them is equal misery for all! Well you're right we DON'T care for that kind of solution at all!
Fine words LL but I'm afraid that Bill does not agree with you, he's a survival of the fittest man.
I know nobody who wants shared misery, and in fact your whole idea of the left is wrong.
The bulk of the oppressive ideas come from the right.
Really? Prove it! Everything the left does is to steal from one to give to another, to regulate and dictate, tell us how to live, how to eat, what light bulbs to by, how much carbon we should use, mandate entitlements and makes us pay for them while exempting themselves from all of it! LOL The lefy are hypocrites, they disgust me!
It's the old illustration about giving a starving man a fish and he'll have a nice meal....teach him how to fish and he'll never starve.
The left wants to give, regardless of who they have to take from to do it.
The right wants more people equipped to achieve great things. Yes, we are the party of the rich, because we want everyone to BE rich!
Unfortunately, it's the left who would teach a man to fish, the right might give him an old fish . . . if it was tax deductable:)
At least you've got a sense of humour, your last line got a smile out of me.
Since when is the left ever about personal responsibility? They are the ones talking about wealth redistribution, everything in the name of fairness.....never once have I heard Barack Obama praise personal responsibility or initiative. Most of the Democratic base are the American moocher class who exist through taxes we pay so that they can sit at home, watch Springer and cash a check.
The left is maybe more about joint responsibility, or else society if you prefer.
I think that you might be surprised at the political make up of the moochers, not saying that there are no lefties amongst them but I'd bet that there are just as many right wingers!
I'd be surprised if there are no bosses in the US with left leanings.
Imagine, if you can, you're an employer.
You have a vacancy that need filling.
You advertise and as a result of that advertisement you get
a) one applicant who isn't ideal, wants more than you are wanting to pay and has three other jobs to consider before he'll accept or reject your offer.
b) 20 applicants who will work for less than the next man because they are desperate to work and all of whom can start immediately.
So, come on LL, tell me why things aren't really like that.
You forgot about the candidate or candidates who are ideal and aren't unreasonable about pay.....that's the guy you hire.....
But he's all ready got a job thank you and his employers are desperate to hold on to him. He has no reason whatever to move.
If you want him, then you make your position more attractive than the one he is in. It's called enticement.
Are you going anywhere with this or are you just grazing?
No, but you are, you really expect me to believe that the boss would be happier offering more and more enticements to get somebody when with a reserve of unemployed he could get them for nothing!
What's the point of getting somebody for less if they aren't qualified?
Who said anything about being unqualified?
Sorry, I applied the "isn't ideal" part to the 20 other guys....my bad.
I would venture the boss would pick who he deems is most qualified for the job and pay them accordingly, even if that meant paying a little more to entice somebody from a rival company.
I know I'd much rather hire somebody who already has a job, but that's just me....
If things are like tha now in (b) it's because of your beloved leftist socialist liberals and their stupid proven failed keynesian economic policies!
That really isn't worth the effort of a reply!
Do your history, the first country out of the great depression was Sweden, they were using Keynesian policies.
LOL Sweden a country of what 100,000 people at the time? That isn't a country, that's a tribe! LOL
Point is no other nation has a system of government such as ours, at least in its intended form, nor a culture such as ours... so the constant comparisons to the U.S. versus this place or that are null and void, not to mention tiresome.
No other country has people who work for a living, no other country has a government!
I'm afraid if somebody claims something will not work then it is valid to present another country that proves it does.
And I'm sorry if it offends you to be compared to other countries but I don't see that as any reason not to.
First off where is your proof that Sweden WAS the first oput of the great depression? Second since the depression affected all countries differently, some worse than others, who's to say Sweden was as bad off to begin with? This source claims Great Britian to be one of the first in Europe to emerge because they decoupled their currency from gold and increased their exports...
So maybe you just don't know your facts!
"The Great Depression on Britain
Following WWI Britain had become much more dependent on exports, when the global economy collapsed it was one of the first countries to feel the sting. After being the first country to leave the Gold Standard its currency dropped in value causing its exports to be much cheaper overseas and giving them a competitive advantage.
This helped them become one of the first countries to come out of the Depression. "
http://www.stocks-simplified.com/Great- … urope.html
Well, strangely enough I can't remember the source of everthing I've ever learnt. I could no doubt google it but as you'd find a way of discounting it, it doesn't seem worth the effort.
I mean, how can you debate with somebody who claims that because the UK was one of the first countries out of depression, Sweden couldn't have been the first!
Well you made the claim... as I said the depression didn't effect all countried equally, perhaps in Sweden it wasn't as bad as the rest of Europe and besides it's a smaller country with a smaller population and smaller GDP so it would be easier to come back from a shock to begin with... You state something as fact and can't back it up and then whine that it isn't worth checking anyway! LOL! You are indeed the perfect liberal!
Lady love - take your sharp tongue over and give some support to Junko on the Katrina thread - then we will all believe that you have a heart - really !
77 posts into this thread and I'm still wondering what the point of it is.
So apparently, it is a bad thing for Michele Bachmann to articulate the fact that she intends to do what she was sent to DC to do. She's doing the same thing any number of Democrats did following the last two elections....
Perhaps at some point somebody will chime in an explain EXACTLY where the problem lies.....
The rich should have to pay more, in terms of a dollar amount, but 10% of one million is still more than most "poor" or "middle-class" make in a year... so they would pay more, even if we had a flat (fair) tax rate.
Funny how the people who honestly need the help want it the least, while those who truly want it generally don't need it.
On your last point, at least, you've got me. I do not claim to have the least bit of knowledge as to the intricate workings of the UK. Nor do I care to (no offense). Sorry, but I do not subscribe to this "one world nation" b.s., I like the U.S. being her very own nation and have taken an interest in politics for that very reason.
What happens in your country has little to no bearing on me, and is therefore none of my business. If that makes me an "isolationist", than so be it (as if that's such a bad thing). "Pick your battles", as they say... it's hard enough trying to stay current on the goings on right here in my own country.
But regardless of which nation, the issues you mention sound to me like problems with the tax code/laws more than the individual citizen paying (or not paying) taxes. Not surprising here, considering one of the most corrupt tax cheating D-bags in Congress is in charge of writing our tax laws... go figure.
I would agree that the "loop holes" which allow many to evade paying their fair share should be closed, but on the same token, who's to say what their "fair share" is?
Well, fair enough, you don't care what happens in the UK but we aren't so far apart that a situation in one country may not be mirrored in another, especially when we have so many who worship the US and look to her for guidance.
I don't really think that the problems of tax evasion are related to tax codes.
Don't look to US for guidance, we are I'm afraid a broken compass.
For whatever it's worth... I didn't mean as if to say I have anything but the best of wishes towards the UK (or anywhere else, for that matter), I sincerely do... just that I don't have the energy to keep up with the internal goings on everywhere else... it's literally exhausting just trying to stay abreast of the political nonsense going on here.
At any rate, as much as I love a good spirited debate; speaking of starting poor and getting on your own two feet, I have to go finish the process of becomming employed again. Been poor for 6 months now since we moved, how people live their entire lives like this is beyond me... but I'm done with it. See ya'll on the flip side.
How about Bachmann should have said NO to that $250,000 she took from the gvt?
How about NO to the healthcare she wants, but doesn't want us to have....doesn't she have 5 kids?? That's a LOT of healthcare for ONE family. 5 kids, 2 adults.
Lot more than, Oh say.....Clinton, with 1 kid?? Obama with 2??
Nice "toned down" name for the president btw....the instigator.
"people viewed Obama's nomination as a valid option."
So you feel, like Michelle, that there should only be people like you in charge?
Not only in charge, but actually IN the gvt! Re-peal Democrats I think is her mantra.
Not repeal Democrats necessarily. Repeal nonsense though. Actually, the choices presented to the citizens for the Office of the Presidency should have two QUALIFIED Candidates, not one qualified and one unqualified. America messed up royally during the last Campaign. The normal rules of conduct need to be re-set.
You're thinking of the last two Vice-Presidential candidates: Biden (qualified) and Palin (woefully inadequate).
But under the Constitution, there are only four requirements that qualify someone to hold the office of President:
1) they must be a natural-born US Citizen.
2) they must be at least 35 years of age.
3) they must have lived in the US for at least 14 years before being elected.
4) they must be elected.
There's nothing there about intelligence or competence or other qualifications, so, legally, even Sarah Palin could become the next president. I hope the GOP runs her. I really, really do.
Yeah, but there's factions within factions and some factions care about those of us who weren't born with a silver spoon up our nose.
Some could care less.
I absolutely agree that the "normal rules of conduct need to be reset." One of those rules is allowing big business to buy politicians by contributing massive amounts of $ to their war chests.
As for the 2008 election having one qualified and one "unqualified" candidate for POTUS. The voting public determined who it considered qualified. Certainly McCain has the chops to be POTUS. However, his age + anger issues concerned many that he could stroke out any day, thus leaving "her" as his replacement. America said, "No thanks."
Very well said Mighty Mom. Even my most conservative friends mentioned the anger angle with McCain. Was he qualified? Certainly he was. Would he have done a fine job as president? Likely so. But then came our lovely Sarah with her empty whitticism, her blind alley talking points, her folksy way of charming da pants right off ya, and like a bad case of stomach flu on your wedding night, the romance went down the toilet. She did more to lose McCain the election (from the swing vote crowd such as myself) than anything else. We sat in our livingrooms the night before the election and babysat that gnawling feeling in our guts and asked, "what if?" And the answer to "what if" was too scary to bear...
She sounds kind of Hillaryish to me. Don't much care for either one. Love Bill though.
LOL I would have loved to party with him, even though he dint inhale.
Comparing Michele Bachmann to Hillary Clinton is like comparing Glenn Beck to Jon Stewart.
They both represent a political ideology, but one spouts Tea Party nonsense and the other has a brain!
Careful there, DTR0005. You're edging dangerously close to violent rhetoric! Satisfying as that sounds, we don't want to give Mrs. Palin a persecution complex (not that she would understand that term )!
.............................................so who cares?.................
michelle bachmann is my favorite lunatic.
the more she talks and purports to represent "average" amercians, the more that average americans get to see just who she really represents.
ditto for the rest of the crowd....palin, walker, gingrich
blather on about freedom and the constitution, the rest of us can see right through it. the bottom line is that you are against pro-corporate and anti-representative democracy(at least in Mixigen). they will eventually have to change michigans name to some corporate version of it, like mixigen.
It is a shock to the system when a politician calls it as she sees it. We need more outspoken politicians rather than the mealymouthed identikit figures we get these days.I do not agree with her politics but at least she is honest about what her politics are.
Also, Michele has at some point in her life fostered nearly two dozen children. So far as I am concerned that put her on the side of the angels.
Yes - there are loads of politicians who talk the talk -blandly- but very few who have walked the walk. When you get to that number of fostered kids it shows grit and conmmitment.
I would rather have someone like that with bad politics than wimps with the "ideal" politics. If you can persuade her of something she will deliver, whereas many of the wimps simply do not deliver.
by I am DB Cooper 7 years ago
There are rumors floating around today that Minnesota representative Michele Bachmann is considering a 2012 presidential run. Bachmann is seen as a far right conservative and the polar opposite of Senator Al Franken, also from Minnesota. So what does everyone think of Bachmann's chances? Did anyone...
by I am DB Cooper 7 years ago
Is there any Republican presidential candidate more entertaining that Michele Bachmann? Sure, there's Herman Cain and his new-affair-every-week-or-your-money-back policy. And then there's Newt Gingrich and his constant stuttering while trying to spit out the phrase "sanctity of marriage",...
by Susan Reid 7 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...
by Susan Reid 6 years ago
Will resist the urge to ask how Michele Bachmann ever got on the Intelligence Committee in the first place.Just discovered she became a Swiss citizen in March 2012.She is eligible to run for public office there.Should she go live there?Do you think that would NEUTRALIZE her? I hear Switzerland has...
by JerryTillotson 7 years ago
Michele Bachmann for president?To my Hub friends from Minnesota--would you vote for Michele Bachmann for president?
by Gary Anderson 7 years ago
This moron Michelle Bachmann thought the shot that started the revolutionary war was fired in New Hampshire! Bawhhhaaaa!...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|