Bachmann announces she's running

[Palo Verde]

"Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann said Monday at the CNN debate that she had filed paperwork to enter the presidential race and said she plans to make a formal announcement of her candidacy "soon.""

I would think there would be a lot of overlap of those folk who want Bachman and Palin.

[JimH52]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/13/rep-michele-bachmann-makes-presidential-run-official/?hpt=hp_t1

The GOP really has a Big Problem now. The Tea Baggers expect Batcrazy Bachmann to win...or else...:D

[Marley23]

Merged threads.

[Chimera]

It is cute when someone like her is so utterly clueless about the nature of reality that they think they have a shot at being President.

I'd give her an over/under of the first actual primary. I think she'll be gone before then, but you never know the depths of her delusions.

[Simplicio]

I think she'll do well, if for no other reason then she's really one of only three 'real' candidates, and the other two are similar to each other. Not that I think she'll win, but I think she'll win in Iowa, emerge as the the "anti-Romney" candidate and come in second (and shut out poor Pawlenty).

[stpauler]

Hmm, Michelle Bachmann wants to repeal the EPA. The immature part of me wants to go litter in her district since it's so close.

[Chefguy]

You know the field is full of flakes when Ron Paul makes the most sense. He is actually 100% correct when he lays the blame for the financial messes in this country at the feet of the Fed. He also doesn't speak in terms of Obama, but rather in terms of "the last ten years" of irresponsibility. Watching the debate this evening, it's apparent that there has never been a politician who can answer a question as asked; they're all too busy making platform speeches while the people who ask the questions look on in puzzlement.

[Kolak of Twilo]

You know the field is full of flakes when Ron Paul makes the most sense. He is actually 100% correct when he lays the blame for the financial messes in this country at the feet of the Fed. He also doesn't speak in terms of Obama, but rather in terms of "the last ten years" of irresponsibility.
The frustrating thing here is Ron Paul is a really bright man with some incredibly screwy ideas. I've mentioned it before but, I grew up in his congressional district in Texas and went to college with Rand. They would both cut military spending and avoid overseas hijinks in ways that would please most liberals and, at this point, most Americans. BUT, pretty much all the other things they stand for are looney libertarian intellectual thought exercises that have little real world application.

And yet, Dr. Paul still manages to sound like the most reasonable person on stage at times during these Republican events. That is actually the most telling thing to me.

[Cyberhwk]

It is cute when someone like her is so utterly clueless about the nature of reality that they think they have a shot at being President.

I'd give her an over/under of the first actual primary. I think she'll be gone before then, but you never know the depths of her delusions.
Frighteningly, she's actually in the mix. She's polling at 11% (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/06/romney-leads-in-iowa-cain-surging.html) (and a Favorable/Unfavorable at 53/16!!! :eek:). 11% puts her just 4% off of Palin and Cain tied for second place. Furthermore, should Palin not run as many expect, she would probably get a very healthy share of her support.

[Chimera]

Don't start my morning by scaring the fuck out of me.

Look, I want to vote Republican, I just can't with their current philosophy. But if these clowns allow Bachmann to get within smelling range of the White House, then I have to swear them off completely until this psycho phase of theirs passes.

Honestly, I look at the people on that platform last night and what they are expousing, and the lack of moderates, and have to ask (once again) what the fuck happened to the party.

[runner pat]

I think Bachmann can get the nomination... if she's prepared.

*flees*

[BobLibDem]

Bachmann is either going to win the nomination or finish in second place. If the nominee is someone besides Bachmann or Romney, I'll be amazed. Look at this crew.... Newt has no chance whatever, never did, never will. Santorum disappeared into the stage last night. Pawlenty disavowed the phrase "Obamney Care" that he coined himself days earlier. Paul is the modern day Harold Stassen. Cain showed himself to be a racist buffoon. I don't know how Pawlenty or Santorum expect to raise any money based on last night's performance, neither will survive past the Iowa caucuses.

[Profound Gibberish]

Can you say "Vice President Bachman?"

She has far few coherent brain cells to be President, but VP? If Quayle could do it, anybody can!

[Simplicio]

Can you say "Vice President Bachman?"

I guess, though it seems like it would be too similar in the publics eye to a Vice President Palin, which wasn't exactly a winner last time around.

I suspect Romney will pick some old Cheney-esque conservative warhorse to shore up both his lack of foreign policy cred and his perceived moderateness. Thats basically the strategy Bush and Obama (with a more liberal senator, obviously) used, and it seemed to pan out for them.

[Captain Lance Murdoch]

Can you say "Vice President Bachman?"

She has far few coherent brain cells to be President, but VP? If Quayle could do it, anybody can!

Bachmann makes Quayle look like Plato.

[yanceylebeef]

Bachmann makes Quayle look like Platoe.

Fixed that for you.

[Dostoyevsky]

Cain showed himself to be a racist buffoon.

I missed the debate... how'd he do this?

[Jas09]

I missed the debate... how'd he do this?He pretty much flubbed his response when asked to clarify why he said he would have an issue hiring a Muslim to his administration.

Some quotes here: http://www.christianpost.com/news/herman-cain-pressed-on-muslim-loyalty-test-in-gop-debate-51152/

[BobLibDem]

I missed the debate... how'd he do this?

Cain clearly has some disturbing anti-Muslim prejudice. A decent summary is here. (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/republicans-debate-muslim-loyalty-tests-and-sharia-courts-on-cnn/) I found him to come off very creepy indeed.

[Tom Scud]

I don't know how that hurts him in the Republican primary, though.

[BobLibDem]

It may not hurt him in the primary, but it takes the shine off of him to more moderate voters.

[DianaG]

This? Is going to be AWESOME. :)

[Profound Gibberish]

The Onion summed it up best:

"Michelle Bachman Announces Bid to Be Discussed More Than She Deserves in 2012"

[Knorf]

Here's her video announcement (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixs27-xUSRA&feature=pyv), linked here for your commentary and amusement.

What does "take your country back" mean, really? Is it code for something?

If it means," remove some of the inordinate influence of wealthy corporate shills on our government," is she at all sincere?

Or is it something more like, "get us back to a time when a non-white couldn't possibly be elected president"?

[tim-n-va]

I think it is entirely possible that someone like Bachman could pull enough support to get the nomination and in effect hand Obama a second term. All it would take is someone to generate a lot of excitment in one of the sub-groups (tea party, etc.) while all of the rest of the field remains uninspiring.

[BobLibDem]

What does "take your country back" mean, really? Is it code for something?

They misspeak- they really mean "take the country backward".

[ragerdude]

The only Michelle that should be in the White House is Michelle Obama! :-)

[Dostoyevsky]

He pretty much flubbed his response when asked to clarify why he said he would have an issue hiring a Muslim to his administration.


I don't see his stance as racist but I do agree it's creepy and wrong. Thanks for the info.

[Ludovic]

"I don't mean any old Muslim, I mean a militant Muslim." Wtf? I'd be uncomfortable with a militant anything in my cabinet, and there's nothign to suggest that enough Muslims are militants in the US that you'd have to worry about it versus any other religion. Which even if it was an excuse it wouldn't excuse not distinguishing between Muslims and militant Muslims in the first place.

[Simplicio]

Yea, I'm glad someone finally has the courage to stand up and say "I won't put Islamic Terrorists in the US Cabinet".

Still, I wonder where Herman Cain stands on carpet bombing the Ozarks or turning Arlington Cemetary into a theme park? Until I've heard him bravely speak out against these things, I just don't know.

[Scuba_Ben]

Bachmann makes Quayle look like Plato.

Sometimes I think Bachmann makes Sarah Palin look like Plato.

Then Palin says something else. I've learned: Bachmann and Palin are at their sanest and smartest when they shaddup shadden' up.

[DianaG]

Michelle Bachmann has Sarah Palin beat all over. Sarah Palin only has megalomania. Michelle Bachmann has lots of other manias, too.

[Onomatopoeia]

I think it is entirely possible that someone like Bachman could pull enough support to get the nomination and in effect hand Obama a second term. All it would take is someone to generate a lot of excitment in one of the sub-groups (tea party, etc.) while all of the rest of the field remains uninspiring.Oh, I hope, hope, fervently hope Bachmann gets the nomination. Then, when she loses, maybe, just maybe the Republicans will come to their senses.

[Peremensoe]

"I don't mean any old Muslim, I mean a militant Muslim."

"I won't put Islamic Terrorists in the US Cabinet".

What did he actually say?

ETA: Wait... is that Jas09's link?

[Tom Scud]

Oh, I hope, hope, fervently hope Bachmann gets the nomination. Then, when she loses, maybe, just maybe the Republicans will come to their senses.

I pretty much hope the least-crazy-possible person gets the nomination (which would be Romney, or in an ideal world Huntsman), because it's entirely possible that whoever gets the nomination might win.

[Jas09]

Here is the exact exchange:

MCELVEEN: Thank you.

While we're on the topic of faith and religion, the next question goes to Mr. Cain. You recently said you would not appoint a Muslim to your cabinet and you kind of back off that a little bit and said you would first want to know if they're committed to the Constitution. You expressed concern that, quote, "a lot of Muslims are not totally dedicated to this country."

Are American-Muslims as a group less committed to the Constitution than, say, Christian or Jews?

CAIN: First, the statement was would I be comfortable with a Muslim in my administration, not that I wouldn't appoint one. That's the exact transcript.

And I would not be comfortable because you have peaceful Muslims and then you have militant Muslims, those that are trying to kill us.

And so, when I said I wouldn't be comfortable, I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us, number one.

Secondly, yes, I do not believe in Sharia law in American courts. I believe in American laws in American courts, period. There have been instances -

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

CAIN: There have been instances in New Jersey -- there was an instance in Oklahoma where Muslims did try to influence court decisions with Sharia law. I was simply saying very emphatically, American laws in American courts.

KING: So, on that point, Governor Romney let me come to you on this.

What Mr. Cain is saying that he would have -- my term, not his -- a purity test or a loyalty test. He would want to ask a Muslim a few question or a few questions before he hired them, but he wouldn't ask those questions of a Christian or Jew.

CAIN: Sorry. No, you are restating something I did not say, OK? If I may, OK?

KING: Please let's make it clear.

CAIN: When you interview a person for a job, you look at their -- you look at their work record, you look at their resume, and then you have a one-on-one personal interview. During that personal interview, like in the business world and anywhere else, you are able to get a feeling for how committed that person is to the Constitution, how committed they are to the mission of the organization -- It's pretty clear to me from that that Mr. Cain views Muslims with a much higher level of scrutiny with respect to their loyalty to their country than non-Muslims. Whether that is warranted or not is up to the viewer (obviously the crowd agreed with him - he received much applause).

[Profound Gibberish]

I so do not want to hijack this thread, but:

I really have to wonder what people like Herman Cain and Juan Williams are thinking when they openly and clearly state that they are prejudiced toward people because of their appearance, having themselves no doubt been heavily subject to that very same prejudice.

There are two ways to respond to prejudice directed toward you: 1) reject such prejudice and appreciate that people have different backgrounds, upbringings and views of the world or 2) redirect that prejudice toward a weaker group.

We know which course they chose.

[Peremensoe]

Here is the exact exchange:

It's pretty clear to me from that that Mr. Cain views Muslims with a much higher level of scrutiny with respect to their loyalty to their country than non-Muslims. Whether that is warranted or not is up to the viewer (obviously the crowd agreed with him - he received much applause).

Got it, thanks.

I so do not want to hijack this thread, but:

I really have to wonder what people like Herman Cain and Juan Williams are thinking when they openly and clearly state that they are prejudiced toward people because of their appearance, having themselves no doubt been heavily subject to that very same prejudice.

Yes. I have wondered. I think I'll go ahead and spin this off right now.

New thread in GD: Herman Cain and Juan Williams (and beyond) (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=612437)

Bachmann alone should be fodder enough for this one. :cool:

[River Hippie]

If Bachmann can be tied to Dominionism/Reconstructionism, I hope the Dems won't be shy about highlighting that.

[foolsguinea]

Don't start my morning by scaring the fuck out of me.

Look, I want to vote Republican, I just can't with their current philosophy. But if these clowns allow Bachmann to get within smelling range of the White House, then I have to swear them off completely until this psycho phase of theirs passes.

Honestly, I look at the people on that platform last night and what they are expousing, and the lack of moderates, and have to ask (once again) what the fuck happened to the party.IIRC, in 1990-1991, the state Republican parties started blocking anyone who was not committed to tax cuts in all circumstances. This has prevented the entry into GOP politics of any new old-fashioned fiscal conservatives, & diminished the pool of Republicans either "electable" or "experienced." The general quality of brain has thus gone down. Granted, the parties were already willing to take that kind of litmus test by the late 1980's, so I guess they were already a bit daft. But I'm pretty sure that's, "what the fuck happened to the party."

Join us defectors to the Democrats! One of us! One of us! Someday the Blue Dogs may outnumber the Pubbies, & we can have a proper realignment. :D

[John DiFool]

Brain, brain, what is brain?

[BrainGlutton]

I wouldn't worry. Bachmann will be POTUS some time after the Nader-Kucinich Administration.

[RTFirefly]

[What does "take your country back" mean, really? Is it code for something?

If it means," remove some of the inordinate influence of wealthy corporate shills on our government," is she at all sincere?

Or is it something more like, "get us back to a time when a non-white couldn't possibly be elected president"?They were saying shit like that during the Clinton years, too. It's short for, "we not only disagree with the people running the country - we don't regard them as legitimate, period."

[Saint Cad]

As a centrist Republican (fiscal conservative, Federalist, social progressive, not a goldbug, Obama was born in Hawai'i, etc.) I welcome all of my loony brethren and sistren to enter the race. Let's have a few more that believe that the Party needs "rescued" from non-traditionalist Republicans (like me) or that the Bible and not the Constitution should rule this land.

The more right-wing wackos that run, the more likely we will get a moderate nominated in 2012. I know there is another thread about what it means that Romney has tied Obama in the polls and tha low showing of Palin. It means that the "real Republican" party - teabag or not, does not resonate with America. And to be honest Mssrs Beck and Limbaugh, if it came down to Obama vs. Romney or Huntsman or Snowe would you seriously not vote for the Republican and in effect vote for Obama?

[JimH52]

I must admit, she handled herself well at the CNN debate. She was clearly number 2 behind Romney.

[Cyberhwk]

I wouldn't worry. Bachmann will be POTUS some time after the Nader-Kucinich Administration.Obama won with 52.9% of the vote in 2008 running a revolutionary campaign and replacing one of the most disapproved of Presidents in history. This time he takes on a more energized opponent with a more discouraged base of his own, after 4+ years of at least 7-8% unemployment and a crowning achievement that the public is AT BEST lukewarm about.

After all that just 3/100 would have to change their mind for a Bachmann ticket to get elected.* Not what I'd a very big margin for error.

*Yes, I realize it's the EC that matters, but the two are pretty highly correlated for obvious reasons.

[Recovering Republican]

Bachmann's probably a bigger threat than you all realize.

Here's the thing. No one is REALLY enthusiastic about Romney. No one. Except maybe the Mormons, who see it as kind of an acceptance thing. Romney is about as fake as Nutrisweet, with the same bitter aftertaste.

Bachmann is the real deal. She walks the walk. She stands by her positions, even when people disagree with her, even when people attack her. She adopts foster kids- lots of them. She says Jesus with conviction.

Now don't get me wrong, I think she's batshit crazy, but she represents the misdirected anger of the Tea Partiers. The ones who've become absolutely convinced that their declining way of life is because the government taxes and regulates them too much, and because we don't have Jesus in Government.

Now she probably terrifies the establishment of the GOP, the people who do the dirty work of big corporations. But the thing that is always out there, at the end of the day, the 1% that controls half the wealth STILL only has 1% of the vote.

There is a path for her to get the nomination. She wins Iowa, she does well in New Hampshire, she wins South Carolina.

For the General Election- well, if unemployment stays where it is at now or we have a double dip recession, Obama is toast, regardless of who the GOP runs.

[BrainGlutton]

For the General Election- well, if unemployment stays where it is at now or we have a double dip recession, Obama is toast, regardless of who the GOP runs.

:eek: You really think the American people would choose an idiot over a genius just because the economy sucks?!

I would call that cynical if I were too young to remember 1980.

[RTFirefly]

The more right-wing wackos that run, the more likely we will get a moderate nominated in 2012. Who?

From the debate the other night (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1106/13/se.02.html):

KING: Governor Romney? You've been a chief executive of a state. I was just in Joplin, Missouri. I've been in Mississippi and Louisiana and Tennessee and other communities dealing with whether it's the tornadoes, the flooding, and worse. FEMA is about to run out of money, and there are some people who say do it on a case-by-case basis and some people who say, you know, maybe we're learning a lesson here that the states should take on more of this role. How do you deal with something like that?

ROMNEY: Absolutely. Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that's even better. Instead of thinking in the federal budget, what we should cut -- we should ask ourselves the opposite question. What should we keep? We should take all of what we're doing at the federal level and say, what are the things we're doing that we don't have to do? And those things we've got to stop doing, because we're borrowing $1.6 trillion more this year than we're taking in. We cannot...

KING: Including disaster relief, though?

ROMNEY: We cannot -- we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we'll all be dead and gone before it's paid off. It makes no sense at all...
That's right - Mitt Romney, the 'moderate' in the race, doesn't think the Federal government should be assisting states with disaster relief. The states, or even better in his opinion the private sector, should be doing this. (How exactly would the private sector do this? Disaster relief consists largely of giving money and valuable goods to people who've lost practically everything and can't pay. It's a mystery.)

And then there's Pawlenty's tax cut plan - his proposed tax cuts (http://www.offthechartsblog.org/pawlenty%E2%80%99s-high-end-tax-cuts-dwarf-even-those-of-president-bush/) make the Bush tax cuts look positively minuscule. (Link is to a chart that compares the two.)

There is no 'moderate' in this race. There's just crazy, and crazier. It's just a matter of degree of batshit.

[Profound Gibberish]

There was no "debate," it was just a bunch of people reciting their platforms. Romney's answer was a complete non-answer to the question, just like virtually every other "answer" to the questions.

[Chronos]

Yeah, but they at least usually try to match their non-answers loosely to the questions that were asked. King asked what we should do about disaster relief, and the canned soundbite that Romney chose to toss back at him was the one about "move everything to the state level, or better yet the private sector". There's no other way to parse that but to conclude that Romney thinks disaster relief should ideally be for-profit.

He should have either anticipated a question like this and prepared a soundbite relating to FEMA, or he should have taken the soundbite he used and appended something like "Now, FEMA is probably one of those few examples of something the Feds should keep, but most other things, get rid of those.". Unless of course he really meant what he said.

[Profound Gibberish]

Bachmann's probably a bigger threat than you all realize.

Here's the thing. No one is REALLY enthusiastic about Romney. No one. Except maybe the Mormons, who see it as kind of an acceptance thing. Romney is about as fake as Nutrisweet, with the same bitter aftertaste.

Bachmann is the real deal. She walks the walk. She stands by her positions, even when people disagree with her, even when people attack her. She adopts foster kids- lots of them. She says Jesus with conviction.

Now don't get me wrong, I think she's batshit crazy, but she represents the misdirected anger of the Tea Partiers. The ones who've become absolutely convinced that their declining way of life is because the government taxes and regulates them too much, and because we don't have Jesus in Government.

Now she probably terrifies the establishment of the GOP, the people who do the dirty work of big corporations. But the thing that is always out there, at the end of the day, the 1% that controls half the wealth STILL only has 1% of the vote.

There is a path for her to get the nomination. She wins Iowa, she does well in New Hampshire, she wins South Carolina.

For the General Election- well, if unemployment stays where it is at now or we have a double dip recession, Obama is toast, regardless of who the GOP runs.

Damn fine summary there RR. Sure you're not a Dem? :D

[RTFirefly]

There was no "debate," it was just a bunch of people reciting their platforms. Romney's answer was a complete non-answer to the question, just like virtually every other "answer" to the questions.That's completely irrelevant in this context. I was using 'the debate the other night' as an identifier so people would know where and when Romney made these remarks. In this context, I could care less whether it was a debate or a juggling competition.

[Profound Gibberish]

I do not beleive Romney affirmatively said he would privatize disaster relief. He completely dodged the question and responded with a completely different topic. Until these correspndents grow a set, ask real follow up questions, and insist that the candidate answer the question with a relevant answer, this is the kind of junk we are going to get. However, if corespondents actually did do that, no candidates would show up.

[Merijeek]

I do not beleive Romney affirmatively said he would privatize disaster relief. He completely dodged the question and responded with a completely different topic. Until these correspndents grow a set, ask real follow up questions, and insist that the candidate answer the question with a relevant answer, this is the kind of junk we are going to get. However, if corespondents actually did do that, no candidates would show up.

He responded with completely generic GOP bullshit. Did anyone watch carefully to make sure that he didn't have "Private Sector", "Tax Cuts", "Drill More", and "Socialism Bad" scribbled on his hand?

-Joe

[F. U. Shakespeare]

That's right - Mitt Romney, the 'moderate' in the race, doesn't think the Federal government should be assisting states with disaster relief. The states, or even better in his opinion the private sector, should be doing this. (How exactly would the private sector do this? Disaster relief consists largely of giving money and valuable goods to people who've lost practically everything and can't pay. It's a mystery.)Maybe it's the missing step between "Collect underpants" and "profit"?

[waterj2]

The Daily Beast just put up a fascinating article (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/06/14/michele-bachmanns-unrivaled-extremism-gay-rights-to-religion.html) on Bachmann the other day.A few dozen people showed up at the town hall for the April 9 event, and Bachmann greeted them warmly. But when, during the question and answer session, the topic turned to gay marriage, Bachmann ended the meeting 20 minutes early and rushed to the bathroom. Hoping to speak to her, Arnold and another middle-aged woman, a former nun, followed her. As Bachmann washed her hands and Arnold looked on, the ex-nun tried to talk to her about theology. Suddenly, after less than a minute, Bachmann let out a shriek. "Help!" she screamed. "Help! I'm being held against my will!"

Arnold, who is just over 5 feet tall, was stunned, and hurried to open the door. Bachmann bolted out and fled, crying, to an SUV outside. Then she called the police, saying, according to the police report, that she was "absolutely terrified and has never been that terrorized before as she had no idea what those two women were going to do to her."At some point, people are going to notice that she's actually crazy.

[foolsguinea]

Is it too much to hope that a Bachmann election and the subsequent Great Disaster would finally discredit the idea that pig-ignorant commoners can serve as an electorate?

I suppose other systems are as likely (if not more) to put raving paranoids in power, come to think of it.

Here's hoping that more visibility makes her raving paranoia clear enough at the best time--whatever that ends up meaning.

[Cyberhwk]

:eek: You really think the American people would choose an idiot over a genius just because the economy sucks?!

I would call that cynical if I were too young to remember 1980.Absolutely. I'm not convinced the train of thought of the average voter (or at least enough of them to sway elections) is any more than: If times are good, vote Incumbent. If times are bad, vote Challenger.

[Locrian]

"At a megachurch event, Bachmann told the audience that "... God then called me to run for the United States Congress. And I thought, what in the world would that be for? And my husband said, 'You need to do this.' And I wasn't so sure. And we took three days, and we fasted and we prayed. And we said 'Lord, is this what you want? Is this Your will?' And after - along about the afternoon of day two - He made that calling sure. And it's been now 22 months that I've been running for United States Congress. Who in their right mind would spend two years to run for a job that lasts for two years? You'd have to be absolutely a fool to do that. You are now looking at a fool for Christ. This is a fool for Christ."

Link to article. (http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/151277/why_do_conservatives_presume_that_god_wants_them_to_run_for_president_%28he_probably_doesn%27t%29/?page=entire)

So there it is, Dopers. NOT QUALIFIED TO RUN, or to even vote if I had my way. Invisible creatures speak to you, eh? Why would anyone consider voting for this mess?

What's funny is, if we only had a space race again, I doubt people would be voting for "a fool for Christ."

I'm only really hoping that someone says the same thing, except they replace God and Jesus with Flying Spaghetti Monster. She's a better example of a symbol of The Fall Of the GOPs than Palin ever will be. (At least O'Donnel was HOT, little chunky, but HOT!) :D

[Superfluous Parentheses]

So there it is, Dopers. NOT QUALIFIED TO RUN, or to even vote if I had my way. Invisible creatures speak to you, eh?

Fasting for two days probably increases the chances quite a bit.

Anyway, as an outsider, I find it increasingly difficult to think of any criterion that would make someone unelectable as a republican POS - except possibly being an out-of-the-closet atheist. Even being homosexual wouldn't be a real issue as long as you're against SSM and publicly pray hard enough.

[Locrian]

Fasting for two days probably increases the chances quite a bit.

Anyway, as an outsider, I find it increasingly difficult to think of any criterion that would make someone unelectable as a republican POS - except possibly being an out-of-the-closet atheist. Even being homosexual wouldn't be a real issue as long as you're against SSM and publicly pray hard enough.

Yeah, I'll agree with that. A popular Repub may be able to swing in with being "tolerant" with SSM or being homosexual, but atheist! "Oh! The theocracies will bomb us for sure", say the tabloid readers! There's plenty of voters who, I'm guessing, would feel quite a connection to someone who prays every day. :rolleyes:

[a35362]

Once again, Tarryl Clark (http://www.tarrylclark.com) is running for Bachmann's Congressional seat. Is Bachmann running for both PotUS and re-election to the House, or is it an open seat? Be kinda funny if she loses both races....

[Merneith]

Bachmann confuses John Wayne with John Wayne Gacy.
http://www.salon.com/news/michele_bachmann/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/06/27/bachmann_wayne

Hey, I can't count how many times I've made that mistake myself.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Bachmann confuses John Wayne with John Wayne Gacy.
http://www.salon.com/news/michele_bachmann/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/06/27/bachmann_wayne

Hey, I can't count how many times I've made that mistake myself.

She also confused "got tens of thousands of dollars in income each year" with "never recieved a penny". The farm is my father-in-law's farm. It's not my husband and my farm. It's my father-in-law's farm. And my husband and I have never gotten a penny of money from the farm. (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BACHMANN_FACT_CHECK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-06-27-17-09-29)

THE FACTS: In personal financial disclosure reports required annually from members of Congress, Bachmann reported that she holds an interest in a family farm in Independence, Wis., with her share worth between $100,000 and $250,000.

The farm, which was owned by her father-in-law, produced income for Bachmann of at least $32,500 and as much as $105,000 from 2006 through 2009, according to the reports she filed for that period. The farm also received federal crop and disaster subsidies, according to a database maintained by the Environmental Working Group. From 1995 through 2010, the farm got $259,332 in federal payments.

When asked about the subsidies and her income from the farm late last year, a spokesman for Bachmann said only that she wasn't involved in decisions about the running of the farm.

Bachmann told The Associated Press on Monday that her husband became a trustee of the farm because his father had dementia before he died two years ago, and "oversees the legal entity."

"Everything we do with those forms is in an abundance of caution," she said, insisting she and her husband receive no farm income despite the forms reporting it. (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BACHMANN_FACT_CHECK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-06-27-17-09-29)

So the farm is her father-in-law's farm... her dead father-in-law's farm. And she never got any income from it, except for the income she did get.

Hey! She and RR speak the same language!

[XT]

:eek: You really think the American people would choose an idiot over a genius just because the economy sucks?!

I would call that cynical if I were too young to remember 1980.

You are kidding, right? For one thing, your concept of who is or isn't an 'idiot' verse who is or isn't a 'genius' is obviously politically oriented. Leaving that aside, though, the economy is everything in an election in the US. Presidential elections are all about what the economy is doing. If it's doing well, or if the people perceive that it's doing well or doing better then incumbents generally have a fairly easy time getting re-elected, no matter what they have been doing during their term. If the economy sucks, though, then it's definitely an uphill struggle for an incumbent, unless people think that things are getting better or that the president is doing what needs to be done to improve the situation...and even then it can be a struggle. Look at most of the one term presidents out there and look at the state of the economy during their one term and I think you'll see that most of them had fairly serious economic issues going on during their term, and that this was a major factor in why they only got a single term.

Bachmann seems to be a loon to me, but you folks wishing and hoping that she gets the Republican nomination (presumably because you are under the impression that this will make Obama a shoe in for a second term) should perhaps consider that Obama is on pretty thin ice this election, especially if the economy stays flat or gets worse as some folks are predicting. She might get that nomination and end up the freaking president. Better to wish for a moderate candidate just in case.

-XT

[Locrian]

And now she thanks John Wayne Gacy at her announcement!

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/michele-bachmann-confuses-john-wayne-gacy-with-the-duke.html

"Well what I want them to know is just like John Wayne was from Waterloo, Iowa. That's the kind of spirit that I have, too," Bachmann told a Fox News reporter.

:D:D:D:D:D:D

Oh, I hope she wins! I mean, what about all those flourescent light bulbs that are dangerous to pets, the disabled and infants? I mean, think of the children!!

If you're thinking of voting for this assclown, you should never be allowed to vote again. Of course, I said the same thing with Perot. :rolleyes:

[Recovering Republican]

She also confused "got tens of thousands of dollars in income each year" with "never recieved a penny".

Hey! She and RR speak the same language!

Actually, when you and MSNBC need to play up the Gacy thing, you all just kind of sound desperate.

(John Wayne the ACTOR actually did live in Waterloo, IA for a time.)

But, it's okay, man. Please keep thinking you can get Obama Re-elected with a 9% unemployment rate. Please keep discounting that there is real anger out there. Please keep living in denial.

I'm an old man, I guess. I remember this song. Left wingers who said, it didn't matter what a bag of fail Jimmy Carter was, Americans would never elect anyone as radical as Ronald Reagan.

And please think you can make hay out of the fact that she and her husband took care of their sick father's farm. Because, clearly, you know, Americans wouldn't relate to that at all.

So let me get this straight, the Snoboarder Bo view.

Lie about servicemen committing attrocities. Lie about throwing your medals at Congress. Try to re-invent yourself as a hawk- PRESIDENTIAL.

WOrk hard to save a family farm- NOT PRESIDENTIAL.

Sorry, man, Bachmann scares me, but people like you will probably grease her path into the White House.

[Recovering Republican]

And now she thanks John Wayne Gacy at her announcement!

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/michele-bachmann-confuses-john-wayne-gacy-with-the-duke.html

"Well what I want them to know is just like John Wayne was from Waterloo, Iowa. That's the kind of spirit that I have, too," Bachmann told a Fox News reporter.

You mean like Obama visiting 57 states? Or Biden saying that FDR went on TV during the Depression? (Incidently, John Wayne did live in Waterloo for a time.)

Oh, I hope she wins! I mean, what about all those flourescent light bulbs that are dangerous to pets, the disabled and infants? I mean, think of the children!!

You mean the bulbs that contain mercury? The ones that need to be treated as toxic waste?

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp

If you're thinking of voting for this assclown, you should never be allowed to vote again. Of course, I said the same thing with Perot. :rolleyes:

the thing is, they are ALL assclowns. Obama's an assclown. Romney's an assclown.

The non-assclowns probably get fed up with the bs when they run for student council president.

Personally, I wouldn't vote for her, based on some of the things she's said. But honestly, I wouldn't bet money against her at this point.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

The problem isn't that the dear, sweet thing pitched in and helped her family run the farm while her father-in-law was dying (cue sappy music), it was that SHE DECLARED SIX FIGURES IN INCOME FROM THE FRIGGIN FARM and now claims that she has not personally benefitted from farm subsidies. If she's going to play the sappy music loud while continuing to deny that this makes for a real issue, well, she'll appeal to her base but independent voters will be very skeptical.

[Recovering Republican]

"
So there it is, Dopers. NOT QUALIFIED TO RUN, or to even vote if I had my way. Invisible creatures speak to you, eh? Why would anyone consider voting for this mess?

What's funny is, if we only had a space race again, I doubt people would be voting for "a fool for Christ."

I'm only really hoping that someone says the same thing, except they replace God and Jesus with Flying Spaghetti Monster. She's a better example of a symbol of The Fall Of the GOPs than Palin ever will be. (At least O'Donnel was HOT, little chunky, but HOT!) :D


Okay, guy, let me first qualify this statement by saying that I'm a non-believer (I don't call myself an atheist because I can't prove or disprove God one way or the other, but I have as much use for organized religion as organized crime.) One of the reasons I have no use for the GOP is because the religious crazies are taking it over.

But 90% of Americans believe in some kind of higher power, and 80% of them believe in Jesus Christ.

In fact, the reality is that the only thing that keeps us from having some sort of Christian based government is the various denominations distrust each other more than they distrust non-believers.

Hell, even Obama has to PRETEND he believes in talking snakes.

The scariest moment in 2008 for the plutocrats was when Huckabee won Iowa. He showed that you can win without bowing down to the altar of greed, just on the basis of the religious vote. So they went all out after the guy, settling on McCain when they couldnt' sell Romney.

Bachmann could win along a similar path, but there really isn't a McCain for them to fall back on, and she mouths the "Tax cuts for rich people/less regulations" mantras with sincerity, so they figure they might be able to live with her.

The biggest threat- AGAIN- is that if unemployment doesn't come down, Obama is toast, regardless of who the Republicans run.

[Recovering Republican]

The problem isn't that the dear, sweet thing pitched in and helped her family run the farm while her father-in-law was dying (cue sappy music), it was that SHE DECLARED SIX FIGURES IN INCOME FROM THE FRIGGIN FARM and now claims that she has not personally benefitted from farm subsidies. If she's going to play the sappy music loud while continuing to deny that this makes for a real issue, well, she'll appeal to her base but independent voters will be very skeptical.


Independent voters will look at a 1.4 Trillion deficit and 9% unemployment and wonder why they have to wait until 2012 to show Obama the door.

Seriously, you want to be the one who wants to make hay out of a sick father, go ahead. Normal people would be kind of aghast at that.

[Recovering Republican]

Is it too much to hope that a Bachmann election and the subsequent Great Disaster would finally discredit the idea that pig-ignorant commoners can serve as an electorate?

I suppose other systems are as likely (if not more) to put raving paranoids in power, come to think of it.

Here's hoping that more visibility makes her raving paranoia clear enough at the best time--whatever that ends up meaning.


Wow, guy, statements like that just kind of show you to be an out of touch elitist.

Hey, we got your enlightened, smart people in now.

9% unemployment.

1.4 Deficits.

We are in a "Great Disaster" now. Bush deserves some of the blame, to be sure, but so does Obama.

Bachmann is more like middle america than you want to admit.

Frankly, four years ago, I could have voted for her and not blinked twice.

Today, not so much, but another two years of this messed up Obama economy, and maybe I'll revisit the issue.

[BobLibDem]

Independents whose heads aren't firmly up their asses will realize that Obama tried to address the largest contributor to the deficit, the Bush tax cuts, but the Republicans stonewalled. They will also realize that Obama didn't introduce the Medicare prescription benefit, refuse to pay for it, and refuse to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices. They will also realize that Bush started two wars but refused to pay for them. They will vote Republican if they believe that, against all evidence, cutting taxes for the rich will magically create jobs now even though they haven't for the past decade. They will vote Republican if they will never become elderly and require Medicare in their declining years. They will vote Republican if they cling to silly topics like Obama's 57 state gaffe, which has been explained (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp)in sufficient detail to penetrate all but the densest of skulls.

I give Bachmann a pass on the John Wayne crap. She is a bit like the Duke, who was himself a bigoted piece of shit.

[a35362]

Bachmann's John Wayne goof was inconsequential, I agree. Kinda like Palin's Paul Revere thing. Not to mention Clinton's "...and I didn't inhale" thing. :smack: Everybody makes mistakes. Ultimately I think candidates can be forgiven a lot if voters like them and trust them to have a clue about what is happening in the country and to know what they want to do about it.

RR, are you saying you think Obama is really an atheist?

[Merijeek]

Wow, guy, statements like that just kind of show you to be an out of touch elitist.

Hey, we got your enlightened, smart people in now.


You're now arguing across five threads that Obama is toast in 2012. If it's such a foregone conclusion, why do you keep stating the same things over and over?

-Joe

[XT]

They will vote Republican if they believe that, against all evidence, cutting taxes for the rich will magically create jobs now even though they haven't for the past decade.

Well, you seem to believe that raising taxes (on only those making over $250k/year of course) will magically fix the deficit and create jobs, so I guess the counter magical believe is just as valid. :p

Independents whose heads aren't firmly up their asses will realize that Obama tried to address the largest contributor to the deficit, the Bush tax cuts, but the Republicans stonewalled.

But, you see, the Bush tax cuts WEREN'T the 'largest contributor to the deficit'...the combination of two foreign wars and a total meltdown of our economy were larger contributors. And erasing the Bush Tax Cuts(tm) (for only the people making over $250k/year) isn't going to somehow fix the problem and make everything right. Even if you got rid of ALL of the Bush tax cuts (which neither you nor the Republicans want to do, ironically enough) it wouldn't magically fix the problem.

I think most independents are going to understand that Bush got us into this mess. But that doesn't mean that they are going to give Obama a pass....he's had several years to fix the problem and the economy is only marginally better today than it was when he took office, with unemployment only slightly better. Taxing The Rich(tm) may play to his base, but it's not going to fix the economy. I'm all for removing ALL of the Bush tax cuts, personally, but I know that this isn't going to magically inject trillions of dollars back into the government and reduce the deficit, nor is it going to magically fix the economy.

-XT

[BobLibDem]

Well, you seem to believe that raising taxes (on only those making over $250k/year of course) will magically fix the deficit and create jobs, so I guess the counter magical believe is just as valid. :p



But, you see, the Bush tax cuts WEREN'T the 'largest contributor to the deficit'...the combination of two foreign wars and a total meltdown of our economy were larger contributors. And erasing the Bush Tax Cuts(tm) (for only the people making over $250k/year) isn't going to somehow fix the problem and make everything right. Even if you got rid of ALL of the Bush tax cuts (which neither you nor the Republicans want to do, ironically enough) it wouldn't magically fix the problem.

I think most independents are going to understand that Bush got us into this mess. But that doesn't mean that they are going to give Obama a pass....he's had several years to fix the problem and the economy is only marginally better today than it was when he took office, with unemployment only slightly better. Taxing The Rich(tm) may play to his base, but it's not going to fix the economy. I'm all for removing ALL of the Bush tax cuts, personally, but I know that this isn't going to magically inject trillions of dollars back into the government and reduce the deficit, nor is it going to magically fix the economy.

-XT

No, raising taxes for those making over $250K isn't going to fix the deficit by itself. But that shouldn't keep us from doing it. Look at this chart. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/20/bush-tax-cuts-debt_n_864812.html) Repealing ALL the Bush cuts would be a huge step in the right direction. The stimulus is but a blip on the radar compared to the tax cuts. The right wing keeps chirping the same mantra "you can't raise taxes in a recession" as if it was true, but the converse which IS true "you shouldn't cut government spending in an economic downturn" doesn't get any play.

[Chronos]

Well, you seem to believe that raising taxes (on only those making over $250k/year of course) will magically fix the deficit and create jobs, so I guess the counter magical believe is just as valid.Raising taxes will do a lot more to fix the deficit than lowering them will. And based on the evidence of past history, it'll at worst have no effect on job creation.

[joebuck20]

Independent voters will look at a 1.4 Trillion deficit and 9% unemployment and wonder why they have to wait until 2012 to show Obama the door.

Seriously, you want to be the one who wants to make hay out of a sick father, go ahead. Normal people would be kind of aghast at that.

Again who the hell here is criticizing her for helping take care of a sick relative? What people are making fun of her for is saying she never benefited from the farm when her own financial disclosure forms state otherwise.

[joebuck20]

Tom Petty sends cease-and-desist letter to Bachmann campaign:

http://blogs.citypages.com/gimmenoise/2011/06/tom_petty_up_in.php


Tom Petty is reportedly upset following yesterday's presidential candidacy announcement by Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who closed out her nationally televised speech by playing Petty's "American Girl."

The initial report came from NBC's Matt Ortega via Twitter: "@TomPetty unhappy with Michele Bachmann's use of 'American Girl' and in process of issuing [a cease and desist] letter." Ortega's NBC colleague Kelly O'Donnell confirmed that the rock star's management will be requesting that Bachmann back away from the Petty at future events.

[foolsguinea]

Can't she just pay a royalty and play it anyway?Wow, guy, statements like that just kind of show you to be an out of touch elitist.

Hey, we got your enlightened, smart people in now.

9% unemployment.

1.4 Deficits.

We are in a "Great Disaster" now. Bush deserves some of the blame, to be sure, but so does Obama.

Bachmann is more like middle america than you want to admit.

Frankly, four years ago, I could have voted for her and not blinked twice.

Today, not so much, but another two years of this messed up Obama economy, and maybe I'll revisit the issue.I was being a dick and I apologize.

You're new, so your reaction is understandable. I am really cynical about democracy, and made a thread a while back arguing that democracy generally degenerates into bad budgeting and red ink.

Also, I make obscure references. When I said, "Great Disaster," I meant to invoke dystopian sci-fi. Such as, "a time a century hence when humankind is nearly left extinct and mutated intelligent animals fight each other for domination of the ruined planet." (http://adventure247.blogspot.com/2007/03/great-disaster.html)Is it too much to hope that a Bachmann election and the subsequent Great Disaster would finally discredit the idea that pig-ignorant commoners can serve as an electorate?

I suppose other systems are as likely (if not more) to put raving paranoids in power, come to think of it.

Here's hoping that more visibility makes her raving paranoia clear enough at the best time--whatever that ends up meaning.As you see, I did back off from my first sentence. The fact is, most systems of electing governments, left to themselves, stink. They can stink due to reckless patrimony, elitist self-assurance, or populist cocksureness.

The real trick is to educate the electorate, which probably only works in certain monarchies--there I go again--requires some serious work & a constant struggle against those who seek deliberately to miseducate the electorate.

In any case, "my" people aren't in power, I'm more a Krugmanite, & the current economic team are Clinton moderates or something.

[Profound Gibberish]

OK, back to Bachman.

How is a former IRS official and a person with years of state and national government experience a "reformer?" I believe that she truly believes her line of minimal government gibberish, but she does not live it and has certainly benefited personally and professionally from the very programs she now decries. This will all come out over time as she is more closely vetted. She has an actual voting record which should reveal a lot of contradictions. Watching her explain her voting record on a podium in a real debate should be entertaining.

[Recovering Republican]

Independents whose heads aren't firmly up their asses will realize that Obama tried to address the largest contributor to the deficit, the Bush tax cuts, but the Republicans stonewalled. They will also realize that Obama didn't introduce the Medicare prescription benefit, refuse to pay for it, and refuse to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices. They will also realize that Bush started two wars but refused to pay for them. They will vote Republican if they believe that, against all evidence, cutting taxes for the rich will magically create jobs now even though they haven't for the past decade. They will vote Republican if they will never become elderly and require Medicare in their declining years. They will vote Republican if they cling to silly topics like Obama's 57 state gaffe, which has been explained (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp)in sufficient detail to penetrate all but the densest of skulls.

I give Bachmann a pass on the John Wayne crap. She is a bit like the Duke, who was himself a bigoted piece of shit.

"Tried"doesn't cut it with most people...

Look, frankly, I agree, bush deserves the blame for every point you make.

Too bad Obama won't be running against Bush, isn't it?

At the end of the day, if you have 9.1% unemployment in 2012, Obama isn't going to need a campaign manager, he's going to need a priest.

[a35362]

Maybe I'm naive, but I think everybody who doesn't watch Fox News regularly will recognize that Obama is doing everything he can to fix the economy. If I were really optimistic I would hope that voters will recognize that Republicans are the ones who supported Bush when he was wrecking the economy -- what do those guys know about the economy that Obama doesn't?

And if Romney is so great, how come he fizzled early last time? If Republican voters didn't want him last time, why would they go for him next year?

[Knorf]

I think Recovering Republican is right about how unemployment will affect Obama's chances. To your average Joe the Plumber, no facts about how the economic crisis occurred, and no rational explanations showing it is not Obama's fault that things aren't better, are going to matter.

I wish I could be as optimistic as BobLibDem and a35362 about the voting public, especially concerning "swing voters." I can't be.

I am however somewhat optimistic that unemployment will be somewhat lower come Nov. 2012 despite the tactics of obstruction from the GOP, in which case Obama's chances could be quite good.

Back to Bachmann, if she's handled well by rational people (among those left in the GOP), she actually could be very dangerous to Obama's chances.

[Recovering Republican]

Maybe I'm naive, but I think everybody who doesn't watch Fox News regularly will recognize that Obama is doing everything he can to fix the economy.

Oh, "everything he can?" Really?

Hey, how's this for starters. When you have 20 million Americans out of work, how about you stop signing 1 million work visas for foreign nationals every year.

How about actually ENFORCING the immigration laws we do have. I mean, send enough of them back, those employers are going to have to hire Americans, right?

How about reviewing these idiotic trade treaties and tax breaks for companies that move jobs overseas?

How about fast-tracking all those projects being held up for snail darters and spotted owls by the EPA? Lifting drilling restrictions on ANWAR and the Gulf?

If I were really optimistic I would hope that voters will recognize that Republicans are the ones who supported Bush when he was wrecking the economy -- what do those guys know about the economy that Obama doesn't?

Well, a few of them have actually run a business or a state, for starters.

Look, the "Bush did it" dog doesn't hunt anymore. Five of Bush's 8 years had actual pretty good economic conditions. It's been Obama's economy for three years now. Obama's best year hasn't been as good as Bush's worst.

You try blaming a problem on your job on the guy who did it three years ago... see how far that gets you with your boss.

And if Romney is so great, how come he fizzled early last time? If Republican voters didn't want him last time, why would they go for him next year?

Well, like I said, I think they are going to go for someone like Bachmann or Rick Perry.

But actually, if I didn't despise the man down to his magic underpants, I could make a good argument for Romney this time out. He's run a state successfully- and in a bi-partisan manner. He's run some successful businesses. He's turned companies around, he can turn the economy around.

Frankly, I don't relish the thought of the Latter Day Saints Cult running the country. But Obama isn't helping his own case at all here.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

You sure you're recovering?

[Snowboarder Bo]

You sure you're recovering?

I think he means "recovering" in the same way they meant "compassionate"; i.e. not at all.

[joebuck20]

Can't she just pay a royalty and play it anyway?

I suppose she could, but then they'd have to put up with the artist continuing to badmouth her and possibly playing the song live at Democratic events just to fuck with her.

[gonzomax]

http://factcheck.org/2011/06/bachmanns-waterloo/ Fact Check on Bachmann. She runs through distortions ,mistakes, and lies.

[waterj2]

He's turned companies around, he can turn the economy around. I don't see how one follows from the other. One of the main ways he turned companies around was to lay off workers, or slash their pay and benefits. That's not at all what the US needs to boost the economy. Sadly, the GOP's cut-and-grow plan seems somewhat popular.

[Captain Lance Murdoch]

It's amusing for me, as someone who has had to watch Bachmann for years, to see her on the national stage now. Think she looks crazy? She's just warming up, folks. In fact. she has been unusually disciplined in the race so far. This is the woman who was photographed watching a gay pride march while hiding in the bushes. This is the woman who called for an investigation of the "anti-America" members of congress. She thinks homosexuals are the biggest problem facing America. She wants the idea of nuclear war with Iran to be "on the table." She wants the EPA shut down. She thinks evolution is a hoax. And so on.

And wait until conservatives get a load of her husband! Can she keep him off camera for the next two years? It's going be hard being vehemently anti-gay when your husband acts as straight as Liberace. Watching her downfall will be highly entertaining.

The thought that she is being taken seriously for the Republican nomination should cause every Republican to take a moment and contemplate the far-right nightmare their party has become.

[Kolak of Twilo]

Bachmann's probably a bigger threat than you all realize.

Here's the thing. No one is REALLY enthusiastic about Romney. No one.

****SNIP****

There is a path for her to get the nomination. She wins Iowa, she does well in New Hampshire, she wins South Carolina.

For the General Election- well, if unemployment stays where it is at now or we have a double dip recession, Obama is toast, regardless of who the GOP runs.
Most of what you said in this post I would agree with. In particular I think Bachman is a bigger threat (to Romney) than most people realize. I assume that's what you meant.

You also have this right - virtually no one outside Utah is actually enthusiastic about Romney. Furthermore, he is so establishment most of the Tea Party folks seem to actively HATE him.

I would even agree about Bachman's path to the nom. I think it more than likely she will win Iowa and I would rank her chances in NH as even.

But I don't see how she wins against Obama unless there is a total economic meltdown. I think Obama can survive high unemployment against a totally batshit crazy Republican nominee.

This is the woman who was photographed watching a gay pride march while hiding in the bushes.

Oh I wanna know more about this.

And wait until conservatives get a load of her husband! Can she keep him off camera for the next two years? It's going be hard being vehemently anti-gay when your husband acts as straight as Liberace.

I wanna see this too!

Watching her downfall will be highly entertaining.

I certainly hope so.
:D

[Kolga]

It's amusing for me, as someone who has had to watch Bachmann for years, to see her on the national stage now. Think she looks crazy? She's just warming up, folks. In fact. she has been unusually disciplined in the race so far.

I agree. She is truly batshit crazy, and her handlers so far have been able to get her to sit down and shut up and hide the batshit. That won't last long - her kind of crazy isn't going to stay quiet forever. Plus, there's clips of the older, more pure batshit crazy that you KNOW Obama's re-election team is going to mine for footage.

[Recovering Republican]

I think he means "recovering" in the same way they meant "compassionate"; i.e. not at all.

No, it just means that I'm not swallowing the Obama Koolaid.

Can you honestly get up there and tell me he's really done a good job?

Frankly, you guys would have been better off if you nominated Hillary. She'd have still won, and she'd actually know how to run the country.

But you guys voted for Obama because he promised to end the wars and she wouldn't. Well, wars are still going on and he's managed to find an extra one to get us into.

Hence, my quandry. I'm actually rather horrified by the fact the GOP has been overrun by corporate toadies and religious fanatics. People who would probably have horrified Republicans of a generation ago.

But Obama has really managed to muck up everything he's gotten his hands on. Seriously, we are talking about the United States defaulting on its debt, which is now greater than it's GDP. Is this Obama's fault. Not entirely. Has he done much to improve the situation? Nope.

Frankly, I agree with some of his ideas. I think health care really did need reform. Anyone whose been put through the meat grinder of our health system (as I was in 2007 and 2008, where I eventually got downsized for running up too many medical bills) would be. The way he went about it, though... ugh. If your premise is that private insurance is profiteering off the system, helping them make more profit with money the government doesn't have doesn't seem like much of an answer.

So yeah, Bo when you are grinding your teeth watching Michelle Bachmann being sworn in as the 45th President, just remember, it was your own mistakes that put her there.

What I found amusing is that people on your side have told us for years that we should vote for a moderate Republican like McCain, and then when we put one up, you guys don't vote for him, anyway. (McCain got 4 million less votes than Bush got in 2004).

[Recovering Republican]

I agree. She is truly batshit crazy, and her handlers so far have been able to get her to sit down and shut up and hide the batshit. That won't last long - her kind of crazy isn't going to stay quiet forever. Plus, there's clips of the older, more pure batshit crazy that you KNOW Obama's re-election team is going to mine for footage.

9.1% unemployment.

They could find a tape of her claiming to be the re-incarnation of Joan of Arc, and people won't care.

Underestimate her at your own peril. What you call "batshit crazy", others might call expressing the popular rage.

Let's not forget, Ross Perot was batshit crazy, didn't have the backing of a major party. Got out of the race and then back in, made wild claims about Bush sending a hit team to ruin his daughter's wedding or some such, and he STILL got 17% of the vote. And unemployment was only about 8% back then.

[Recovering Republican]

I don't see how one follows from the other. One of the main ways he turned companies around was to lay off workers, or slash their pay and benefits. That's not at all what the US needs to boost the economy. Sadly, the GOP's cut-and-grow plan seems somewhat popular.


Probably because most people don't like paying taxes, don't like how complicated taxes are to file, don't like seeing people living off their hard work, either in a cushy government job or on the dole.

You see, one of the ironies I've come to appreciate is that while the private sector got rid of unions pretty effectively, they've grown in the public sector. So some guy making $35,000 busting his butt at a real job where he has a busted 401K and has to worry they might move his job to China next year looks at some teacher who is making $55,000 and can retire at 55 with a full pension, and his kid comes home and can't read, he wants to take it out of someone's hide.

Why do you think Christy the Hutt and Walker are so popular right now?

[amanset]

So some guy making $35,000 busting his butt at a real job where he has a busted 401K and has to worry they might move his job to China next year looks at some teacher who is making $55,000 and can retire at 55 with a full pension, and his kid comes home and can't read, he wants to take it out of someone's hide.

You heard it here first: Teaching, not a real job.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

What I found amusing is that people on your side have told us for years that we should vote for a moderate Republican like McCain, and then when we put one up, you guys don't vote for him, anyway. (McCain got 4 million less votes than Bush got in 2004).

So let me get this straight: you voted for McCain over Obama, you think the problem with Dems is that they DIDN'T see McCain (with Palin on his ticket!) as the better candidate, and you think that McCain would have been a better President. Have I got that right, Recovering Republican?

[Recovering Republican]

You heard it here first: Teaching, not a real job.


20% of Public School Graduates can't read their own diplomas.

I wish I had a job where I could have a 20% defective rate and still have a job. Well, no, I don't, because I think I'd be ashamed at that level of error.

[Steve MB]

Let's not forget, Ross Perot was batshit crazy, didn't have the backing of a major party. Got out of the race and then back in, made wild claims about Bush sending a hit team to ruin his daughter's wedding or some such, and he STILL got 17% of the vote. And unemployment was only about 8% back then.

Nobody here says Bachmann's lunacy will prevent her from scrounging up 17% of the vote. Maybe even double that.

[Recovering Republican]

So let me get this straight: you voted for McCain over Obama, you think the problem with Dems is that they DIDN'T see McCain (with Palin on his ticket!) as the better candidate, and you think that McCain would have been a better President. Have I got that right, Recovering Republican?


No, you don't have it right.

First, there is no disputing that McCain was a better candidate.

30 years in congress and 20 in the military as opposed to 3 years in the Senate when he bothered to show up?

Second, you guys keep praising Republican "moderates" (which I consider myself one at this point) but you never actually vote for them. McCain did more to advance the cause of immigration reform as a Senator (and took hits from the right wing over it) than Obama has ever really tried. Obama still carried the Hispanic vote, tho'.

Third- ooooh, scary Palin. Right. Because really, the Vice President has so much to do normally. (Cheney was the exception because of Bush's weakness on foreign policy).


The funny thing about Palin in 2008 is that you could have argued she was a moderate. She was a reformer in Alaska and she took moderate positions. (This is the problem ALL the GOP Governor candidates have, they had to take moderate positions on issues at some point.) She stood up to the Murkowskis and the corrupt GOP machine up there.

But let's look at the reason WHY he took Palin. Because his own internal polling showed that those who supported Huckabee and Romney and more conservative candidates were unenthused, while the moderates who said for years they loved the guy were now going for Obama.

Again- my point being, you can't say you want "moderate" Republicans and then not support them when the chips are down.

Because if you go to a Real Clear Politics or TownHall (where they say I'm a liberal commie for saying these kinds of things) they will tell you the reason why McCain lost was because he was "Juan McAmnesty" closet liberal, and all we need to do is nominate a "real" conservative this time and win.

And the way Obama is screwing up, they could probably nominate the Cheney/C'Thulhu ticket and win.

[Recovering Republican]

Nobody here says Bachmann's lunacy will prevent her from scrounging up 17% of the vote. Maybe even double that.

Wow, guy, the point went right over your head, didn't it?

My point is that Bachmann can win, if the economy sucks as bad as it does now.

The decision will be made by that 10% in the middle who vote on who they'd like to have a beer with. And with 9.1% unemployment, they'd probably like to do what that Cambridge, MA cop wanted to do with his beer.

[Dangerosa]

20% of Public School Graduates can't read their own diplomas.

I wish I had a job where I could have a 20% defective rate and still have a job. Well, no, I don't, because I think I'd be ashamed at that level of error.

Get a job implementing ERP systems:

http://www.it-cortex.com/Stat_Failure_Rate.htm

KPMG Canada survey on ERP implementations - 61% of respondents deemed their projects had failed.

[amanset]

20% of Public School Graduates can't read their own diplomas.

I wish I had a job where I could have a 20% defective rate and still have a job. Well, no, I don't, because I think I'd be ashamed at that level of error.

Doesn't mean it isn't a "real job". It just means that 20% of the employees may not be up to scratch.

What about the 80% that can read them? Did their teachers have a "real job"?

What is a "real job" anyway? What is it that you do?

[Recovering Republican]

Doesn't mean it isn't a "real job". It just means that 20% of the employees may not be up to scratch.

What about the 80% that can read them? Did their teachers have a "real job"?

What is a "real job" anyway? What is it that you do?

I'm a buyer, and a darned good one. Saved my company $300,000 in the last two years by managing inventory and making more effective deals.

Frankly, I don't consider "being able to read your own diploma" to be a very high standard, and they can only reach that 80% of the time.

[amanset]

I'm a buyer, and a darned good one. Saved my company $300,000 in the last two years by managing inventory and making more effective deals.

Frankly, I don't consider "being able to read your own diploma" to be a very high standard, and they can only reach that 80% of the time.

And how is that any less a "real job" than a teacher that educates a child and gives them the tools to do that in the future? Did you get taught or did you educate yourself all the way?

You still haven't answered "what is a 'real job' anyway?"

Yes, there's some shit teachers out there. There's also a school system that works against them. This doesn't mean that teaching is not a "real job".

Frankly, I'd say educating is far more important than what sounds like a pencil pusher that just makes a few numbers move around on a piece of paper. I'd go as far as saying as teaching is one of the most important jobs out there and it depresses me that anyone could write it off as not a "real job".

And no, I'm not a teacher.

[DianaG]

20% of Public School Graduates can't read their own diplomas.
Cite?

First, there is no disputing that McCain was a better candidate.
Um... at least one of those words doesn't mean what you think it means. Is it "dispute" or is it "better" that you're unclear on?

[BobLibDem]

When you think that Palin could be one senile, cancer-riddled heartbeat away from the White House had McCain won, it doesn't really matter what the veep does. And to be perfectly honest, part of the reason McCain picked her was because he likes her ass. This is an old horndog who dumped his first wife after she became disfigured and overweight following an accident, and got himself a trophy wife. This is the guy who "suspended" his campaign during the financial crisis to rush back to Washington and pout in the corner while the adults figured out what to do. This is a guy who obsesses over earmarks, a tiny tiny fraction of the federal budget.

For Republicans to win, they need to say what they would do. Saying they're going to cut taxes isn't going to go cut it, we've been there, done that, bought the t shirt and it didn't work. Stuffing the ballot with anti-gay marriage proposals isn't going to work again, society has left them behind on this and that old dog ain't gonna hunt no more. The few ideas they do have, like destroying Medicare, aren't going to win them any votes. They'll get the votes of the white racists but that's about it. If Bachmann gets the nomination, she'll make the Reagan-Mondale race look like a nail-biter.

[Snowboarder Bo]

I'm a buyer, and a darned good one. Saved my company $300,000 in the last two years by managing inventory and making more effective deals.

Frankly, I don't consider "being able to read your own diploma" to be a very high standard, and they can only reach that 80% of the time.

So you get paid to shop? Must be nice, but not what I'd consider a "real" job. Heck, most people shop and buy stuff every day. And most of us do it with our own money too.

[Profound Gibberish]

And wait until conservatives get a load of her husband! Can she keep him off camera for the next two years? It's going be hard being vehemently anti-gay when your husband acts as straight as Liberace.

He is a piece of work, isn't he? My gaydar sucks and it goes off the scale with this guy. He comes across as "very-religous-gay-man-in-denial." Overcompensating for his "sinful" thoughts by going batshit crazy into God. Running a christian counseling center i.e "pray your troubles away" is a real gateway to medicare fraud. This will be interesting indeed.

[fumster]

20% of Public School Graduates can't read their own diplomas.

I wish I had a job where I could have a 20% defective rate and still have a job. Well, no, I don't, because I think I'd be ashamed at that level of error.You could be conservative pundit, they are wrong almost 100% of the time.

[fumster]

The decision will be made by that 10% in the middle who vote on who they'd like to have a beer with. And with 9.1% unemployment, they'd probably like to do what that Cambridge, MA cop wanted to do with his beer.He'd already harassed one black guy in his own house.

[joebuck20]

He is a piece of work, isn't he? My gaydar sucks and it goes off the scale with this guy. He comes across as "very-religous-gay-man-in-denial." Overcompensating for his "sinful" thoughts by going batshit crazy into God. Running a christian counseling center i.e "pray your troubles away" is a real gateway to medicare fraud. This will be interesting indeed.

Indeed. Just saw a YouTube clip of him. That guy makes Richard Simmons look butch.

[RTFirefly]

there is no disputing that McCain was a better candidate. I can think of a laundry list of ways to dispute that.

Whether or not you agree with any of them is irrelevant. It's extremely disputable whether McCain was the better candidate. Starting with the fact that, um, he lost.

Second, you guys keep praising Republican "moderates" (which I consider myself one at this point) but you never actually vote for them. McCain did more to advance the cause of immigration reform as a Senator (and took hits from the right wing over it) than Obama has ever really tried. Obama still carried the Hispanic vote, tho'. I won't speak for 'us guys' in general, but I don't have much good to say about Republican 'moderates' in the current era.

But speaking of McCain, you might notice that in the wake of his endorsement of Bush in 2004, McCain pretty much turned his back on all of his previous moderate views. Why should he have gotten any cred in 2008, let alone at this late date, from fans of moderate Republicans?

Third- ooooh, scary Palin. Right. Because really, the Vice President has so much to do normally. Unless, of course, an unusually old President dies or becomes incapacitated in office. At which point, she can bomb Russia from her house.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

No, you don't have it right.

First, there is no disputing that McCain was a better candidate.

30 years in congress and 20 in the military as opposed to 3 years in the Senate when he bothered to show up?

Second, you guys keep praising Republican "moderates" (which I consider myself one at this point) but you never actually vote for them. McCain did more to advance the cause of immigration reform as a Senator (and took hits from the right wing over it) than Obama has ever really tried. Obama still carried the Hispanic vote, tho'.

Third- ooooh, scary Palin. Right. Because really, the Vice President has so much to do normally. (Cheney was the exception because of Bush's weakness on foreign policy).


The funny thing about Palin in 2008 is that you could have argued she was a moderate. She was a reformer in Alaska and she took moderate positions. (This is the problem ALL the GOP Governor candidates have, they had to take moderate positions on issues at some point.) She stood up to the Murkowskis and the corrupt GOP machine up there.

But let's look at the reason WHY he took Palin. Because his own internal polling showed that those who supported Huckabee and Romney and more conservative candidates were unenthused, while the moderates who said for years they loved the guy were now going for Obama.

Again- my point being, you can't say you want "moderate" Republicans and then not support them when the chips are down.

Because if you go to a Real Clear Politics or TownHall (where they say I'm a liberal commie for saying these kinds of things) they will tell you the reason why McCain lost was because he was "Juan McAmnesty" closet liberal, and all we need to do is nominate a "real" conservative this time and win.

And the way Obama is screwing up, they could probably nominate the Cheney/C'Thulhu ticket and win.

WTF are you responding to? Are you one of the 20% (and who says so, anyway? You?) who can't read? I asked you three questions, and you gave three answers, but they don't line up at all.

My first question was if you voted for McCain over Obama. Your response was "there is no disputing that McCain was a better candidate. 30 years in congress and 20 in the military as opposed to 3 years in the Senate when he bothered to show up?" So that's a Yes, with a weak attempt to show why you right and the majority of voters were wrong--but all I asked was if you voted for McCain.




Next, I asked if you thought the problem with Dems is that they DIDN'T see McCain (with Palin on his ticket!) as the better candidate, and you responded "you guys keep praising Republican "moderates" (which I consider myself one at this point) but you never actually vote for them. McCain did more to advance the cause of immigration reform as a Senator (and took hits from the right wing over it) than Obama has ever really tried. Obama still carried theHispanic vote, tho'--" WTF are you rattling on about here? Nothing to do with my question. Did I ever praise a Repubolican moderate, other than to say it would be nice of they would try to be civil, and avoid taking insane, counterfactual positions--is that your idea of praise? With the likes of Bachmann, Palin, Huckabee, et al. insane and incivil is SOP.

Finally, I asked if you thought McCain would have been a better President, and you respondedwith a rant about Palin, who is one of the strongest arguments AGAINST a McCain presidency.

Are you unwell?

[Exapno Mapcase]

McCain lost for a variety of reasons, and it's doubtful that any Republican in the race could have won in 2008.

You can't confuse better resume with better candidate. George H. W. Bush had a better resume than anyone who ran for president last century (Eisenhower being the special case outside of politics).

But. McCain ran as someone who repudiated all the reasons he was considered to be a good candidate in the first place. That is perhaps the one totally unforgivable sin in American politics. It destroyed the career of Hubert Humphrey, who was once considered the leader and conscience of the liberals, when he dumped all that to run as a surrogate Johnson in 1968. McCain will always be remembered as the man who screamed maverick from the rooftops for 20 years and then repudiated the word when it counted.

McCain did not run as a moderate. He ran as a conservative, and doubled down on that by making Palin his veep. Americans will obviously vote for a moderate Republican. George W. Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative" in 2000 and that was sufficient to make voters believe he was a moderate. The last thing they wanted in 2008 was another candidate who was a conservative masquerading as a moderate. They won't go for one in 2012 either. The center point of American politics is nowhere near conservatism. If the race is between Obama, who has angered his base into screaming fits because of his moderation, and Romney, who is a former moderate repudiating his record, or an actual conservative, Obama will win. (Extrapolating from today and barring disaster or terminal weirdness.) And that remains true even with 9.1% unemployment. You can say that a thousand times in as many threads, but it's simply not true and you won't be able to understand the dynamics of this race until you get rid of that notion.

[Recovering Republican]

He'd already harassed one black guy in his own house.


You mean that he responded to a call, and Professor "self-important" decided to play the race card.

Sorry, I had a similar situation where I locked myself out of my own house. Once I identified myself, the officer was courteous and I didn't give him any lip.

[Recovering Republican]

WTF are you responding to? Are you one of the 20% (and who says so, anyway? You?) blah, blah blah....

I was going to give a detailed response to your drivel, but since you resorted to insults instead of discussion, I'm not going to bother.

Hey, Obama's disapproval rating is up to 52% in the latest Rasumussen poll.

So, yeah, I think it's time to break out that "Don't Blame Me, I voted for McCain" bumper sticker.

[Recovering Republican]

I can think of a laundry list of ways to dispute that.

Whether or not you agree with any of them is irrelevant. It's extremely disputable whether McCain was the better candidate. Starting with the fact that, um, he lost..

Nope, that only proves we give the vote to people who shouldn't have it...

Not to worry, voting Obama won't be something the "cool kids" will be doing in 2012.

Meanwhile today the Bamster was out there comparing the budget process to his kid's homework. I'm all for letting him be a full time parent at this point, it seems to be the only thing he's good at.

.
"I won't speak for 'us guys' in general, but I don't have much good to say about Republican 'moderates' in the current era.".


Of course you don't. So don't be surprised when ultra-conservatives win.

.
"But speaking of McCain, you might notice that in the wake of his endorsement of Bush in 2004, McCain pretty much turned his back on all of his previous moderate views. Why should he have gotten any cred in 2008, let alone at this late date, from fans of moderate Republicans?.

Yes, how dare he support his president in a time of war....

Funny, didn't that used to be expected of loyal Americans?


.
Unless, of course, an unusually old President dies or becomes incapacitated in office. At which point, she can bomb Russia from her house.

A president hasn't died in office in nearly 50 years. That dog won't hunt.

[Recovering Republican]

McCain lost for a variety of reasons, and it's doubtful that any Republican in the race could have won in 2008.

You can't confuse better resume with better candidate. George H. W. Bush had a better resume than anyone who ran for president last century (Eisenhower being the special case outside of politics). .

You have a valid point, any GOP candidate was going to have a tough road to hoe at that point.

But, yeah, I consider EXPERIENCE to be important. Obama doesn't have all that much. His jobs were "community rabble rouser", "State Legislative goofball" and "Absentee Senator". That's not nearly as impressive as "War Hero", "Commanding Officer" and "Senate Elder Statesman".

(Was there a slam on GHW Bush coming. It looke like you were going to start one? Actually, that guy had a pretty good presidency. Won a Cold War, a Hot War and set down the path for a recovery which was well underway when he lost.)

But. McCain ran as someone who repudiated all the reasons he was considered to be a good candidate in the first place. That is perhaps the one totally unforgivable sin in American politics. It destroyed the career of Hubert Humphrey, who was once considered the leader and conscience of the liberals, when he dumped all that to run as a surrogate Johnson in 1968. McCain will always be remembered as the man who screamed maverick from the rooftops for 20 years and then repudiated the word when it counted. .

Again, guy, I'm still trying to figure out what McCain did that offends you guys so. McCain's position (unlike Humphrey's) was pretty consistant. He stuck by his vote when the war was popular, he stuck by it when it was unpopular. He pressured Bush to change strategy from what he was doing to the Surge, which brought it to a respectable conclusion. He stuck by Campaign Finance Reform, even though that was a terrible idea and with the Citizen United decision, things are arguably worse. the only area where you could accuse him of waffling was on immigration reform, and he didn't by much.

McCain did not run as a moderate. He ran as a conservative, and doubled down on that by making Palin his veep. Americans will obviously vote for a moderate Republican. George W. Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative" in 2000 and that was sufficient to make voters believe he was a moderate.

I don't think there was a soul on the planet who thought Bush was moderate in 2000. And let's not forget, he lost the popular vote in 2000, and did VASTLY better in 2004 when he was an unvarnished conservative.


The last thing they wanted in 2008 was another candidate who was a conservative masquerading as a moderate. They won't go for one in 2012 either. The center point of American politics is nowhere near conservatism. If the race is between Obama, who has angered his base into screaming fits because of his moderation, and Romney, who is a former moderate repudiating his record, or an actual conservative, Obama will win. (Extrapolating from today and barring disaster or terminal weirdness.) And that remains true even with 9.1% unemployment. You can say that a thousand times in as many threads, but it's simply not true and you won't be able to understand the dynamics of this race until you get rid of that notion.

Actually, guy, if unemployment remains where it is, Obama is toast.

As far as the country being "not conservative", how is it then that Democrats never call themselves "liberal", but Republicans always want to call themselves some flavor of "Conservative". Seems to me that if anything, Liberal has become the dirty word in American politics.

You see, my problem is, I have little use for social conservatives and not much use for economic conservatives. I remain a security conservative, without a doubt.

I would like to see a sensible republican moderate get in there, and give us a real choice. But honestly, if things go the way they are, we can pretty much look at "President Bachmann" in our future, which is kind of depressing.

[Recovering Republican]

So you get paid to shop? Must be nice, but not what I'd consider a "real" job. Heck, most people shop and buy stuff every day. And most of us do it with our own money too.

Bo-bo, you wouldn't know a "real" job if it bit you in the butt, judging by how much free time you seem to have to post here and God knows were else.

My work keeps my plant running efficiently and makes it competitive with Asian slave labor plants, which is not easy.

But you see, that's the REAL economy, where people make stuff and do things, not the "government" economy where you pay people to breed and vote Democratic.

[Absolute]

A president hasn't died in office in nearly 50 years. That dog won't hunt.
This was all I needed to read to decide you weren't worth listening to.

The last time a 75-year-old man with skin cancer died was, oh, about 36 seconds ago.

[Recovering Republican]

And how is that any less a "real job" than a teacher that educates a child and gives them the tools to do that in the future? Did you get taught or did you educate yourself all the way?.

Nope, I went to a PRIVATE CATHOLIC SCHOOL. The whole notion that government should do education is kind of silly.

.Yes, there's some shit teachers out there. There's also a school system that works against them. This doesn't mean that teaching is not a "real job". .

No, it means it's a job where you only work 9 months a year,

Incidently, my late mother was a teacher, and I have nothing but respect for the good ones. but the good ones aren't doing it for a $55,000 a year salary and a lifetime pension, moving the product from one grade to another.

The problem is, the union makes it IMPOSSIBLE to fire the bad ones. Even the ones who molest kids get a union rep backing them the whole way. So we have stuff like the Rubber Rooms in New York City where teachers are paid to sit around and do nothing- full salary - for years.


.
Frankly, I'd say educating is far more important than what sounds like a pencil pusher that just makes a few numbers move around on a piece of paper. I'd go as far as saying as teaching is one of the most important jobs out there and it depresses me that anyone could write it off as not a "real job".

And no, I'm not a teacher.

no, you are one of these sobby libs who thinks that if something fails repeatedly, it should be defended.

The point of the matter is, if there were line downs because I didn't get MATERIAL (not numbers) to the line when it was supposed to be there, I wouldn't have a job very long.

But your typical NEA public school teacher gives little Johnny a diploma he can't read, and he calls it a day.

But let's keep in mind the important thing, for the DNC, the Teacher Unions are better than an ATM.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Bo-bo, you wouldn't know a "real" job if it bit you in the butt, judging by how much free time you seem to have to post here and God knows were else.

My work keeps my plant running efficiently and makes it competitive with Asian slave labor plants, which is not easy.

But you see, that's the REAL economy, where people make stuff and do things, not the "government" economy where you pay people to breed and vote Democratic.

Ah, careful, RR! You're allowing your true colors to shine thru with comments like this and calling the President "The One" and stuff.

BTW, why doesn't your rule about supporting the president during wartime apply to you and how you talk about President Obama?

I mean, aren't you a traitor according to your own definition?

[Recovering Republican]

Ah, careful, RR! You're allowing your true colors to shine thru with comments like this and calling the President "The One" and stuff.

BTW, why doesn't your rule about supporting the president during wartime apply to you and how you talk about President Obama?

I mean, aren't you a traitor according to your own definition?

Hey, I'd happily support the president in wartime, if he could tell me what it was he was actually trying to accomplish. Or actually got authorization from Congress to go to war.

"oooh, let's hold NATO's coat while they bomb Khadafy.... Ummm, wait, NATO is out of missiles. But keep giving me more time."

Personally, I'd be very happy if Khadafy cashed in on his 76 Virgins Policy at the end of an American Missile. But make the case that is what we should be trying to do here.


My thing is, I'm cyncical of BOTH parties. Both parties have let our manufacturing get away and turned us into a third world country.

The Republicans have done this through

1) Awful trade treaties.
2) Awful Tax policy

The Democrats have done this through-

1) Awful environmental regs
2) Awful Education standards
3) Supporting union thuggery

And then there is the bi-partisan stupidity, like not enforcing immigration laws. (Democrats want voters and dependents, Republicans want cheap labor. )

[Snowboarder Bo]

Hey, I'd happily support the president in wartime, if he could tell me what it was he was actually trying to accomplish. Or actually got authorization from Congress to go to war.

"oooh, let's hold NATO's coat while they bomb Khadafy.... Ummm, wait, NATO is out of missiles. But keep giving me more time."

Personally, I'd be very happy if Khadafy cashed in on his 76 Virgins Policy at the end of an American Missile. But make the case that is what we should be trying to do here.

Ah, I see. You believe in a selective absolute. One that allows you make rules and definitions and then ignore them if they inconvenience you or you don't like or agree with them, but doesn't allow others the same leeway.

One that also allows you to forget that we were at war before we sent troops to Libya and are still actively engaged in those wars.

Face it, by your own definition, you're a traitor.

Debates on wars END the minute the first shot is fired. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13958948&postcount=43)

Clearly, you don't really think that, or you wouldn't be talking about it being a bad idea to be in Libya. Or if you do really think debate should end, you should have kept your mouth shut, because you are now a traitor, by your own definition of the word.

Do you still think traitors deserve the penalty you proscribed?

econd, he and every other anti-war protestor was a traitor, and ANY other country but ours would have imprisoned them or shot them. In fact, that is EXACTLY what we did to such traitors during the World Wars. (Well, we didn't shoot many of them, but they all got to know nice prison cells.) (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13958948&postcount=43)

So: will you be ceasing your traitorous actions and words or will you be reporting for a jail cell (or firing squad, whichever you choose)?

[Exapno Mapcase]

You have a valid point, any GOP candidate was going to have a tough road to hoe at that point.

But, yeah, I consider EXPERIENCE to be important. Obama doesn't have all that much. His jobs were "community rabble rouser", "State Legislative goofball" and "Absentee Senator".
These are not descriptions. They are Republican talking points. By definition, all talking points are lies. Repeating a talking point is not analysis, it is ideology.

(Was there a slam on GHW Bush coming. It looke like you were going to start one? Actually, that guy had a pretty good presidency. Won a Cold War, a Hot War and set down the path for a recovery which was well underway when he lost.)
Don't presume to put words in my mouth. I said exactly what I meant. Bush 41 had the best resume, but nobody in either party considers him to be the best president of the century, not even close. He was nowhere near the worst, either. He lost because he was foreordained to lose. It was obvious to every political observer in 1988 that whoever won the election would be tarred with the collapse of the economy because of Reagan's policies. Democrats seriously faced the reality that if they won in 1988, that president would serve one term and the party might be out of power for another 20 years. Instead, they got "lucky" with a bad candidate, and Clinton returned the nation to the normal two-term cycle that has been operating since Truman except for Reagan's unusual popularity. Which means that 2016 is the year to look to break the cycle. As I've said, short of disaster Obama will win against any candidate the Republicans have put up so far.



Again, guy, I'm still trying to figure out what McCain did that offends you guys so.
The notion that any objective analysis is automatically liberal if conservatives are not praised is another talking point. Your constant barrage of talking points and lack of analysis is what's causing the pushback here. Not to mention the insults. I'm not one of "you guys" except to the extent that I'm trying to be objective.

McCain's position (unlike Humphrey's) was pretty consistant. He stuck by his vote when the war was popular, he stuck by it when it was unpopular. He pressured Bush to change strategy from what he was doing to the Surge, which brought it to a respectable conclusion. He stuck by Campaign Finance Reform, even though that was a terrible idea and with the Citizen United decision, things are arguably worse. the only area where you could accuse him of waffling was on immigration reform, and he didn't by much.



I don't think there was a soul on the planet who thought Bush was moderate in 2000. And let's not forget, he lost the popular vote in 2000, and did VASTLY better in 2004 when he was an unvarnished conservative.
We appear to be recalling different histories. In my world, McCain was accused loudly and daily of abandoning his past and Bush was consistently touted as a moderate. You could look it up.

But honestly, if things go the way they are, we can pretty much look at "President Bachmann" in our future, which is kind of depressing.
You can cheer up then. It's not going to happen.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

But, yeah, I consider EXPERIENCE to be important. Obama doesn't have all that much.

He doesn't? At this point he's going to run with four very recent years of being POTUS against someone with 0 years of being POTUS. By your reasoning, you're obliged very sadly and very unwillingly to support him for re-election.

What? Oh, experience is only very important when it belongs to a Republican? On a Democrat, it's a DISqualification. Now I understand.

[sweepkick]

Meh, I'd be interested in Shodan's, Rand Rover's, and Bricker's thoughts here over RR's. Likely would be more interesting.

[amanset]

Nope, I went to a PRIVATE CATHOLIC SCHOOL. The whole notion that government should do education is kind of silly.


Funnily enough so did I, run by Irish priests out in the Warwickshire countryside. Of course how a school is funded has nothing to do with whether teaching is a "real job" or not. Not that you have said what you think a "real job" is. I think I've already pointed that out once or twice but somehow you seemed to have missed it.


No, it means it's a job where you only work 9 months a year,


False. My Mother and Sister were both teachers. There's a metric arseload of planning that goes on during the "holidays". Also, teachers, in my experience, are far more likely to work at home. Marking/correcting homework and exams, for example.



Incidently, my late mother was a teacher, and I have nothing but respect for the good ones. but the good ones aren't doing it for a $55,000 a year salary and a lifetime pension, moving the product from one grade to another.

No you don't. You've dismissed the profession as not a "real job". Shit, you're not "flip flopping" are you?


The problem is, the union makes it IMPOSSIBLE to fire the bad ones. Even the ones who molest kids get a union rep backing them the whole way. So we have stuff like the Rubber Rooms in New York City where teachers are paid to sit around and do nothing- full salary - for years.


Utter bullshit. Just Google "US teacher fired" if you want counterexamples to your ridiculous viewpoint.



no, you are one of these sobby libs who thinks that if something fails repeatedly, it should be defended.


No I just think teaching is a very important and respectable job, far closer to being a "real job" than most of us around here do. Including you.


The point of the matter is, if there were line downs because I didn't get MATERIAL (not numbers) to the line when it was supposed to be there, I wouldn't have a job very long.

But your typical NEA public school teacher gives little Johnny a diploma he can't read, and he calls it a day.

But let's keep in mind the important thing, for the DNC, the Teacher Unions are better than an ATM.

Your argument earlier is that 20% of kids can't read their diploma (not that you offered a cite for that when asked). If so, basic Mathematics will tell you that giving "little Johnny a diploma he can't read" is pretty far from being "typical". But don't let your clear and quite comical bias get in the way of a rant.

Oh one other thing. I'm not a "lib". My political views and leanings are pretty much non-existent in American politics.

[Recovering Republican]

Ah, I see. You believe in a selective absolute. One that allows you make rules and definitions and then ignore them if they inconvenience you or you don't like or agree with them, but doesn't allow others the same leeway.


Uh, no.

We never had a vote to go to war with Libya.

We never had a declaration of war on Libya.

Congress never authorized a war in Libya.

Now, I know this goes right over your head, but Obama is without a doubt in violation of the War Powers Act right now.

In short, if the system worked the way it's supposed to work, we'd be drafting articles of impeachment.

And frankly, I've really never said anything about the wars one way or the other, really. I find it amusing that all the aspects of the wars "The One" railed about when he was pretending to be a Senator he's all for now that he's pretending to be a President. Heck, he hasn't even closed Gitmo. So I'm glad to see he's come around.

But like I said, as soon as he comes up with a coherent policy, I'll be the first to support it.

[Recovering Republican]

He doesn't? At this point he's going to run with four very recent years of being POTUS against someone with 0 years of being POTUS. By your reasoning, you're obliged very sadly and very unwillingly to support him for re-election.

What? Oh, experience is only very important when it belongs to a Republican? On a Democrat, it's a DISqualification. Now I understand.

No, you see, Pseudo, I don't support failure.

Obama is a FAILED president.

He's going to run on the worst unemployment since the Great Depression, defaulting on our obligations, and starting a third war when he promised to end the other two. Good luck with that. Really.

And incidently, I haven't decided who I'm voting for yet. If it's Romney vs. Obama, I might vote for Obama if I can't find a credible third party candidate to support.

But if the election were PURELY a referendum on Obama's leadership, he'd lose. You know it, I know it. Your best hope is that the GOP nominates someone beyond the pale and people can ignore the fact they are a lot worse off than they were when he took office.

[Recovering Republican]

These are not descriptions. They are Republican talking points. By definition, all talking points are lies. Repeating a talking point is not analysis, it is ideology.

Nope, I live in IL, that's probably a pretty accurate description. Actually the man was such a NON-ENTITY in the legistlature that most of us never heard of him before he ran for Senate. (And understandable, given the guy spent a lot of time voting "Present". Well, at least we know he was present.) The ironic thing is that if it weren't for the Mainstream Media digging through the dirty laundry of Blair Hull and Jack Ryan, one of those guys would have the job now and actually be doing it.

The notion that any objective analysis is automatically liberal if conservatives are not praised is another talking point. Your constant barrage of talking points and lack of analysis is what's causing the pushback here. Not to mention the insults. I'm not one of "you guys" except to the extent that I'm trying to be objective.

Sure you are. I just ask the question again. After a decade of being barraged by what a GREAT GUY John McCain was, and how he was wonderful, and John Kerry even wanted the guy as a running mate in 2004, he suddenly became the anti-Christ when he won the nomination. (This again, is after years of you guys telling us how WONDERFUL the GOP would be if they stop nominating these bible thumper conservatives and nominated someone like John McCain.)

Oh. That's right. Palin. Except she had a pretty decent reputation before she was on the ticket, too.

You can cheer up then. It's not going to happen.

Hey, I know a lot of people who supported Obama in 2008 who won't admit it now. I'm usually not enough of a jerk to needle them every time he screws up...

[Snowboarder Bo]

Uh, no.

Uh, yes. We've been at war in Afghanistan for a few years now. And yet, here you are, protesting loudly against the President; posting rhetoric for all the world to see.

We never had a vote to go to war with Libya.

We never had a declaration of war on Libya.

Congress never authorized a war in Libya.

Now, I know this goes right over your head, but Obama is without a doubt in violation of the War Powers Act right now.

In short, if the system worked the way it's supposed to work, we'd be drafting articles of impeachment.

No according to you, if the system worked, it would be working just like it is now, since you believe:

The ugly truth is that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13967557&postcount=94)

So now are you going to argue against yourself? Either the WPA is unconstitutional, and so nobody should give a shit, or it's proper and Pres. Obama should be impeached. Which do you really believe? Whichever you believe, why are you lying about your position in at least one instance?

And frankly, I've really never said anything about the wars one way or the other, really. I find it amusing that all the aspects of the wars "The One" railed about when he was pretending to be a Senator he's all for now that he's pretending to be a President. Heck, he hasn't even closed Gitmo. So I'm glad to see he's come around.

But like I said, as soon as he comes up with a coherent policy, I'll be the first to support it.
So now it's okay to speak out against the President as long as he doesn't have what you consider a "coherent policy"? But it wasn't okay for anyone else to speak out about, say, the Vietnam War, if they didn't think there was a coherent policy?

What about during the recent Iraq War? If I didn't think there was a "coherent policy", was it okay for me to protest?

[Recovering Republican]

Hey, Bo-bo, you seem to fail to understand that disagreeing with a president's economic policies is not the same as stabbing our troops in the back in a time of war. If a wartime president's leadership isn't up to snuff, we SHOULD vote him out and get someone in who will win it. (Kind of what we did in 1968, except Dems couldn't abide the Peace Nixon won, and stabbed our allies in the back.)

The troops will do their job regardless of how inept Obama is.

Oh, I do love how you take my observation that the WPA is unconstitutional out of context without including my follow up statement that nearly every president has violated it since it was invoked.

But like I said, I don't have an opinion of the war itself. It'll probably be another failure, becuase everything this guy does smells of fail.

I guess he can compare it to his kid's homework again. That was a nice touch.

You know, Bo, there was a certain point when I stopped defending Bush. Just can't make excuses after a certain point. But you keep right on...

[SenorBeef]

Who is it that you think backstabbed our troops in a time of war?


Second, you guys keep praising Republican "moderates" (which I consider myself one at this point) but you never actually vote for them.


By "you guys" you mean the filthy socialist libruls here, right? The democrats? Because they have respect for a person on the other side personally, and would prefer that he lead over less respectable people from his side, they're supposed to vote for him instead of their own ideological compatriots? And if not they're hypocrites?


Third- ooooh, scary Palin. Right. Because really, the Vice President has so much to do normally. (Cheney was the exception because of Bush's weakness on foreign policy).


I... uh.... do..... you ..... you don't think it's kind of important for someone who's second in line for command of the most powerful country in the world not to be fucking retarded and crazy?


Again- my point being, you can't say you want "moderate" Republicans and then not support them when the chips are down.


So if a solid democrat, someone who supports the democratic platforms and likes a particular set of democratic candidates - if they said "wow, I wish the Republican party could at least nominate someone I could respect, who I think would do their best to make the country a better place, instead of a nutjob", this person is a hypocrite unless they vote for that republican? Vote for them over their own party who they like just as well or better and actually share ideology with?


Yes, how dare he support his president in a time of war....

Funny, didn't that used to be expected of loyal Americans?


What does "supporting" entail? Agreeing with every position they have? Reversing your own personal convictions of what you think is right and best and copy theirs precisely? Are there no grounds on which reasonable people can disagree on issues? If your view deviates at all from the president's, you're traitorous?

And... really, you guys are the biggest fucking bunch of hypocrites. "Support your president in time of war.. if he's a republican!" - we still have troops in Iraq and active combat troops in Afghanistan. Why aren't you supporting the president?

Nope, I went to a PRIVATE CATHOLIC SCHOOL. The whole notion that government should do education is kind of silly.


So let me get this straight. Your position isn't that public education is good for society and that we should improve it. Nor is your position that we should keep public schools for those who need them, but encourage and transition to private education where possible. Nor is it even your position that you don't personally support public education, but that reasonable people can disagree on the issue. No, your position is that public education - something which clearly has a pretty good track record and pretty much the entire world has agreed on - is "silly", an idea not even worthy of contemplation.

And you call yourself a moderate. Who are the solid or extremist republicans? Do they think we should turn public schools into death camps for anyone who dares attend them?


Sure you are. I just ask the question again. After a decade of being barraged by what a GREAT GUY John McCain was, and how he was wonderful, and John Kerry even wanted the guy as a running mate in 2004, he suddenly became the anti-Christ when he won the nomination. (This again, is after years of you guys telling us how WONDERFUL the GOP would be if they stop nominating these bible thumper conservatives and nominated someone like John McCain.)


I don't think your description is accurate. Even when McCain was in mid-campaign, people would praise his service for the country and stuff. People certainly did not call him pure evil, nothing on par with the whole Obama/Muslim/Antichrist/Communist thing.

Even so - the guy went back on most of what made people respect him, so it's not at all inconsistent that their respect would diminish. I mean, for fucks sake, the guy bowed down to his party on the issue of torture. An issue which is very near to his very essence, an issue on which he was understandably outspoken, and he decided he could compromise that principle. That would be soul-crushing for any man of principle to whore himself out on. What kind of man could he be if he's willing to do that?


Oh. That's right. Palin. Except she had a pretty decent reputation before she was on the ticket, too.


Did she by election day, or does all the stuff we learned about her, and how she acted and what she said and thought not count?

[Recovering Republican]

Who is it that you think backstabbed our troops in a time of war?

Kerry. Most of the anti-war types during Vietnam who devloped amnesia when pictures of the skulls in the killing fields started coming back.

I... uh.... do..... you ..... you don't think it's kind of important for someone who's second in line for command of the most powerful country in the world not to be fucking retarded and crazy?

I was trying to avoid that kind of obscenity, but it's sort of disingenuous, doncha think? Palin is someone who has been pretty successful compared to 99% of the population. Now, frankly, I don't think she has the skills to be president. But the hateful stuff that comes out of people's pie holes about her are a bit over the top.

And... really, you guys are the biggest fucking bunch of hypocrites. "Support your president in time of war.. if he's a republican!" - we still have troops in Iraq and active combat troops in Afghanistan. Why aren't you supporting the president?

Again, I'm waiting for the guy to give me a coherent explanation of what he is trying to accomplish over there. :smack: I mean are we supporting democracy? That's kind of hard when the person who is in charge stole the last election. Are we trying to defeat the Taliban or negotiate with them? Are we going to win it or withdraw as soon as we possibly can? I'd be happy to support a policy as soon as there is one that doesn't change next week.

The one thing I wouldn't do is run around blaming the troops and claiming they were committing attrocities on hearsay, which is what John Kerry did in 1971.

So let me get this straight. Your position isn't that public education is good for society and that we should improve it. Nor is your position that we should keep public schools for those who need them, but encourage and transition to private education where possible. Nor is it even your position that you don't personally support public education, but that reasonable people can disagree on the issue. No, your position is that public education - something which clearly has a pretty good track record and pretty much the entire world has agreed on - is "silly", an idea not even worthy of contemplation.

And you call yourself a moderate. Who are the solid or extremist republicans? Do they think we should turn public schools into death camps for anyone who dares attend them?

Nice Hyperbole, there, guy. No, Public Education is actually a pretty terrible idea for a lot of reasons. I'll give a few here.

Some people just can't be educated, no matter how much you try. But they'll waste a lot of your time while you attempt to do it. Their parents don't care, because they were the same kind of slug when they were in school.

When the employees set the standards, the standards are going to drop. But that is exactly what happens when the Teachers Unions decide that we aren't going to ever fire anyone, and if the kids can't meet the standards, we lower the standards.

When you have a monopoly, there's no reason to improve. Phone service stayed pretty much the same until the government finally broke up AT&T. Now look at all the inovation we've got.

Now School Choice is a great idea, because it makes the education a true partnership. Parents find a school that fits their child best, and the schools pick who they can and can't work with. It's matching up consumer and provider.

Even so - the guy went back on most of what made people respect him, so it's not at all inconsistent that their respect would diminish. I mean, for fucks sake, the guy bowed down to his party on the issue of torture. An issue which is very near to his very essence, an issue on which he was understandably outspoken, and he decided he could compromise that principle. That would be soul-crushing for any man of principle to whore himself out on. What kind of man could he be if he's willing to do that?

So you are going to hold Obama accountable for not closing Gitmo, then?

The problem with the enhanced interrogation technique issue that it's NOT an easy question. Would you let people die rather than torture terrorists?

It's not a question with a pat answer. Comparing waterboarding a monster like Khalid Mohammed with what was done to McCain in a POW camp is disingenous.

Did she by election day, or does all the stuff we learned about her, and how she acted and what she said and thought not count?

I don't know, what did we learn? Now, there are some things she's done that bother me, like her attempts to get her brother in law fired. yeah, that was bad. But the guy was slapping around her sister. If it were my sister, they'd never find the body.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Hey, Bo-bo, you seem to fail to understand that disagreeing with a president's economic policies is not the same as stabbing our troops in the back in a time of war. If a wartime president's leadership isn't up to snuff, we SHOULD vote him out and get someone in who will win it. (Kind of what we did in 1968, except Dems couldn't abide the Peace Nixon won, and stabbed our allies in the back.) Except that what you're doing is criticizing his leadership of the war, in time of war, which is what you called traitorous activity when done by others.

For instance, in your next sentence you wrote:

The troops will do their job regardless of how inept Obama is.

Which, by your own definition, is traitorous speech.

But like I said, I don't have an opinion of the war itself. It'll probably be another failure, becuase everything this guy does smells of fail. So you don't have an opinion of it, except that you have the opinion it'll probably be a failure. :rolleyes:

[Recovering Republican]

Okay, Bo-bo, I understand, man. Have some nice kool-aid, will you?

Like I said, since Obama's Libya policy is incoherent, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be supporting here. I mean, I'd like to support the guy, and I'm sure that the troops would like to do a really good job, but it would be nice if he actually gave us an actual goal he was going for.

Are we just protecting the rebels, or are we trying to oust Khadafy?

What national interest are we actually pursuing here?

Who are these Rebels anyway, and are some of them linked to Al Qaeda?

If this is a NATO operation, then why are key NATO players like Germany and Italy against it?

But here's the real questions.

We're the Effin' United States of AMERICA, man. We should be able to squash Khadafy like a cockroach if that's what we really wanted to do. This thing never should have dragged on for this long. This isn't like Vietnam where we we were supporting our proxies against the Soviet Union's proxies, and we had to be careful. The whole world hates Khadafy and absolutely no one will mourn him when he's gone. I guess I can call it fail because it sure looks like fail to me.

So again, if Obama wants our support on this, then he really ought to make the case and give us a coherent policy.

[Marley23]

Okay, Bo-bo, I understand, man. Have some nice kool-aid, will you?
I'm not sure what your personal issue with Snowboarder Bo is, but this kind of immature sniping belongs in The BBQ Pit, not in a forum for civil discussion. I admit my previous notes to you were about off-topic comments about Snowboarder Bo rather than direct rudeness, but enough it enough. Our main rule here is "Don't be a jerk," and your comments in his direction violate that rule. You need to stop this immediately.

[Recovering Republican]

I'm not sure what your personal issue with Snowboarder Bo is, but this kind of immature sniping belongs in The BBQ Pit, not in a forum for civil discussion. I admit my previous notes to you were about off-topic comments about Snowboarder Bo rather than direct rudeness, but enough it enough. Our main rule here is "Don't be a jerk," and your comments in his direction violate that rule. You need to stop this immediately.

The guy's been stalking me since I pointed out that his notion that Kerry was wronged is a bit silly. besides, I was being nice. I told him he needed to calm down a bit and take a breathe.... I would also invite you to go through this thread and score who made the most personal attacks. It certainly wasn't me.

Oh, I'm also wondering when it's considered "civil" to call the mother of a disabled child "fucking retarded and crazy".

I don't like the woman, but I'd call that pretty "uncivil".

[Marley23]

The guy's been stalking me since I pointed out that his notion that Kerry was wronged is a bit silly.
That's not what I've seen. I'm seeing the opposite, since yesterday I gave you two notes about making personal comments about him.

Oh, I'm also wondering when it's considered "civil" to call the mother of a disabled child "fucking retarded and crazy".
You're required to civil to other posters. Other people are fair game.

[Recovering Republican]

Upon further review, I think I should go more into detail.

Uh, yes. We've been at war in Afghanistan for a few years now. And yet, here you are, protesting loudly against the President; posting rhetoric for all the world to see.

I'm pointing out he's not getting the job done or even keeping his own promises. Remember, he called Afghanistan the "War of Necessity" (as opposed to Iraq, which was the "War of Choice")

What I'm not doing is protesting at a military base, throwing my medals back at Congress. (Not that they'd be impressed with the medals I won for pushing paper), or accusing soldiers of committing attrocities on unverified evidence. Nor am I going to Kabul and sitting on top of an anti-aircraft gun.

I'm just asking- ummmm, what are we trying to accomplish here, exactly.

So now it's okay to speak out against the President as long as he doesn't have what you consider a "coherent policy"? But it wasn't okay for anyone else to speak out about, say, the Vietnam War, if they didn't think there was a coherent policy?

Except that's not what they were doing. They were outright CHEERING FOR OUR ENEMIES and slandering our troops. I certainly don't want the Taliban to win, for no other reason that I don't want us to have to go back in there and do this again in 10 years.

What about during the recent Iraq War? If I didn't think there was a "coherent policy", was it okay for me to protest?

I guess you could make that argument. Of course, the policy seemed pretty coherent to me. Get Saddam. Get the terrorists, establish a stable government. All those things were accomplished before Bush left office. All Obama had to do was not screw up the withdrawl...

[Recovering Republican]

That's not what I've seen. I'm seeing the opposite, since yesterday I gave you two notes about making personal comments about him.
You're required to civil to other posters. Other people are fair game.

Once again, I'd say go back, look at the exchanges and see who threw the most personal insults. And who threw them first.

Or do you only count "uncivil" behavior when it's someone you disagree with?

[Marley23]

Once again, I'd say go back, look at the exchanges and see who threw the most personal insults. And who threw them first.
From what I've seen, the answer is "you," although I see he did break the rules by calling you "delusional" in a different thread and I will respond to that. Please familiarize yourself with the rules here. And if you have other questions, please put them in a private message or start a thread in the About This Message Board forum.

[Recovering Republican]

To Marley-

Speaking of civility, how about this...

"Ah, careful, RR! You're allowing your true colors to shine thru with comments like this and calling the President "The One" and stuff."

"So you get paid to shop? Must be nice, but not what I'd consider a "real" job. Heck, most people shop and buy stuff every day. And most of us do it with our own money too. "

"Hey! She and RR speak the same language!"

I could dig up more, and I'm sure you sent Bo a few notes about the civility thing, too.

But I said "Koolaid", and that was uncivil... I guess.

[DianaG]

Meh, I'd be interested in Shodan's, Rand Rover's, and Bricker's thoughts here over RR's. Likely would be more interesting.
My cat's thoughts would be more interesting, or at least wouldn't direct me to all the predictable websites if I googled them.

[Marley23]

To Marley-

Speaking of civility, how about this...
I just said very clearly that if you want to continue this conversation, you need to talk to me in private or start a thread in ATMB. This is supposed to be a thread about Michelle Bachmann, and the people reading it don't want to hear a long discussion of your opinions of Snowboarder Bo or my opinions of the rules. Either start that other discussion or let it go. Either way, don't post about it in this thread again.

[joebuck20]

I guess you could make that argument. Of course, the policy seemed pretty coherent to me. Get Saddam. Get the terrorists, establish a stable government. All those things were accomplished before Bush left office. All Obama had to do was not screw up the withdrawl...

Well, one of out three, I guess, ain't bad.

[Chefguy]

Wow, guy, statements like that just kind of show you to be an out of touch elitist.

Hey, we got your enlightened, smart people in now.

9% unemployment.

1.4 Deficits.

We are in a "Great Disaster" now. Bush deserves some of the blame, to be sure, but so does Obama.

Bachmann is more like middle america than you want to admit.

Frankly, four years ago, I could have voted for her and not blinked twice.

Today, not so much, but another two years of this messed up Obama economy, and maybe I'll revisit the issue.

Sorry, but this is not the "Obama economy". It's still the same inherited economy that he had in the beginning, and it's proving much tougher to turn around than anybody expected (other than some realistic economists who said that the earliest recovery would probably be 2012 or later). It was a collossal upgefuck, and expectations were unrealistically high for a quick recovery. Since most of the banks are back to doing business as usual, there could be another collapse in the not-so-distant future. We can thank the Bush administration for gutting that oversight, as well, and the Republicans in the House for the recent blocking of the creation of an agency that can effectively ride herd on those fuckers.

[Knorf]

Sorry, but this is not the "Obama economy". It's still the same inherited economy that he had in the beginning, and it's proving much tougher to turn around than anybody expected (other than some realistic economists who said that the earliest recovery would probably be 2012 or later).

My memory is that quite a few, respected economists said the economy wouldn't show significant improvement until 2012 or later, and that even then it would be slow.

People don't appreciate how severe the various crashes were--the worst all during the tenure of the previous administration.

Because of that, I still think RR is at least right that the average "swing" voter is still going to hold Obama to blame for the lack of significant recovery.

[Chronos]

Oh, I'm also wondering when it's considered "civil" to call the mother of a disabled child "fucking retarded and crazy". How is it in any way relevant to Ms. Palin's own intelligence or sanity that she has a child with Down's syndrome?

[Chefguy]

My memory is that quite a few, respected economists said the economy wouldn't show significant improvement until 2012 or later, and that even then it would be slow.

People don't appreciate how severe the various crashes were--the worst all during the tenure of the previous administration.

Because of that, I still think RR is at least right that the average "swing" voter is still going to hold Obama to blame for the lack of significant recovery.

Of course they will, as most people have the attention span of a gnat.

[gonzomax]

Bush inherited a 4 percent unemployment rate . He cranked it up to 8.4 and drove the economy off the cliff The economy was leaking jobs by the boatfull when Bush left. That is what he dumped in Obama's lap. I suppose some Repubs actually think Obama caused the economic mess. Repeat a lie often enough and it will take root.
The Bush types still dominate the Repubs running for prez. There is no reason, when you see what the crazy Republican governors are up to, to believe there is any saving grace in the Repubs. Bachmann is at the bottom of these crazies. They have declared war on the working man while doing everything the extremely wealthy want. That is not a great way to take over the presidency.
They will accelerate the suppression of voters. They will pour tons of big money on the Repub candidates. The question is whether that will be enough/ I am beginning to doubt it. The baclklash toward the governors is strong and growing stronger. The Repubs may have miscalculated badly.

[Recovering Republican]

Sorry, but this is not the "Obama economy". It's still the same inherited economy that he had in the beginning, and it's proving much tougher to turn around than anybody expected (other than some realistic economists who said that the earliest recovery would probably be 2012 or later). It was a collossal upgefuck, and expectations were unrealistically high for a quick recovery. Since most of the banks are back to doing business as usual, there could be another collapse in the not-so-distant future. We can thank the Bush administration for gutting that oversight, as well, and the Republicans in the House for the recent blocking of the creation of an agency that can effectively ride herd on those fuckers.

Sorry, man, it's Obama's watch, it's Obama's economy.

Herbert Hoover got a raw deal, too.

Now I agree, Obama was actually trying to do the right thing by putting back the controls that were loosened actually all the way back to Jimmy Carter. But let's also point out that Obama hasn't exactly been too keen on prosecuting the scoundrals who obviously did break the law. Other than Bernie Madoff, none of these guys have seen the inside of a courtroom.

Heck, Bush prosecuted the Enron Crooks, and frankly, if I have to use Bush as a good example, you know we have a problem.

[Recovering Republican]

Well, one of out three, I guess, ain't bad.

Which two are you saying he didn't accomplish?

Looks like he got all three to me.

[Chronos]

The government of Iraq isn't exactly stable, and there were still plenty of terrorists when Bush left office (you might have heard about Obama nabbing one of them recently?). Of course, it's hardly surprising that Bush didn't manage to get the terrorists, given that most of them were in places other than Iraq that Bush was pretty much ignoring.

[tnetennba]

Sorry, man, it's Obama's watch, it's Obama's economy.

LOL!

[gonzomax]

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/151439/psycho_talk%3A_the_32_craziest_things_gop_presidential_contender_michele_bachmann_has_said/
Here are 32 really, really stupid things Bachmann said in public. If you think she is a serious candidate for prez, then I fear for you. I also fear for the country.

[joebuck20]

The government of Iraq isn't exactly stable, and there were still plenty of terrorists when Bush left office (you might have heard about Obama nabbing one of them recently?). Of course, it's hardly surprising that Bush didn't manage to get the terrorists, given that most of them were in places other than Iraq that Bush was pretty much ignoring.

Not to mention plenty of terrorists still running around.

[Knorf]

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/151439/psycho_talk%3A_the_32_craziest_things_gop_presidential_contender_michele_bachmann_has_said/
Here are 32 really, really stupid things Bachmann said in public. If you think she is a serious candidate for prez, then I fear for you. I also fear for the country.

Oh, she's serious all right. Not because she isn't a wacko: she is. 100% Grade A Certified Wack-O.

She'll be a serious candidate because of her handlers, because she's savvy enough to tone down the crazy when she needs to, and because a strong percentage of the country gets their news entirely from Fox "News" and don't think she's crazy. At least, not entirely. "But at least she ain't a fuckin' n------ socialist Muslim atheist!"

I think Obama (whom I still support) will clobber her, should she get nominated. But it won't be a sure thing.

[Recovering Republican]

I actually looked at the supposed "crazy" things she said.

Ummm. not really.

Let's take this one. Gasp. She doesn't believe in Darwinism.

Where do we say that a cell became a blade of grass, which became a starfish, which became a cat, which became a donkey, which became a human being? There’s a real lack of evidence from change from actual species to a different type of species. That's where it's difficult to prove."

Guess what, fellas, most Americans don't believe in Darwinism. About half of them believe in the bible version, talking snakes and all. A fairly large percentage believe that life changed, but God guided the process.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publib.htm

another example of her "nutty" beliefs, that Obama might use the Census Bureau information to round people up, because FDR did that during WWII. Okay, well, I was a census worker in 2010. I had a few people who firmly believed that they shouldn't give information for that reason.

You see, this is the thing. There are two ways you can approach the GOP nomination.

1) Hope the most far right radical character gets in, because that person will be easy for "the One" to beat.

2) Hope that the GOP (the vast majority of whose voters are actually pretty moderate, judging by the fact Dole beat Buchanan, McCain beat Huckabee, etc.) nominates someone reasonable so that in case Obama continues to flounder, you can have someone you can live with.

Because the Republicans will almost without a doubt retain the house, and in the senate, the Democrats are defending 23 seats against the Republicans 10. Gaining the Senate might be a strong possibility.

Put a wingnut in the whitehouse with the strong support of the party base, and America might look like the Republic of Gilead... (Let's see if anyone gets the literary reference.)

[BobLibDem]

So because there are other crazy people out there, she must not be THAT crazy? Evolution is real science. Global warming is real science. If you don't accept either, you're either willfully ignorant or just plain stupid.

Not only will Obama mop the floor with Bachmann, the Democrats retake the House and increase their majority in the Senate, thanks to the Ryan kill Medicare plan which virtually every Republican signed off on. Nancy Pelosi might as well have the Speaker's gavel surgically attached to her hand.

[Recovering Republican]

So because there are other crazy people out there, she must not be THAT crazy? Evolution is real science. Global warming is real science. If you don't accept either, you're either willfully ignorant or just plain stupid.

Not only will Obama mop the floor with Bachmann, the Democrats retake the House and increase their majority in the Senate, thanks to the Ryan kill Medicare plan which virtually every Republican signed off on. Nancy Pelosi might as well have the Speaker's gavel surgically attached to her hand.

I personally accept evolution as true. Most Americans don't. The real problem as I see it is that Christianity and Darwinism are mutually exclusive. You either believe God has a plan for humanity, or we are just a bunch of random apes that figured out how to make computers.

Human nature is such that the former view will always be more popular, no matter how much "science" you present for the latter.

(I'm on the fence about global warming. Are you guys still calling it that, or did you switch to climate change to explain away those severe winters.)

You're living in a fantasy world, guy.

First, let's look at the House- The Dems have to retake 25 seats to win. But you have redistricting, and most of the state legislatures and governorships are in Republican hands now. So, yeah, the IL legistlature can use the census to eliminate a Republican seat, but the Texas Legislature will create two new ones.

For the Senate, the Democrats are defending six vacancies and 23 seats.

And for Obama-

9.1% unemployment
$4.00/gallon gasoline
1.4 Trillion dollar budget deficit
Three unpopular wars
A massively unpopular health care bill

It's like the Chinese Water Torture... drip, drip, drip.

[Gyrate]

RR seems to be conflating two different arguments. Is Bachmann crazy? Oh yes indeed. Do enough Americans believe the same sort of irrational crap to constitute a real voter base for her campaign? Sadly, very likely. So she's nuts but Obama can't assume that most people will recognize this without being shown this in very simple terms.

This is where the Democrats often fail against this sort of candidate - they assume voters are all sensible people when surprisingly few are. Taking Bachmann for granted is a dangerous strategy.

ETA: And could we stop calling it "Darwinism"? Evolutionary science moved beyond Darwin a long time ago, in the same way that psychiatry is a long way past Freud and physics a long way past Newton. It's not a cult of Darwin.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

So rather than support the candidate whom he knows to be making sense, RR supports (push come to shove) the candidate he knows to be spouting absolute nonsense because many Americans are as foolish and empty-headed as that candidate?

Face it, RR, your position is blindly ideological and hateful--Dems bad, Obama bad, no matter what they say or do, and the Republicans can do no wrong. Going forward, that is. This is the new Republican strategy--they know that Bush did an awful job, but they also know that there's no gain to be had in defending the awful Bush did, so they now claim to oppose HIM and some of HIS policies so they appear reasonable to Independent voters or Conservative Dems (but start discussing specific Bush policies and their loyalty begins to show). In reality, it's all a pose. There is no chance that this "recovering" republican will ever support a Democratic politician or policy. They just think there may be some electoral gain in throwing Bush under the bus now that he is ineligble to run for another term. Repeal the 22nd Amendment, and these guys will all be for Bush and his disastrous policies all over again.

[Recovering Republican]

Gyrate- I use the term Darwinism as a philosophy. It is incompatable with Christianity.

Christianity- God made you in his own image, he sent his own son down to die for your sins, if you believe in him, when you die, you will go to a paradise where you will be reunited with all your lost loved ones and childhood dogs. (okay, I made that last part about the dogs up.)

Darwinism- You evolved from an ape, there's nothing all that special about you, and when you die, you cease to be.

Now, you might call it crazy, but most people would find the FORMER belief to be greatly more desirable, no matter how many old bones you dig up proving the latter belief.

And, heck, Even Obama has to pretend he believes in Jesus. (He probably doesn't.)

You see, if this becomes an argument over religion, Bachmann's views (sincerely held) are probably more mainstream than whatever Obama believes. And let's be honest, if Reverand Wright comes up as a topic, it's not like he can throw granny under the bus again.

[Gyrate]

And, heck, Even Obama has to pretend he believes in Jesus. (He probably doesn't.)What exactly are you basing this on? He doesn't go on and on about it but he's said he believes in Jesus and he went to church for a couple of decades. I see no reason to assume he's lying about this.

[BobLibDem]

Many churches have come to grips with and accept evolution. Many faithful Christians accept evolution. I think we've gotten past this one long ago, those who refuse to accept it aren't likely Democratic voters anyway.

[Recovering Republican]

So rather than support the candidate whom he knows to be making sense, RR supports (push come to shove) the candidate he knows to be spouting absolute nonsense because many Americans are as foolish and empty-headed as that candidate?

Face it, RR, your position is blindly ideological and hateful--Dems bad, Obama bad, no matter what they say or do, and the Republicans can do no wrong. Going forward, that is. This is the new Republican strategy--they know that Bush did an awful job, but they also know that there's no gain to be had in defending the awful Bush did, so they now claim to oppose HIM and some of HIS policies so they appear reasonable to Independent voters or Conservative Dems (but start discussing specific Bush policies and their loyalty begins to show). In reality, it's all a pose. There is no chance that this "recovering" republican will ever support a Democratic politician or policy. They just think there may be some electoral gain in throwing Bush under the bus now that he is ineligble to run for another term. Repeal the 22nd Amendment, and these guys will all be for Bush and his disastrous policies all over again.

My position is both parties are pretty worthless. I don't vote for parties anymore, I vote for the candidate I consider the most competetant whose ideas I agree with the most.

Last election, I voted for the Democrat for Governor (Pat Quinn) and Attorney General (Lisa Madigan). I voted against the Secretary of State (Democrat Jesse White) because his office is a pain to deal with. I voted for Mark Kirk for Senate because Ginoulius (sp) is a crook. I voted for Pete Roskam because he's a good guy.

For state Treasurer, I couldn't bring myself to vote for Judy Baar Topinka, so I wrote in "Jack Ryan". (I write in Jack Ryan whenever I find both candidates unacceptable. I started this in the 2004 Senate Race when Topinka sandbagged Ryan over BS and brought in Ambassador Crazy T. Batshit to be our nominee.)

Now your position is that because Obama is smart, I should blindly support him over Bachmann.

Well, you know what, Jimmy Carter was a nuclear physicist. So by any definintion, he was "smart". He was also the WORST president of my lifetime. (Again, it's a title Obama is working very hard to wrest from him.)

At the end of the day, it comes down to the Ronald Reagan question. Are you better off than you were four years ago?

Right now, I'd have to say, "No." I was doing VASTLY better in 2007 than I am doign in 2011.

If Obama can change that answer to a Yes in the next 16 months, I might vote for him.

But if he's going to run on the "but, but, but Bush" platform, well, good luck with that.

[Recovering Republican]

What exactly are you basing this on? He doesn't go on and on about it but he's said he believes in Jesus and he went to church for a couple of decades. I see no reason to assume he's lying about this.

Do you really want to talk about the Church he went to for a couple of decades?

Do you REALLY want to go there? I don't think you want to go there.

He joined that church because the churches in the Chicago black community hold a lot of political power, not because he got a little Jesus into his soul. I think he even admitted this in his autobiography.

[Recovering Republican]

Many churches have come to grips with and accept evolution. Many faithful Christians accept evolution. I think we've gotten past this one long ago, those who refuse to accept it aren't likely Democratic voters anyway.

I would go back and look at those polls I cited.

The ones that say 50% believe the bible version and about a quarter believe the "Guided evolution" theory.

Trust me, Democrats avoid this one like the plague. They let the ACLU and the courts handle it, because no one wants to run on the "You evolved from an ape!" platform.

[Marley23]

Do you really want to talk about the Church he went to for a couple of decades?

Do you REALLY want to go there? I don't think you want to go there.
We spent several months talking about that in 2008 and at the end, Obama was elected president. I don't think it's going to be an issue in 2012.

He joined that church because the churches in the Chicago black community hold a lot of political power, not because he got a little Jesus into his soul. I think he even admitted this in his autobiography.
He wrote that he joined the church to get better connected to the community and experienced a religious conversion later on.

[Peremensoe]

Of course, plenty of people find no inherent conflict between Christianity and evolution, and happily subscribe to both. And I doubt that Charles Darwin ever said anything to the effect of "there's nothing all that special about you, and when you die, you cease to be."

The poll that Recovering Republican is looking at when he says "about half of them believe in the bible version, talking snakes and all," appears to be of self-selected respondents to a question asked by Fox News, in 1999. (There is no methodology or basal data given.) Here (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx) is a more recent survey by a more reputable organization, in which 39% of respondents affirmed that they "believe in evolution," 25% said they do not, and 36% had "no opinion either way." And Gallup provides breakdowns by education, church attendance, and age. While sober and scientifically-minded readers here may still find the results somewhat dismaying, it's certainly not as bad as RR suggests; the strong showing for "believe in evolution" among the youngest age set could be taken as a good sign for the future.

[BobLibDem]

I would go back and look at those polls I cited.

The ones that say 50% believe the bible version and about a quarter believe the "Guided evolution" theory.

Trust me, Democrats avoid this one like the plague. They let the ACLU and the courts handle it, because no one wants to run on the "You evolved from an ape!" platform.

Nobody says you evolved from an ape. Humans and apes have a common ancestor.

Seriously, you seem to have an issue with Obama which causes you to put lenses and filters in front of everything so that it looks bad for Obama. Still, more people approve than disapprove of Obama. More people blame Bush than Obama for the economic downturn. More people blame the Republicans than Obama for the budget impasse. You might do well to be a bit more objective in your analysis rather than bending every fact to meet your "Obama is a poopyhead" mantra.

[RTFirefly]

Nope, that only proves we give the vote to people who shouldn't have it... I'm glad we have someone here who can tell us who should be allowed to vote, and who shouldn't be.

Unlike you, I believe that everyone I disagree with has a fundamental right to vote, that I wouldn't dream of interfering with. All of Pat Robertson's and Glenn Beck's and Rush Limbaugh's followers, all of the poor misguided souls who take their cues on how to vote from a pastor who knows less about politics than a paramecium - I may not like the way they vote one little bit, but if someone tried to take the vote away from them, I'd be among the first to jump into the fray to defend their right to vote.

I'm a small-d democrat, more than anything else. If there's anything I'm unalterably against, it's the notion of elites pulling the strings of our democracy, whether those elites are billionaires with unlimited money to influence people's views, or op-ed columnists on the pages of the New York Times or the Washington Post.

Not to worry, voting Obama won't be something the "cool kids" will be doing in 2012. Who gives a flying fuck?

Yes, how dare he support his president in a time of war....

Funny, didn't that used to be expected of loyal Americans? No, actually. Never in the history of this country has such a thing been expected - to support your President on everything in a time of war, whether it had to do with the war or not.

In fact, we have a Constitutional right to express our opposition to a war while it's going on. When Clinton had our military intervene in the Balkans, many Republicans in Congress and elsewhere availed themselves of this right, and by God, it is a right. (And needless to say, they were opposing Clinton on practically everything else at the same time. That, too, was their right. It's the way things work in a healthy democracy.)

A president hasn't died in office in nearly 50 years. That dog won't hunt.Maybe not, but McCain would have been two and a half years older on January 20, 2009 than Ronald Reagan had been on January 20, 1981. And we know that Reagan was already going senile while in office. So it's not like it couldn't have happened to Sen. Get-Off-My-Lawn, too.

Not to mention, while it's true that no President has died in office since 1963, the set of Presidents who have been 72 or older on taking office is...empty. No conclusions can be based on the properties of an empty set - that's basic mathematics.

[42fish]

I'm glad we have someone here who can tell us who should be allowed to vote, and who shouldn't be.

Hey, as long as the decision isn't being made by those hoity-toity elitists like Obama...

[Knorf]

He joined that church because the churches in the Chicago black community hold a lot of political power, not because he got a little Jesus into his soul. I think he even admitted this in his autobiography.
Ah, nice assumption from someone who clearly didn't read Obama's book. Recall that he wrote the book long before he made any attempt to seek political office. He starts going to church because it was the best place to find people who might want to put real effort (and resources) into improving the community. The goal was community, not political office at that time in his life. However, that he finds real faith is quite clear. Indeed, it's clear from his book that Obama is by any definition a born-again Christian. At the altar, confessing his sins, accepting Jesus kind of born-again. You can doubt the veracity of the book, but that is what he describes.

Using the term "Darwinism" is just fucking stupid. If you cared about credibility, you would not use it. Also, you fuck up even the most basic understanding of evolution when you say "man evolved from apes." Um, no. Humans and apes share a common ancestor. "Man evolved from apes" has always been a straw-man. You appear to know a lot about using those, though.

[Chefguy]

Nobody says you evolved from an ape. Humans and apes have a common ancestor.

Seriously, you seem to have an issue with Obama which causes you to put lenses and filters in front of everything so that it looks bad for Obama. Still, more people approve than disapprove of Obama. More people blame Bush than Obama for the economic downturn. More people blame the Republicans than Obama for the budget impasse. You might do well to be a bit more objective in your analysis rather than bending every fact to meet your "Obama is a poopyhead" mantra.

To be fair, he's "recovering", not "recovered". It takes time to purge the ignorance.

[Marley23]

Ah, nice assumption from someone who clearly didn't read Obama's book. Recall that he wrote the book long before he made any attempt to seek political office.
It was reported that Obama planned to run for the Illinois State Senate a couple of weeks before the book was published. The book was published in July 1995, he declared his candidacy in September, and was elected in November. It's true he wasn't in elected office while he wrote the book, but he was considering a career in politics.

[tnetennba]

Books are typically published 18 mos. - 2 years after they are written.

[Marley23]

And it's a stretch to say that's long before he made any attempt to seek political office. He didn't just wake up one day and realize he was friends with a state senator who was about to give up her job to run for Congress. This is kind of a tangent and it doesn't affect Recovering Republican's error about why Obama joined the church, but it's not like Obama was not thinking about a career in politics when he wrote the book.

[Chronos]

I personally accept evolution as true. Most Americans don't. The real problem as I see it is that Christianity and Darwinism are mutually exclusive.This view is neither good religion nor good science. Science makes no statement at all about souls or what happens to them after bodily death, and an entity as great as the God that Christians purport to believe in should have no difficulty whatsoever in using evolution as a method for creation of living things.

Oh, and as a nitpick, the statement "humans descended from apes" is true. My mother is an ape, and my father is an ape, and I'm descended from both of them. Yes, humans and the other currently-living species of apes had a common ancestor, but that common ancestor was by any reasonable standard itself an ape (just not one of the currently-living species).

[yojimbo]

The real problem as I see it is that Christianity and Darwinism are mutually exclusive.

Roman Catholics aren't christians now? Evolution is taught by catholic schools in science classes. Religion is taught in religion classes. Well at least in this little catholic island I live on which doesn't have seperation of state and church and so religion can be taught in schools.

[Chronos]

Religion can be taught in schools here, too, just not in public schools. But there are plenty of Catholic private schools (as well as some affiliated with other denominations) that teach both religion and science.

[yojimbo]

Ah sorry about the confusion then.

[gonzomax]

My position is both parties are pretty worthless. I don't vote for parties anymore, I vote for the candidate I consider the most competetant whose ideas I agree with the most.

Last election, I voted for the Democrat for Governor (Pat Quinn) and Attorney General (Lisa Madigan). I voted against the Secretary of State (Democrat Jesse White) because his office is a pain to deal with. I voted for Mark Kirk for Senate because Ginoulius (sp) is a crook. I voted for Pete Roskam because he's a good guy.

For state Treasurer, I couldn't bring myself to vote for Judy Baar Topinka, so I wrote in "Jack Ryan". (I write in Jack Ryan whenever I find both candidates unacceptable. I started this in the 2004 Senate Race when Topinka sandbagged Ryan over BS and brought in Ambassador Crazy T. Batshit to be our nominee.)

Now your position is that because Obama is smart, I should blindly support him over Bachmann.

Well, you know what, Jimmy Carter was a nuclear physicist. So by any definintion, he was "smart". He was also the WORST president of my lifetime. (Again, it's a title Obama is working very hard to wrest from him.)

At the end of the day, it comes down to the Ronald Reagan question. Are you better off than you were four years ago?

Right now, I'd have to say, "No." I was doing VASTLY better in 2007 than I am doign in 2011.

If Obama can change that answer to a Yes in the next 16 months, I might vote for him.

But if he's going to run on the "but, but, but Bush" platform, well, good luck with that.

So you were in a coma during Bush? He took a vibrant economy and trashed it. He started 2 wars without funding and drastically cut taxes for the rich causing a huge debt.
But Carter was worse? You should remove RECOVERING from your post name.

[Knorf]

And it's a stretch to say that's long before he made any attempt to seek political office. He didn't just wake up one day and realize he was friends with a state senator who was about to give up her job to run for Congress. This is kind of a tangent and it doesn't affect Recovering Republican's error about why Obama joined the church, but it's not like Obama was not thinking about a career in politics when he wrote the book.
It's not a stretch. He starting writing the book at least a couple years or more before he ran for office. Whether Obama was contemplating a career in office when he wrote Dreams from my Father is therefore pure speculation, and pretty damn unlikely in my opinion, given that he admits things like drug use. Nothing in the book makes it apparent he was contemplating a career as a politician, even if it's true that he was; the book doesn't read like it's about someone on the edge of seeking office.

[Recovering Republican]

Nobody says you evolved from an ape. Humans and apes have a common ancestor.

Distinction without a difference.

Seriously, you seem to have an issue with Obama which causes you to put lenses and filters in front of everything so that it looks bad for Obama. Still, more people approve than disapprove of Obama. More people blame Bush than Obama for the economic downturn. More people blame the Republicans than Obama for the budget impasse. You might do well to be a bit more objective in your analysis rather than bending every fact to meet your "Obama is a poopyhead" mantra.

my issue with Obama is that he's flipping incompetant.. even when he does things I agree with, like the GM bailout or reforming health care, he still manages to do them in a way that is truly screwed up.

Sorry, there isn't a lens or a filter you can put on 9.1% unemployment looks good, and no president gets re-elected with a 44% approval rating. Now way $4.00/gallon gas is acceptable unless you are someone who thinks the government should tell us what kind of cars we should drive.

As for polls-

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

Of the polls listed, more people disapprove in four of the 10, and he's tied in one.

[Recovering Republican]

Roman Catholics aren't christians now? Evolution is taught by catholic schools in science classes. Religion is taught in religion classes. Well at least in this little catholic island I live on which doesn't have seperation of state and church and so religion can be taught in schools.

I was brought up Catholic, too. And frankly, the church's ham-handed attempts to reconcile the two ideas was obvious to me in fifth grade. (one of the nuns speculated Adam and Eve might have been "apes". )

I go back to the point. Christianity is based on the fact God made a man out of clay and a woman out of his rib. They disobeyed him by listening to a talking snake and eating from a magic tree, and that is why God had to come down (by becoming his own father) and redeem "original sin" (which frankly, doesn't seem all that bad to me) by dying on the cross (what a drama queen).

Darwinism- Meh, you evolved from an ape. Deal with it. Your going to die, and you're done.

[Recovering Republican]

So you were in a coma during Bush? He took a vibrant economy and trashed it. He started 2 wars without funding and drastically cut taxes for the rich causing a huge debt.
But Carter was worse? You should remove RECOVERING from your post name.


Again, being a recovering republican doesn't mean drinking the Democratic Koolaid.

It's like saying I've given up booze, but I'm snorting coke now..., like that's an improvement.

No, Carter really, really was worse. For starters, you'd have never had stuf like the hostage crisis go on during Bush's watch.

Incidently, I wonder what Bush exactly did to "trash" the economy. The Stock Market crashed when the Dot.com bubble burst, right after Janet Reno "won" the Microsoft lawsuit. The economy was already slowing down when he got in. He did some stuff, got us out of that recession, but he had a second one 7 years later. (You do realize there was a whole presidency in between there, right?)

Also, I know, call me kookie, but I thought the war started when some guys flew some planes into buildings. You can debate his conduct of the war, and he made a lot of bad judgements (with Democrats cheering him on the whole way).

Now I agree, tax cuts for the rich IS a terrible idea.

[tnetennba]

No, Carter really, really was worse. For starters, you'd have never had stuf like the hostage crisis go on during Bush's watch.


So where were you the morning of September 11, 2001?

[tnetennba]

I thought the war started when some guys flew some planes into buildings.

Oh, you were there. Good. I'm glad we're agreed that shit went down "on Bush's watch."

And that had nothing to do with the war in Iraq except it gave Bush an excuse (an incoherent one) to start it.

[gonzomax]

Again, being a recovering republican doesn't mean drinking the Democratic Koolaid.

It's like saying I've given up booze, but I'm snorting coke now..., like that's an improvement.

No, Carter really, really was worse. For starters, you'd have never had stuf like the hostage crisis go on during Bush's watch.

Incidently, I wonder what Bush exactly did to "trash" the economy. The Stock Market crashed when the Dot.com bubble burst, right after Janet Reno "won" the Microsoft lawsuit. The economy was already slowing down when he got in. He did some stuff, got us out of that recession, but he had a second one 7 years later. (You do realize there was a whole presidency in between there, right?)

Also, I know, call me kookie, but I thought the war started when some guys flew some planes into buildings. You can debate his conduct of the war, and he made a lot of bad judgements (with Democrats cheering him on the whole way).

Now I agree, tax cuts for the rich IS a terrible idea.

The Repubs made backdoor deals to keep the hostages in place until after the election. That was a horrible disgrace. They gave up arms and help to the people who held the hostages.
You really should read a little.

[BobLibDem]

Also, I know, call me kookie, but I thought the war started when some guys flew some planes into buildings.

You aren't honestly using 9/11 as justification for Iraqalypse Now, are you?

[SenorBeef]

They're all brown aren't they?!

Remember, this guy is a moderate.

[Chronos]

I go back to the point. Christianity is based on the fact God made a man out of clay and a woman out of his rib. They disobeyed him by listening to a talking snake and eating from a magic treeYou do realize that almost everybody in the world in all the millenia since that was written, aside from some Americans in the past century or so, recognizes that as all being metaphorical?

[Knorf]

You do realize that almost everybody in the world in all the millenia since that was written, aside from some Americans in the past century or so, recognizes that as all being metaphorical?

A lot of Christians in America believe that story is literally true, I'm afraid.

[Recovering Republican]

So where were you the morning of September 11, 2001?


You mean the 9/11 that happened because the Sudan offered to turn over bin laden three times and Clinton refused... that 9/11.

More to the point, we retaliated against the people who did that.

Jimmy Carter- gasp- froze their assets. And talked to them. And talked to them. And talked to them some more.

[Recovering Republican]

The Repubs made backdoor deals to keep the hostages in place until after the election. That was a horrible disgrace. They gave up arms and help to the people who held the hostages.
You really should read a little.

Okay, guy.

You do realize the accusation that there was this supposed "October Surprise" deal (made by former Carter adminstration official Gary Sick) was investigated by an independent counsel, even though there was absolutely no evidence other than a whacky conspiracy theory.

The investigation found that at the time that George H. Bush was secretly having a meeting with Iranian officials in Paris. (Sick's book had the CIA flying him over there on an SR-71) the Secret Service had him in Kennebunkport.

So that was a novelty. A Special Counsel who got to the point, realize it was BS, and moved on.

More to the point, Jimmy Carter was the guy who let the Iranians commit an act of war and essentially let them get away with it. Gutless.

As for later giving Iran arms - six years later- yup, we sold them obsolete weapons for four times their price in exchange for their help with other idiots who were holding hostages in Lebanon. Incidently, the whole "hostage taking" fad wouldn't have happened had Carter acted decisively in Iran.

No need to "read a book" guy, I was around when all that stuff went down.

[Recovering Republican]

You aren't honestly using 9/11 as justification for Iraqalypse Now, are you?

Do you REALLY want me to drag out the list of quotes from all the Democrats, including your hero, John "catch my medals" Kerry, who thought invading Iraq was a dandy idea at the time?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

You know, if you change your user name to "Bush Apologist" you'll encounter less overt hostility here and have more interesting, engaged discussions with Dems. The Mods can help you out easily, but maybe having interesting, engaged discussions isn't what you're all about. Just trying to help.

[BobLibDem]

Do you REALLY want me to drag out the list of quotes from all the Democrats, including your hero, John "catch my medals" Kerry, who thought invading Iraq was a dandy idea at the time?

Based on intelligence that was willfully misrepresented to them. Still, for anyone to claim that the Iraq War was justified because of 9/11 is ignorance of the first degree.

[Recovering Republican]

You do realize that almost everybody in the world in all the millenia since that was written, aside from some Americans in the past century or so, recognizes that as all being metaphorical?

I don't know who "everybody in the world" is...

Since only 2 billion of the world's 7 billion people are Christians, I don't think "everybody" really has an opinion.

So let's get this down to the brass tacks, what do Americans believe, and why doesn't Obama get out there with his "I love Darwin" T-shirt.

CBS news-

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

55% believe God created humans in their present form. (Including 47% of Kerry voters)
27% believe God guided the process of evolution.
13% believe God was not involved at all.


Now, trust me, I am as horrified at this as most of you are. But the argument that Bachmann doubts evolution is some whacky, far out view doesn't resonate with the fact that most Americans think the same thing.

Yes, part of the reasons are the Churches, part of the reason is the Public Schools you guys love so much, (you know, the ones where 20% of the graduates can't read their diplomas, and don't I dare criticize them) do such an awful job teaching science. But part of the reason is just human nature. Most people WANT there to be a God who cares about them. To say that man only exists because of a random process called "natural selection" is pretty much saying that there isn't.

[Recovering Republican]

They're all brown aren't they?!

Remember, this guy is a moderate.


So you think that only conservatives thought Saddam was a bad guy?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." S
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[Recovering Republican]

You know, if you change your user name to "Bush Apologist" you'll encounter less overt hostility here and have more interesting, engaged discussions with Dems. The Mods can help you out easily, but maybe having interesting, engaged discussions isn't what you're all about. Just trying to help.


Bush left three years ago, not too sure why you still want to talk about him...

And frankly, I suspect that I get hostility here for the same reason I got hostility from the far right on other boards. You guys have your mindsets, and you won't let facts get in the way.

Here's my point on Iraq (not sure how we got to Iraq, but there you are). Democrats were all for the war when it started. Some of them were for taking out Saddam before Bush even came along. Some of them probably weren't too keen on the idea, but realize they needed to go along so they'd look hawkish, and the war would be over in about a month and then they could go back to ripping Bush on the economy.

Then they realized that their base really, really hates wars, especially ones started by Bush.

Now, my own opinion is that the Iraq War was unnecessary and poorly executed, but I'm not going to get weepy about Saddam Hussein and frankly, I'm not sure why any of you guys are. The world is a better place without him in it.

[Recovering Republican]

Based on intelligence that was willfully misrepresented to them. Still, for anyone to claim that the Iraq War was justified because of 9/11 is ignorance of the first degree.


Couple points here, Bob.

First, you might be able to give Joe Sixpack a pass because, yeah, he was looking at what he was presented.

The folks in Congress got to see ALL the raw data, including the dissenting opinions on the conclusions drawn by the CIA (which I should point out- was run at that time by a Clinton appointee named George Tenet.) These people have top secret clearences and have access to information we don't.

My guess is, most of them probably really had doubts, but didn't want to be the guy who was being an apologist for Saddam, who was after all, a genocidal monster who engendered no sympathy from anyone.

I should also point out it was the concensus of not only our intelligence agencies, but most of the others, including MI-6 and the Mossad, that Saddam had these weapons. This was in large part because Saddam wanted the world and his own people to think he had these weapons on the theory they wouldn't mess with him if they thought he did.

So a pipehead goes into a store and starts waiving around a toy pistol, and a cop drills him through the forehead. Not going to blame the cop.

Now, where I do take issue with Bush is how he actually executed the conflict. He went in with too few troops, he disbanded the Iraqi Army, he deferred to ineffective commanders like Sanchez before replacing him with Petreus. I also think he should have raised taxes to pay for the war and started a draft to have enough manpower to actually fight it. Those moves would have been politically unpopular, though.

Final point. The person who first drew a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden was - Bill Clinton.

When Bill Clinton bombed Afghanistan and the Sudan in 1998, he specifically laid out his case for doing so. Keeping in mind this was before anyone had ever heard of Osama Bin Laden, Clinton alledged that Iraqi agents were assisting Bin Laden's people in producing chemical weapons. That's what bombing the pharmacuetical factory in the Sudan was all about.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Well, personally, I resent your labelling yourself a "recovering" Republican, when your positions make plain the fact that you despise Democrats, and would never consider voting for a Democrat on a national ticket. (You may have personal preferences in local elections that permit you to vote for a Democrat under certain circumstances, but I'm talking about national tickets here.) Your undisguised contempt for Obama, who's a pretty moderate Democratic candidate and a VERY moderate Democratic President, marks you as a staunch and very loyal Republican supporter, so your username just highlights your posing as a more centrist voter than you really are, in an attempt to engage people in discussion. You're really not interested in a discussion, though, just in ideologizing and persuading people that your right-wing, Tea Party views are the correct ones, which is a tiresome conversation for many people, certainly for me. My answer on that one is "Go, vote for whomever you like. It's hopeless to discuss politics with the likes of you. You're not interested in learning anything, and your contemptuous position on education confirms that." But I do find it disingenuous of you to position yourself as being open to a discussion, and I'd like to discourage people from wasting their energy, as I am here, in engaging with you. You claim to have approved of Clinton's handling of the economy, but I'm quite sure you actively opposed his election, his re-election, and his continuing in the Presidency during the impeachment fiasco (as you claim to have detested Bush, but you continue to defend his foreign and economic policies), telling me that you have retrospectively adopted these positions as protective covering, but if Bush could somehow run against Bill Clinton today, you'd find a way to rationalize voting for Bush. So what does that tell you? It tells me you're not worth engaging with.

[tnetennba]

If we can steer this thing back to Bachmann and allow Recovering Republican to post an "ask the Recovering Republican" thread somewhere else to give his official Republican talking points on the last fifty years there: I think this article is true, and it's something I've thought about Bachmann and Palin.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/06/28/bachmann_invincible

You can pretty much get away with anything when every gaffe is the media's fault, and since the demographic here is people who have no functioning epistemology beyond, "well I think ______," there's no way to combat fiction with fact or preposterous claims with eye rolls.

[Recovering Republican]

Well, personally, I resent your labelling yourself a "recovering" Republican, when your positions make plain the fact that you despise Democrats, and would never consider voting for a Democrat on a national ticket. (You may have personal preferences in local elections that permit you to vote for a Democrat under certain circumstances, but I'm talking about national tickets here.).

Actually, I despise everyone... and frankly, if it were a contest between Romney and Obama, I'd vote for Obama. because I really, really despise Mormons.

Your undisguised contempt for Obama, who's a pretty moderate Democratic candidate and a VERY moderate Democratic President, marks you as a staunch and very loyal Republican supporter,.

Actually, my contempt for Obama has little to do with whether he is a moderate or a liberal or a communist. It has to do with the fact he's INCOMPETANT. Frankly, if he were a total socialist but got everyone back to work, I wouldn't have an issue with him. It's that we are three years into this recession, and things haven't gotten back to where they were yet that has me perturbed.

so your username just highlights your posing as a more centrist voter than you really are, in an attempt to engage people in discussion..

I've been very critical of republicans on threads, including Bush. I just don't drink the BDS koolaid. I've also praised Obama on things I've thought he did right, like Killing Bin Laden or bailing out GM. I think the problem is you can't make the distinction between the teabagger who screams "Obama is a Muslim Communist who wants to destroy America, Glenn Beck said so!" and a guy like myself who says, "You know, the economy has actually gotten worse under this guy, and I don't think he knows what he is doing."


You're really not interested in a discussion, though, just in ideologizing and persuading people that your right-wing, Tea Party views are the correct ones, which is a tiresome conversation for many people, certainly for me. My answer on that one is "Go, vote for whomever you like. It's hopeless to discuss politics with the likes of you. You're not interested in learning anything, and your contemptuous position on education confirms that." But I do find it disingenuous of you to position yourself as being open to a discussion, and I'd like to discourage people from wasting their energy, as I am here, in engaging with you.

It strikes me that you are the one with the problem, not me. Frankly, I haven't advocated anything "Tea Party" and I don't agree with them on their economic views. I think we need to raise taxes and pay our way on programs, most of which we really can't afford to cut right now. I also think we need to get a handle on government spending.

Here's the thing. I have no use for the hard left, and I have no use for the hard right. I think it is awful that we have a system that these fringes pick the candidate, and we are left with these "lesser of two evil" choices every four years.

For education- well, guy, I guess here's my problem with that. Clinton sent Chelsea to a private school. The Obamas are doing the same. Richie Daley went to De La Salle just like his dad did. (And I did, too. Go Meteors!) Dan Lipinski went to the same catholic grammer school I did. (His sister was in my class.) So I guess I have a very hard time reconciling Democratic support for Public education with the fact they won't subject their own kids to it.

You claim to have approved of Clinton's handling of the economy, but I'm quite sure you actively opposed his election, his re-election, and his continuing in the Presidency during the impeachment fiasco (as you claim to have detested Bush, but you continue to defend his foreign and economic policies), telling me that you have retrospectively adopted these positions as protective covering, but if Bush could somehow run against Bill Clinton today, you'd find a way to rationalize voting for Bush. So what does that tell you? It tells me you're not worth engaging with.

Actually, I thought Clinton should have been removed for the same reason I think Nixon should have been removed. They broke the law and abused their offices.

I approve of the economy that Clinton had, how much he had to do with it is up for debate. Really, CLinton and Bush had kind of the same economic policy. Lax regulation, lots of free trade, etc. And actually, their foreign policies weren't all the different, either. So really, the choice between the two was more one of character than policy.

Since neither Bush nor Clinton can't run again, your hypothetical is meaningless. And, no I didn't vote for him in 1992 or 1996, but I didn't campaign for Bush Sr. or Dole either (like I did for Reagan in 1980 and 1984). I seriously considered Ross Perot in 1992.

[Recovering Republican]

If we can steer this thing back to Bachmann and allow Recovering Republican to post an "ask the Recovering Republican" thread somewhere else to give his official Republican talking points on the last fifty years there: I think this article is true, and it's something I've thought about Bachmann and Palin.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/06/28/bachmann_invincible

You can pretty much get away with anything when every gaffe is the media's fault, and since the demographic here is people who have no functioning epistemology beyond, "well I think ______," there's no way to combat fiction with fact or preposterous claims with eye rolls.

Okay, Guy, I read that article. It was kind of Juvenile.

The MSM claimed Gacy was born in Waterloo, Iowa when he was born in Chicago, and lived in Waterloo for a short time.

the real problem is the media, which is predominately liberal, doesn't connect with about half the country.

It goes back to the VERY LEGITIMATE POINT I made about how you guys mock her views on evolution, (which are wrong), but they are held by the vast majority of people.

[tnetennba]

Okay, Guy, I read that article..

I doubt you did, since you immediately "refute" a point the article itself clears up.

[tnetennba]

It goes back to the VERY LEGITIMATE POINT I made about how you guys mock her views on evolution, (which are wrong), but they are held by the vast majority of people.

Why is that legitimate? Or rather, what conclusion should we draw from the VERY LEGITIMATE POINT? That schools should teach common misconceptions as scientific facts? That it's "wrong" to criticize politicians who want to pander to the public by insisting that common mythologies be taught as science? What?

I doubt anyone here is for using opinion polls to write science curriculum, and I doubt any American scientists fails to grasp that they're an unpopular minority when it comes to holding fact-based world views.

[Recovering Republican]

I doubt you did, since you immediately "refute" a point the article itself clears up.


Yes, I read that. I also saw where Salon (there's an unbiased source) put a clown's nose on Bachmann...

They also equated being a fan of the Duke as being like a racist, which would have come to a surprise to this Mexican lady I used to hang with who loved John Wayne.

The point is, the Media came up with a meme that was wrong. Neither John Wayne nor John Wayne Gacy were born in Waterloo, Iowa, although both lived there at one time or another. But Bachmann's still the "clown" for saying it. Not the Media, which GOT IT WRONG, TOO!


Why is that legitimate? Or rather, what conclusion should we draw from the VERY LEGITIMATE POINT? That schools should teach common misconceptions as scientific facts? That it's "wrong" to criticize politicians who want to pander to the public by insisting that common mythologies be taught as science? What?

Schools teach misconceptions all the time. Kids are taught in the early grades Columbus was trying to prove the world was round, but by High School, they teach them that he was just trying to find a way to get to India.

Fact is, you might as well present all sides, because people are just going to make up their minds. I went to a Catholic School where they taught Adam and Eve in Religion and Evolution in Science, made ham-handed attempts to reconcile the two. End of the day, I made up my own mind, and so will most people.

I doubt anyone here is for using opinion polls to write science curriculum, and I doubt any American scientists fails to grasp that they're an unpopular minority when it comes to holding fact-based world views.

Nothing which has to do with my point.

Your point is that Bachmann's beliefs are "crazy" because she thinks certain things are true. Not because she's stupid, the woman's a lawyer. But her philosophy is such that she cannot accept that we are simply the result of a random process called "Natural Selection". Sorry, that really is what most Americans think, and not because they are ignorant. I've found arguing the point that most creationists and fundementalists are well aware of Darwinist theory, they just reject it.

THe fact is, you folks on the left are all for using Public Education for all sorts of political indoctrination, but somehow, we must uphold the highest scientific standards in discussing this one issue, and we cannot possibly let any other opinions in the door, ever.

[tnetennba]

Fact is, you might as well present all sides, because people are just going to make up their minds.

I have a higher expectation of our schools and higher hopes for our children.

Nothing which has to do with my point.

I see your point being that it's OK for somebody to base science policy on fiction if it's a popular fiction. I don't think we should lay off criticizing people who are uninformed just because they are telling popular lies.

Your point is that Bachmann's beliefs are "crazy" because she thinks certain things are true. Not because she's stupid, the woman's a lawyer. But her philosophy is such that she cannot accept that we are simply the result of a random process called "Natural Selection". Sorry, that really is what most Americans think, and not because they are ignorant. I've found arguing the point that most creationists and fundementalists are well aware of Darwinist theory, they just reject it.

I don't know how many times I should state that opinion polls don't determine what's true and what should be taught in schools or used to inform public policy. Hence Michele Bachmann isn't off the hook for pandering to the ignorant. In fact, that's what she's being criticized for.

THe fact is, you folks on the left are all for using Public Education for all sorts of political indoctrination, but somehow, we must uphold the highest scientific standards in discussing this one issue, and we cannot possibly let any other opinions in the door, ever.

Indoctrination is right-wing rhetoric for "anything that isn't our indoctrination."

[Recovering Republican]

I have a higher expectation of our schools and higher hopes for our children.

Then why do you support a public education system where 20% of them can't read their diplomas? Frankly, I'd be less worried about whether or not they got the full Darwinist indoctrination and more concerned that they lack basic skills like reading, writing, math, simple history and civics..

I see your point being that it's OK for somebody to base science policy on fiction if it's a popular fiction. I don't think we should lay off criticizing people who are uninformed just because they are telling popular lies.

I think attacking people's deeply held moral beliefs is not a way to win them over.(again, for those playing along at home, I'm an agnostic and think talking snakes are kind of silly.)

My biggest criticism of the Republican Party is that they play the religious feelings of a lot of working folks and get them to vote against their own economic interests. But you guys play into their hands by trying to shove anti-religious messages down their throats.


I don't know how many times I should state that opinion polls don't determine what's true and what should be taught in schools or used to inform public policy. Hence Michele Bachmann isn't off the hook for pandering to the ignorant. In fact, that's what she's being criticized for.

You can state it all day, but since you are insisting that people PAY for those schools, then they have a say in what is taught there.

Indoctrination is right-wing rhetoric for "anything that isn't our indoctrination."

Simple enough solution. Set all the schools up as private corporations to be run by the parents who pay for them. You send your kids to your schools, we'll send them to ours. Seems a fair enough solution.

[C3]

Then why do you support a public education system where 20% of them can't read their diplomas?

Again, cite?

[Knorf]

I've found arguing the point that most creationists and fundementalists are well aware of Darwinist theory, they just reject it.
No way. What they think they know is nothing more than a crass caricature of what evolutionary biology actually is. They reject it without understanding any of the actual science behind it; that's why so many of the arguments on the creationist side are so very, very lame. I know this from first-hand experience: I grew up in a church that showed anti-evolution movies all the time. All of them made false depictions of what evolution is and what the science is.

THe fact is, you folks on the left are all for using Public Education for all sorts of political indoctrination, but somehow, we must uphold the highest scientific standards in discussing this one issue, and we cannot possibly let any other opinions in the door, ever.
Bullshit. No one in the mainstream wants Public Education to be used to indoctrinate anyone. The people who have most politicized education are ALL on the right.

But the argument that Bachmann doubts evolution is some whacky, far out view doesn't resonate with the fact that most Americans think the same thing.
A lot of people holding a wacko opinion does NOT validate it or make it less wacko.

(you know, the ones where 20% of the graduates can't read their diplomas, and don't I dare criticize them)
More utter shit. You have no cite for such this nonsense you've been spouting.

Most people WANT there to be a God who cares about them. To say that man only exists because of a random process called "natural selection" is pretty much saying that there isn't.
People cling to superstition and fantasy. That doesn't make it valid.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Also, the longer you refrain from satsifying a frequent (and polite) request for a cite for your claim that 20% of public HS grads cannot read their own diploma, the harder it is for you to be taken seriously.

[tnetennba]

I think attacking people's deeply held moral beliefs is not a way to win them over.

How is Creationism a "moral" belief? That's the problem right there. Not just the idea that it's amoral to believe something else, but the idea that scientific facts are based on "deeply held beliefs" as opposed to evidence.

(again, for those playing along at home, I'm an agnostic and think talking snakes are kind of silly.)

So you're trolling?



My biggest criticism of the Republican Party is that they play the religious feelings of a lot of working folks and get them to vote against their own economic interests. But you guys play into their hands by trying to shove anti-religious messages down their throats.

Non-religious isn't "anti-religious." Your rhetoric betrays your statement above that you don't believe as they do. If you didn't, you do have all of the pat fallacies: that scientific method is amoral, that it's "anti-Christian" to deny Christians the right to teach mythology as science. I'm just waiting for you to say science itself is a "kind of religion," and suggest that it's faith-based.


You can state it all day, but since you are insisting that people PAY for those schools, then they have a say in what is taught there.

So you vote for school board members (sometimes to the detriment of public education, of course, when you would rather indoctrinate kids than teach them, as the right is so bent on doing. See Texas.)

Simple enough solution. Set all the schools up as private corporations to be run by the parents who pay for them. You send your kids to your schools, we'll send them to ours. Seems a fair enough solution.


It wouldn't work economically for a vast majority of people. If you want to abolish public education, you have very different values than me and there's not much ground for discussion. I would say that no public school is better than the complete horseshit factory you envision where any asshole with an opinion spouts off their theories of the world and kids are given no epistemological compass to navigate the sea of horseshit.

[Recovering Republican]

Maybe what I need is a statistic for liberals too lazy to use Google..

http://education-portal.com/articles/Grim_Illiteracy_Statistics_Indicate_Americans_Have_a_Reading_Problem.html

I generally don't do this, because left or right, they do one of two things when I post something backing up my claims.

1) pretend they didn't read the proof and change the subject.

2) Pretend the source is biased or can't be trusted.

But here's what the report said...

Illiteracy Statistics
42 million American adults can't read at all; 50 million are unable to read at a higher level that is expected of a fourth or fifth grader.
The number of adults that are classified as functionally illiterate increases by about 2.25 million each year.
20 percent of high school seniors can be classified as being functionally illiterate at the time they graduate.

According to some, the root of this problem lies with our public education system. National Assessment of Educational Progress testing indicates that the percentage of American children who are able to read well hasn't improved at all in the last 25 years.

Many people argue that the reason behind this failure to improve is a lack of public education funding. But this doesn't seem right, as public education spending has doubled in the last 15 years.

This only leaves one other argument: there is something fundamentally wrong with the instruction that American children receive.

[Knorf]

Maybe what I need is a statistic for liberals too lazy to use Google..
If you make an assertion, it's YOUR responsibility to back it with a cite if challenged.

[Recovering Republican]

No way. What they think they know is nothing more than a crass caricature of what evolutionary biology actually is. They reject it without understanding any of the actual science behind it; that's why so many of the arguments on the creationist side are so very, very lame. I know this from first-hand experience: I grew up in a church that showed anti-evolution movies all the time. All of them made false depictions of what evolution is and what the science is..

I've argued with the other side, and frankly, some of them make pretty strong (if incorrect) arguments.

I also have to truly wonder why there is such an insistance on the left that THIS science has to be fully indoctrinated into the system. Frankly, most Americans, even the 80% who can read their diplomas, don't understand a lot of science or get through the science test by cribbing the multiple choice answer from the person next to them. And no one thinks twice. But, man, let a kid express an opinion that God had something to do with evolution, and you guys go ape-shit... if you'll pardon the pun.

Bullshit. No one in the mainstream wants Public Education to be used to indoctrinate anyone. The people who have most politicized education are ALL on the right...

Really? So when the schools insist on handing out birth control to kids and giving them instructions how to find the Planned Parenthood clinic over their parents' objections, there's no indoctrination going on there at all, right?


People cling to superstition and fantasy. That doesn't make it valid.

People cling to what is important in their lives. That does make it valid.

[Recovering Republican]

If you make an assertion, it's YOUR responsibility to back it with a cite if challenged.

No, I'm only obligated to do it if I feel like doing it, and I usually don't because you guys pretend you don't see it when I do. And this isn't restricted to the left, I've seen people on the right do the same thing.

Now that I have, will you admit, "Gosh, Joe, you're right. We really do have a problem?"

[Recovering Republican]

How is Creationism a "moral" belief? That's the problem right there. Not just the idea that it's amoral to believe something else, but the idea that scientific facts are based on "deeply held beliefs" as opposed to evidence...

Either you believe that we evolved from apes, or you believe we were created by a God in his image. These are ultimately to completely contradictory philosophies. Now I think there is a way to reconcile them, in that Evolution may have been the tool God used, and frankly, it's a lot more impressive than the talking snake story.


.. So you're trolling?..

No, just that my religious views are very nuanced and will probably tick people off. I look at this more ofa political problem that the Democrats didn't have until fairly recently. There was no "social issue" divide between the two parties 50 years ago.

The Republicans really only represent the interests of the 20% who own 90% of everything. The rest of us who are down here scratching and fighting over what is left are pretty easy to divide when one half attacks the others religious views.

The ironic thing is, you can make the argument that Jesus was a liberal. None of you guys will, of course.


..Non-religious isn't "anti-religious." Your rhetoric betrays your statement above that you don't believe as they do. If you didn't, you do have all of the pat fallacies: that scientific method is amoral, that it's "anti-Christian" to deny Christians the right to teach mythology as science. I'm just waiting for you to say science itself is a "kind of religion," and suggest that it's faith-based. ..

You know, you are having so much fun beating those straw men, I'm not sure if I should interrupt or not.

You know what, I learned Genesis in religion, Darwin in Science, and I was pretty much able to work it out. I think the kids are smart enough to, too.

.. It wouldn't work economically for a vast majority of people. If you want to abolish public education, you have very different values than me and there's not much ground for discussion. I would say that no public school is better than the complete horseshit factory you envision where any asshole with an opinion spouts off their theories of the world and kids are given no epistemological compass to navigate the sea of horseshit.

Kids who graduate from religious schools usually do better than kids who go to public schools. Kids who are home-schooled usually do better than kids who go to public schools. On a up note, public school kids are still doing better than kids raised by feral wolves, so they got that going for them.

Actually, for most of our history, the Church and the School were the same building in a community. It was only in the 20th century we felt the need to drive religion out of it.

[SenorBeef]

I also have to truly wonder why there is such an insistance on the left that THIS science has to be fully indoctrinated into the system. Frankly, most Americans, even the 80% who can read their diplomas, don't understand a lot of science or get through the science test by cribbing the multiple choice answer from the person next to them. And no one thinks twice. But, man, let a kid express an opinion that God had something to do with evolution, and you guys go ape-shit... if you'll pardon the pun.


"let a kid express an opinion that God had something to do with evolution" is not an issue here. If someone says "welp, we clearly have multiple lines of evidence that evolution actually happened, but secretly god was behind it" I don't think anyone would care. It's totally unnecesary, and you're just saying "whatever happened happened..... just god did it"

You know, I'd imagine if there were a group of people out there that wanted to teach that the earth was flat, and that it should be taught that way in science class, and they were well funded and politically active and 60% of people believed the earth was flat, then we'd be pretty pissed about that too.

Creationism is such an issue because they are fighting specifically to deny reality on an issue that's pretty cut and dried. They push into the political system to push it. So that becomes the battleground. If there were powerful interests trying to push some other sort of total bullshit on a cut and dried subject, non-retards would fight whatever it was.

Incidentally, for someone who claims to reject the creationists and agree on why they're wrong (at least I get that impression from skimming the thread), you sure do use a lot of really stupid loaded language like "indoctrinate darwinism" and stuff that makes you sound like one of them. If you were truly concerned with truth and reason, you wouldn't be acting like an apologist for them.

The ironic thing is, you can make the argument that Jesus was a liberal. None of you guys will, of course.


What? This comes up all the time. Do you think liberals want to try to misrepresent Jesus to try to make him sound like a conservative because they instinctively hate all things religious, or something? Jesus was, by modern American standards, the biggest fucking socialist communist liberal evil traitor type person ever. It's ironic that the people most concerned about making an effort to appear to follow Jesus are the ones who most angrily and strenuously reject his teaching.

[Recovering Republican]

And a joke to lighten the mood...

Little johnny was a chronic misbehaver with bad grades. So his parents decided to send him to a Catholic School.

After a few months, Johnny's behavior improved and he started getting good grades.

So his parents asked him what was different about the new school. Johnny replied.

"When I went in the front door and saw that guy they had nailed to the cross, I knew they weren't fooling around!"

[Recovering Republican]

"let a kid express an opinion that God had something to do with evolution" is not an issue here. If someone says "welp, we clearly have multiple lines of evidence that evolution actually happened, but secretly god was behind it" I don't think anyone would care. It's totally unnecesary, and you're just saying "whatever happened happened..... just god did it"

Creationism is such an issue because they are fighting specifically to deny reality on an issue that's pretty cut and dried. They push into the political system to push it. So that becomes the battleground. If there were powerful interests trying to push some other sort of total bullshit on a cut and dried subject, non-retards would fight whatever it was.

Incidentally, for someone who claims to reject the creationists and agree on why they're wrong (at least I get that impression from skimming the thread), you sure do use a lot of really stupid loaded language like "indoctrinate darwinism" and stuff that makes you sound like one of them. If you were truly concerned with truth and reason, you wouldn't be acting like an apologist for them.

What? This comes up all the time. Do you think liberals want to try to misrepresent Jesus to try to make him sound like a conservative because they instinctively hate all things religious, or something? Jesus was, by modern American standards, the biggest fucking socialist communist liberal evil traitor type person ever. It's ironic that the people most concerned about making an effort to appear to follow Jesus are the ones who most angrily and strenuously reject his teaching.


Well, like I said, I am "recovering".

And I agree, there is a lot of liberalism in Christianity. So why don't we have a "Christian left" to counter the "Christian right"? Why is Jesus such an unwanted houseguest on the left side of the table? Personally, I can't answer that question.

I know that in 1976, Jerry Falwell endorsed Jimmy Carter. But somewhere along the line, there was a big wedge driven between religious working folks and much of the Democratic base. So we get people who vote for tax cuts for the wealthy and free trade treaties because they are angry about abortion or gay marriage or evolution.

For the record- I'm not a member of any religion. I think that there is a purpose to creation, because the universe is much to well organized to be random. I do, however, beleive that the bible is a book of stories, nearly all of them fiction. I also think that there are some truly horrible stories in the bible that make me hope that if there is a God, he isn't the God of the bible.

[Knorf]

No, I'm only obligated to do it if I feel like doing it...
You're obligated to do it if you care about your own credibility.

My personal opinion about reading problems is not that kids are being taught poorly, but rather that the culture of reading in America has been greatly diminished in favor of watching TV and playing video games. I also do not believe your cite is correct, unless you're using a ludicrous definition for "functionally literate." 20% functional illiteracy strains credibility for me, but admittedly based only on my personal experience. I don't have a counter cite.

But in any case, discussing problems with education in America should probably go into a new thread.

But, man, let a kid express an opinion that God had something to do with evolution, and you guys go ape-shit... if you'll pardon the pun.
Nonsense. What a kid expresses is not what anyone is concerned about. What people are legitimately concerned about is what teachers say and present in the classrooms. Presenting creationism is not valid science, and it does not belong in any public classroom.

So when the schools insist on handing out birth control to kids and giving them instructions how to find the Planned Parenthood clinic over their parents' objections, there's no indoctrination going on there at all, right?
I said most of the extreme cases of politicizing education are on the right. Your example isn't even about education, but rather about providing teenagers with necessary medical services and advice. In my opinion that is not remotely as extreme as (for example) trying push through textbooks that whitewash controversies in American history and promote right-wing values, such as has happened in Texas among other states, and which is about politicizing education. And it's entirely propaganda for the right. There is no such thing as a leftist textbook in use anywhere in American schools K-12, but there are right-wing history textbooks and moderate right history textbooks.

People cling to what is important in their lives. That does make it valid.
No, it doesn't. And it never did. Otherwise, you'd have to agree that things like slavery and Jim Crow laws were valid.

Either you believe that we evolved from apes...
This is not a valid approximation of evolutionary biology, and your credibility continues to be doubtful the more you insist on it.

So why don't we have a "Christian left" to counter the "Christian right"?
Actually, there absolutely is. Sad that you aren't aware of that.

[Recovering Republican]

Funny, I must have missed the Christian Left over the sound of Bill Maher and Jon Stewart mocking Christians.

I'm sure they'll put in their two cents any minute now.

"Otherwise, you'd have to agree that things like slavery and Jim Crow laws were valid."

And those things didn't go away until there was a strong concensus that they were wrong.

"My personal opinion about reading problems is not that kids are being taught poorly, but rather that the culture of reading in America has been greatly diminished in favor of watching TV and playing video games. I also do not believe your cite is correct, unless you're using a ludicrous definition for "functionally literate." 20% functional illiteracy strains credibility for me, but admittedly based only on my personal experience. I don't have a counter cite."

You know, I think I should call shenannigans here. If you are going to insist MY opinion wasn't valid until I provided a cite on it, then you should provide a cite to prove why my cite was wrong.

Yes, I do think TV and Video games are bad influences. I also think that both parents working because the middle class lifestyle has shrunk to make CEO richer has been a contributing factor. But so are the attitudes in Public Education that results don't matter.

I could go into a whole list of other things, but you are correct, we should do this on a differnent thread. I'm off to a memorial service for my Aunt, but maybe I'll start it in "Great Debates".

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

If you are going to insist MY opinion wasn't valid until I provided a cite on it, then you should provide a cite to prove why my cite was wrong.

Nope. You didn't cite the 20% figure as your opinion, you presented it as a fact. Or don't you distinguish between the two?

[Snowboarder Bo]

Actually, my contempt for Obama has little to do with whether he is a moderate or a liberal or a communist. It has to do with the fact he's INCOMPETANT.

You misspelled that last word, guy.

[Knorf]

Funny, I must have missed the Christian Left...
So, RR you've missed all the controversy about the Episcopal Church ordaining gays? You missed all the churches that joined the protests against Bush's extremely ill-conceived Iraq War? Did you miss that the United Church of Christ took a stand supporting gay marriage (back in 2005)? There actually are numerous Christian churches all over the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessing_of_same-sex_unions_in_Christian_churches) that allow blessings of same-sex unions and plenty that allow their ministers to perform gay marriage ceremonies.

I think you're just not paying attention. Here's some further reading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_left) for you about the Christian left.

Also, Obama is a Christian, with no reasonable cause to doubt it. Of course he's a bad example I suppose because he's not really leftist.

I already admitted I don't have a counter cite about the 20% illiterate thing. It's my opinion only.

How about you admit that we aren't ignoring your citations when you provide one?

[Knorf]

And those things didn't go away until there was a strong concensus that they were wrong.
A consensus that was a minority opinion in many places.

But anyway, let's play that game:

The consensus worldwide is that evolution is valid and creationism is not.

The science behind evolution has overwhelmingly achieved a consensus among those who are well-educated, not just worldwide but in the U.S. as well.

People most informed on the subject, i.e. scientists, overwhelmingly accept evolution as fact, not just worldwide but in the U.S. as well.

Creationism and the advocacy thereof is wacko. Therefore, Bachmann is a wacko for (among other reasons) advocating for creationism.

[C3]

Maybe what I need is a statistic for liberals too lazy to use Google..

http://education-portal.com/articles/Grim_Illiteracy_Statistics_Indicate_Americans_Have_a_Reading_Problem.html



This link says that the source for this statistic is the National Right to Read Foundation, which is a group that promotes phonics-based reading programs. It looks like the actual statistic was pulled from this essay, Illiteracy: An Incurable Disease or Education Malpractice (http://www.nrrf.org/essay_Illiteracy.html). I didn't look at all of the sources they list for that, but I will note that none of them are more recent than 1989. The latest nationwide study of adult literacy that I'm aware of is the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. It concluded (http://nces.ed.gov/naal/kf_demographics.asp)that 14% of all adults in the U.S. were "Below Basic" in prose literacy skills and that 55% of that group had not graduated high school.

[tnetennba]

The rest of us who are down here scratching and fighting over what is left are pretty easy to divide when one half attacks the others religious views.

You know, you are having so much fun beating those straw men, I'm not sure if I should interrupt or not.

Since you do, in fact, explicitly call it an "attack" on "others religious views," to omit religious mythology from the science curriculum in the very post where you dismiss that as a strawman caricature of your argument, obviously no straw men were harmed.

The ironic thing is, you can make the argument that Jesus was a liberal. None of you guys will, of course.

Oh, he was? Well in that case, young earth creationism should be taught as scientific fact.

[tnetennba]

"Otherwise, you'd have to agree that things like slavery and Jim Crow laws were valid." And those things didn't go away until there was a strong con[s]ensus that they were wrong.

Wrong. That's not what happened. The Federal government passed legislation forcing the racist south to end Jim Crow laws and that lad to much violence and resistance. Or perhaps you have a different "opinion" about history, too.

You know, I think I should call shenanigans here. If you are going to insist MY opinion wasn't valid until I provided a cite on it, then you should provide a cite to prove why my cite was wrong.

First of all, your statement was a statement of fact, not an opinion. Whether or not 20% of high school graduates are illiterate is either true or false. In this case, I think, false. Your misunderstanding of the difference between statements of fact and statements of opinion is consistent with your notion that teachers can teach any thing as science.

But so are the attitudes in Public Education that results don't matter.

I find it odd to be indifferent to the content of the curriculum but simultaneously wanting "results." So students should be rigorously tested on how much of the nonsense they were taught they remember?

[Recovering Republican]

You misspelled that last word, guy.

Why, you're right, Bo, I did.

That totally makes up for 9.1% unemployment, $4.00 a gallon gasoline, defaulting on the national budget, fighting an illegal war in Libya, surrendering in Afghanistan and everything else this guy has screwed up...

I misspelled a word.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Why, you're right, Bo, I did.

That totally makes up for 9.1% unemployment, $4.00 a gallon gasoline, defaulting on the national budget, fighting an illegal war in Libya, surrendering in Afghanistan and everything else this guy has screwed up...

I misspelled a word.

I think it's funny that you misspelled incompetent. Guy.

[tnetennba]

How was the service for your aunt? Were you two close? Hope she was celebrated well.

[Recovering Republican]

A consensus that was a minority opinion in many places.

But anyway, let's play that game:

The consensus worldwide is that evolution is valid and creationism is not.

The science behind evolution has overwhelmingly achieved a consensus among those who are well-educated, not just worldwide but in the U.S. as well.

People most informed on the subject, i.e. scientists, overwhelmingly accept evolution as fact, not just worldwide but in the U.S. as well.

Creationism and the advocacy thereof is wacko. Therefore, Bachmann is a wacko for (among other reasons) advocating for creationism.


I'm not sure what the "worldwide concensus" is. The worldwide concensus is that the vast majority of the world is backwards third world people who don't know Darwin from their donkey. Most of them belong to some backward religion.

How about we just put it to a vote and be done with it? Americans only, of course.

Let Creationism be taught in the Schools.

Never mention Creationism again.

Ummm, guess which one would win.

[Recovering Republican]

I think it's funny that you misspelled incompetent. Guy.


Well, you must be easily amused.

I wish I could say I've found everything Obama has effed up as funny. But I can't.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Let slavery be abolished immediately.

Let slavery continue.

In 1789, which will win? In 1789, which one was unquestionably immoral and contemptible?

[Recovering Republican]

How was the service for your aunt? Were you two close? Hope she was celebrated well.

I wish I could say we were, but we weren't.

She was my late mother's younger sister, my mom passed 28 years ago. Both women had five kids, because that's what you did if you were Catholic in the sixties. (Oddly, both of them converted TO Catholicism as did a third sister.)

It was very low key. They had cremated her before the service and no words were said. Just relatives who haven't seen each other in a while offering condolences.

This was very sudden because she hadn't been sick. It was just pneumonia that snuck up on her.

[Recovering Republican]

Let slavery be abolished immediately.

Let slavery continue.

In 1789, which will win? In 1789, which one was unquestionably immoral and contemptible?


Wow, so now you are comparing Creationism with slavery.

Sooooo, um, who is exactly being oppressed by hearing another opinion on the matter?

Seems you guys only like democracy when you win, something else you have in common with the far right.

[Recovering Republican]

Since you do, in fact, explicitly call it an "attack" on "others religious views," to omit religious mythology from the science curriculum in the very post where you dismiss that as a strawman caricature of your argument, obviously no straw men were harmed.

Well, guy, I would suggest that when you attack someone's heartfelt views as "mythology", you are making an attack.

Oh, he was? Well in that case, young earth creationism should be taught as scientific fact.

Again, no one is suggesting that, are they? THey are suggesting it be taught as an alternative point of view.

[BobLibDem]

Why, you're right, Bo, I did.

That totally makes up for 9.1% unemployment, $4.00 a gallon gasoline, defaulting on the national budget, fighting an illegal war in Libya, surrendering in Afghanistan and everything else this guy has screwed up...

I misspelled a word.


You do realize that the president doesn't control hiring, don't you? The stimulus kept the recession from becoming a depression.

You also realize that gasoline prices are not controlled by the president, or by the US?

You do realize that it is the Republicans who are threatening to default on the debt to preserve all the tax breaks, loopholes, and low rates for the wealthy? Just like they held unemployment benefits hostage to keep low tax rates for millionaires?

Surrendering in Afghanistan? Where'd you pull that from, your ass? Obama stepped up the war in Afghanistan and is planning to pull out much slower than the vast majority of the nation wants. Or is "surrendering" just another way of saying "serving as commander in chief as a Democrat"?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Wow, so now you are comparing Creationism with slavery.

Sooooo, um, who is exactly being oppressed by hearing another opinion on the matter?

Seems you guys only like democracy when you win, something else you have in common with the far right.

You really have trouble understanding a point that's not all but spelled out, don't you? So I'll spell it out, not that I think you couldn't have gotten it easily if you were so inclined. Since you're not receptive to subtle ideas:

The fact that a majority believes in one idea and a minority believes in a different idea does not settle once and for all whether that idea is eternally correct or preordained or necessary or anything of the sort.