What bothers you most is that they are precisely based on her policies and agenda. Her attempts to force a born-again Christian agenda into the public schools got her kicked off the PTA. She has some very strange views on homosexuality that run counter to science and basic reality . She makes pronouncements that are flat-out wrong and refuses to concede her mistakes even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.
Do you really think someone like that could adequately represent the country? Conduct nuclear arms treaty discussions? Draft effective legislation?
Do we need to repeat the point that the moniker was initially adopted by the Tea Party folk themselves?
Incidentally, the mainstream media have an anti-Nazi bias, therefore I should read more Stormfront websites.
Also, they came up with the label themselves, proudly, before catching on to its use in a sexual sense. They deserve to be made fun of by continuing to use the term, which embarrasses them because of its sexual sense. Why, they’d almost rather elect a socialist than be part of any group that puts scrotums in their mouths.
I’m guessing that the reporter wrote the text of the article, and then went back to put the numbers in. Apparently, the reporter missed one.
Quoth galveston:
Do we also need to include the National Enquirer and the Weekly World News, for a truly balanced mix? Besides, most of what we’re objecting to is her actual words that she actually said, as caught on video. Are you claiming that those videos are faked, or is Michelle Bachmann just lying to us about what Michelle Bachmann really thinks?
Your use of the word “huge” and the dictionary’s are probably not exactly in agreement, at least not on a national scale.
First of all, the tea baggers themselves used the term for themselves first. Second of all, it’s not necessarily homosexual.
Hmmmm … all of the polls I’ve seen show a high rate of disapproval among all except for tea baggers. Let’s see a cite. Unless your usage of “many” is similar to how you use “huge.”
That’s just hilarious. Advocacy of Fox “News” betrays bias implicitly, as the network is on record as explicitly advocating for the right.
The rest of you don’t care if she’s wildly incompetant as long as it’s in the name of eliminating someone you see as incompetant?
Edit: Wait, wait, I’ve got your reply already. “No one could possibly be as incompetant and evil and smell as bad as Obama, so anything would be an improvement!!!11”
Well, pretty much. ALthough you guys haven’t proven that she’s “incompetent” to me yet.
All you’ve proven is that she makes you all just so darned angry, which is kind of a plus in my book. But anyone with an R behind his or her name is going to fit that bill.
Frankly, guys, you haven’t made a convincing argument against her yet. She’s not my first choice. Maybe my third or fourth. I think there are guys who are far more qualified.
Thinking that the Census is unconstitutional and advocating shooting folks who are taking it isn’t a convincing argument against her? Trying to get a Constitutional amendment banning pornography isn’t a convincing argument against her? Thinking the current President is a Muslim and a foreigner isn’t an argument against her? She doesn’t exactly make it hard to find reasons to dislike her.
Good to hear one of you admit it, and assuming she gets elected, I swear on a stack of Bibles/Korans/Upanishades’s not to remind you of this statement.
I look forward to the familiar squeal of another ideologue who can’t believe that another Faustian bargain (see ‘Dubya’) made in the heat of your imagined battle has gone sour.
RR, I honestly don’t understand why you’re here. You repeat the same things over and over, while ignoring the points several of us have made. And then you accuse us of not focusing on actual issues. I’m not sure how much clearer we can be, and frankly it’s aggravating to try to debate with someone who won’t address anyone’s points besides his own.
What it looks like to me is that the author was (perhaps mistakenly) trying to use a scary statistic to underscore the sorry state of families in present day America. And given the divorce rate, the number of unwed mothers and poorly parented children it’s pretty clear taht something should be done.
Hey, I can understand perfectly well why liberals hate Bachmann. I really can.
They just aren’t things folks in the real world, folks who don’t vote for a guy with no qualifications to show how ‘enlightened’ we are.
Bachmann isn’t my first choice. But the things you go on about, frankly, Joe Blow in the street would probably agree with most of them.
“but, but, but she doesn’t beleive in evolution!”
Niether do most people.
“but, but, but, she disapproves of homosexuality”.
Um. Yeah. Again, so do most people. (I personally don’t give a flip one way or the other.) Every time the gay marriage thing is brought to a vote, it loses. Thankfully, we have wise judges and legistlator who know so much better.
Now, if you want to make the argument that she has no executive experience and hasn’t been an effective legislator, like T-Paw did yesterday, that’s fine. That’s actually a valid argument.
But pointing out why liberals will want to move to France if she’s president, meh, not so much.
I don’t oppose people who don’t believe in evolution because it makes me look “enlightened”. I oppose them because they’re flat-out wrong, acting against pretty much all scientific evidence and in most cases don’t even understand what it is they’re not believing in. Sticking stubbornly to one’s viewpoint in the face of all facts and reason is not a quality that I consider desirable in someone I’m entrusting to make important decisions which affect me, although it seems to be one that certain Republicans seek to emulate.
And the fact that she appeals primarily to the most ignorant elements of society is not a point in her favor.
Not every time…
Which gets ignored by people who insist that the only reason that “liberals” don’t like her is that she annoys them. Because idealogues have a hard time understanding that not everyone is quite as partisan as they are.
RR, it’s weak to come into a debate and dismiss everything other people say as fluffy nonsense. It wouldn’t matter what we said, you obviously aren’t capable of respectful debate (so come on down to the Pit and join us).
The rest of us? Who do you pretend to speak for?
A woman has never been elected president, therefore you are wasting your time backing Palin and Bachmann.