Is Bachman 1) an Anti-Catholic or 2) a Godless Heathen?

Let’s all remember from the last presidential campaign that, as an individual that belongs to a church, you are completely responsible for, and agree with, everything your pastor says, does, has said, has done, will say and will do. Absolutely no exceptions to that rule, correct?

So now we have this:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/15/michele-bachmann-officially-leaves-her-church/?hpt=hp_t2

If we apply the rule above, Bachman is a radical anti-catholic, but now that she has quit that church, she is a Godless Heathen.

My question, if there is one, is “Which is Worse?”

Welcome to the game, Michele. Hope you enjoy playing it on the other side.

I think you’ve set up a no win situation for her here. Little though I like Michelle Bachman, I really don’t know what she could do that would satisfy you here. She has, like the Catholic League spokesman said, condemned anti-Catholicism.

The petard by which she’s hoisted isn’t that she belonged to that church, but that her fellow Republicans insisted on pinning everything that Rev. Wright had ever said on Obama.

Did she actually try and pin Wright’s rhetoric on Obama or did just “her fellow Republicans” do that? You might have a point if she came out swinging against Obama’s attempts to disassociate himself with his former pastor, but its kinda silly to try and hang hypocracy on her for not acting in concert with what other people in her large and diverse political part said.

There are, after all, many tens of millions of Republicans, its kinda silly to demand they all be 100% consistent with everything the rest of them have said.

And they were wrong to do so, right? If it was wrong for them to do it to Obama, it’s wrong for people to do it to Bachman. Besides, she did leave the church…she actively disassociated herself with the guy.

I don’t know offhand whether she joined in the condemnation herself, but membership in a political party does mean something. When you’re running for President under a party’s banner, it’s perfectly fair and proper for folks to attack you for that party’s positions.

This must be the official Democrat forum.

Most of y’all apparently are strong believers in coincidence. The states that have been strong liberal for decades are in worse financial condition than those states that have been more conservative. Eg. California; liberal and bankrupt. Texas; conservative and solvent.

Personally, I don’t do coincidence. I believe in cause and effect.

Whoa, whoa, whoa there cowboys! This is politics. Every weakness is exploited. Logic and rationality are not welcome. This is business, not personal. OK, it’s personal, but this is the fate of the entire nation we are talking about. I didn’t make the rules, I just push them to the edge and over. How many other lame excuses do I need to come up with? [End Satire Alert]

Texas is only solvent on paper, because Perry moved some state obligations to a different fiscal year in order to be able to say “I balanced Texas’ budget” while he campaigns for president.

I also am not sure that it’s even solvent on paper

Jesus F’n Christ! When did The Schwartz become a Democrat!?!?!?!? Did I miss that in the papers?

And if I am correct, wasn’t Arnie’s biggest problems with his own Repubs that wanted to keep the pork, graft and corruption flowing in their direction?

Not sayin’ Dems could do any better, but lets not drink the Red KoolAid too liberally (pardon the pun), OK?

California is bankrupt because of Prop. 13, which lowered taxes. So we’re bankrupt due to conservative policies.

And do we really need to do another round of explaining how red states are generally net consumers of federal funds while blue states are net providers?

Yes, I think we do, for the benefit of any lurkers, since providing that information is probably not going to change any minds in THIS particular thread.

First Google hit. If you want more do your own googling or search for any of the dozens of old threads on the topic.

Oh, you didn’t have to do that for MY benefit. I’m well aware. I was referring to lurkers who might not already be aware. But thanks for starting the ball rolling!

Facts? Really? You would stoop that low?

Oh sorry, didn’t look at who I was replying to. Carry on!

We’re manipulative and sneaky that way around these parts.

At the very least, we can be reasonably certain she’s not Jewish!

CMC fnord!
Thank you psychobunny for the link . . . fucking search redirect virus robbing me of my Google-Fu skilz.

The topic is Bachman. The stuff about red states, blue states, and the respective solvency of each is utterly and completely off topic.

Start a new thread for that. Stop the hijack now. If not, I’ll lock the thread.

twickster, Elections moderator

Yow, twickster, where did you come from? You work weekends?