# Bachmann will win!!



## BDBoop (Aug 6, 2011)

I just know it. After all, she believes and says things like this:



> A grain of wheat plus a starfish does not equal a dog, and that this was what evolutionists were teaching in our schools.



The Stillwater Tribune: September 2003



> Bachmanns personal definition of what evolution is became unclear at that point, but she went on to say that a grain of wheat plus a starfish does not equal a dog, and that this was what evolutionists were teaching in our schools. At just about this point, host Todd Friel interrupted the caller and accused him of sabot-too-gee (Friels clever slang term for sabotage); Friel said that he, Friel, was not going let this happen to Senator Bachmann. The caller was apparently put on hold while Friel bid goodbye to Bachmann, who was apparently in a hurry to leave and do something else at this point.
> 
> /snip
> 
> But all of this is by-the-by. The important thing to remember is that evolution is merely a theory, just as atomic theory and Professor Einsteins theory of relativity are just theories. By the way, I believe (and I am sure Senator Bachmann would agree) that the Minnesota schools should not force atomic theory and the theory of relativity on our students, either. I hope that Bachmann will also publicly oppose the bigoted clowns currently teaching atomic theory and the theory of relativity as if they were fact.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 6, 2011)

If Bachman becomes president, I'm gonna go somewhere else.


----------



## FuelRod (Aug 6, 2011)

Promise?


----------



## elvis (Aug 6, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> I just know it. After all, she believes and says things like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You sound like those people on "Deal or no Deal"  who say they "just know" the million dollars is in that case.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 6, 2011)

> If Bachman becomes president, I'm gonna go somewhere else.



Id stay. 

Someone will need to clean up yet another republican mess.


----------



## Trajan (Aug 6, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> If Bachman becomes president, I'm gonna go somewhere else.



go with god.


take sean penn with you, did he come back after bush got re-elected?


----------



## Trajan (Aug 6, 2011)

elvis said:


> bdboop said:
> 
> 
> > i just know it. After all, she believes and says things like this:
> ...



deal!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Mr.Owl (Aug 6, 2011)

BDboop, I would be in a constant state of humor if that loon won the election.


----------



## BDBoop (Aug 6, 2011)

elvis said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > I just know it. After all, she believes and says things like this:
> ...



I don't have a TV.


----------



## BDBoop (Aug 6, 2011)

Whoops! Michele Bachmann inadvertently proves key GOP talking point false - The Plum Line - The Washington Post



> Of course, if Congress ultimately determines spending  which of course it does  theres no way raising the debt ceiling would constitute giving President Obama a blank check, as John Boehner and other Republicans keep falsely insisting.
> 
> The blank check talking point is one of the more absurd falsehoods to surface in recent memory. For one thing, as the Government Accountability Office explains: The debt limit does not control or limit the ability of the federal government to run deficits or incur obligations. Rather, it is a limit on the ability to pay obligations already incurred.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Aug 6, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> I just know it. After all, she believes and says things like this:
> 
> 
> 
> > A grain of wheat plus a starfish does not equal a dog, and that this was what evolutionists were teaching in our schools.


Ya' can't ignore her (newly-found) *history o' economic-precedence*, either!!!​


> This president has destroyed the credit rating of the United States President Obama is destroying the foundations of our economy *one seam at a time*.
> 
> *Shellybach & The Economic-Seams*(?)


----------



## toxicmedia (Aug 6, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> I just know it. After all, she believes and says things like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


God I hope so....can you picture that brainless twerp debating with Obama?...nirvana.....


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Aug 6, 2011)

Trajan said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > If Bachman becomes president, I'm gonna go somewhere else.
> ...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkF3VMvppOk]&#x202a;War made easy with sean penn pt1.wmv&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]​


----------



## bodecea (Aug 6, 2011)

toxicmedia said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > I just know it. After all, she believes and says things like this:
> ...



The Entertainment ratings would go thru the roof....


----------



## lilbug (Aug 6, 2011)

> Bachmann will win!!




We could do worse...oh....wait...we already have 'worse' in the white house now.


----------



## BDBoop (Aug 6, 2011)

lilbug said:


> > Bachmann will win!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh, cheer up. Maybe he'll fulfill your hopes that he's DEAD before his next birthday.


----------



## Sallow (Aug 6, 2011)

lilbug said:


> > Bachmann will win!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bachmann would be a much worse president then George W. Bush. Probably one of the worst presidents in my lifetime.

And Bush beat out Reagan..the other worst President in my lifetime.


----------



## lilbug (Aug 6, 2011)

Sallow said:


> lilbug said:
> 
> 
> > > Bachmann will win!!
> ...



You cannot possibly know that.  Everyone thought Obama would going to be so great and look what a mess our country is in.  The only thing I see that he's good at is campaigning and fund raising...too bad he hasn't figure out how to be fund raiser for this country.


----------



## lilbug (Aug 6, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> lilbug said:
> 
> 
> > > Bachmann will win!!
> ...



Yeah, another deliberate misrepresentation and wild accusation.  Don't make statements about my hopes if you're not going to relate them accurately.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 6, 2011)

Trajan said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > If Bachman becomes president, I'm gonna go somewhere else.
> ...



who give a crap?!


----------



## frazzledgear (Aug 6, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> I just know it. After all, she believes and says things like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Gee, are you suggesting that a President must adhere to the left's pet scientific theories and not allowed to doubt them and doing so somehow makes a person disqualified to be President?  Like its a religion test of some kind the left wants to impose?  Only an anti one instead?  Since when was the Presidency related to science at all, much less the specific pet theories of the left about the origins of life?  ROFL

Because no the theory of evolution isn't just like the theory of relativity and atomic theory.  First of all the atomic theory isn't a theory any longer but considered to be proven scientific fact, upon which the entire field of subatomic study is built.  The theory of relativity is actually flawed and will always be a theory because it contradicts the theory of propagation of light.  Which is also still a theory too.  Both cannot be true at the same time which means they didn't get one or both quite right yet and are still missing something critical.

But what makes all the above theories different from the theory of evolution is that each of them attempt to explain specific phenomena in our natural world.  Which is what all legitimate theories do -try to explain specific phenomena in our natural world to account for the existence and/or function of that specific phenomena. 

However the theory of evolution doesn't attempt to explain a specific phenomenon at all -which sets it apart from all other theories.  It attempts to explain EVERYTHING with what is in reality an overly simplistic explanation.  One which when attempting to apply it to very specific phenomena, actually FAILS to explain it after all.  Which means when trying to put it to practical use -it actually explains nothing at all.   Which makes it a pretty useless theory, huh.  

Those doing the scientific work have to do so in a way it APPEARS not to directly challenge this "religion" but in fact it is under constant attack -because it is blatantly and FATALLY FLAWED.  Scientists still come up with theories that attempt to explain specific phenomena because THIS theory doesn't explain jackshit that applies to ANY of them.  Any honest scientist will not only admit it -but if Darwin were alive HE would admit that he got it wrong.

Just one example -Darwin theorized the vision was the result of the accumulation of benign, meaningless, totally random mutations -mutations slowly accumulated over many, many eons.  Like it or not, THAT is what he theorized -that vision came about after the slow, random and absolutely meaningless accumulation of benign mutations -until the last critical part was MEANINGLESSLY mutated into exactly the right place at the right time all the other meaningless mutations were still there  -and voilà -two blind parents spawned offspring that could SEE!  But totally as a meaningless and totally random event mind you.  Except it didn't happen that way.  Visual systems showed up all at once, all necessary parts in unrelated tissues and structures -nervous tissue, brain, bone, hormones - all at the same time and not as the result of slow accumulation of mutations -and it did so simultaneously in thousands of different, unrelated species.  Hard to pretend the theory of evolution really explains that one when it actually contradicts it. 

What Darwin could not have known at the time is the like so many systems in higher species -is that vision is an irreducibly complex system too.  The irreducibly complex systems -of which vision is only one -all showed up at once in species and NOT as the result of the slow but at all times MEANINGLESS mutations of only benign but totally useless mutations until that last critical one meaningless happened.   And worse yet -the fossil record proves that visual systems like all the other biological irreducibly complex systems did not come about over many eons with the slow accumulation of benign and meaningless mutations until one day two blind parents spawned seeing offspring.  Didn't happen that way at all.  These systems showed up at once and did so in thousands of unrelated species during roughly the same time period.  Oops Darwin.

Darwin had a POOR UNDERSTANDING of mutations and what he believed to be true about them was in fact the opposite of what is known about them TODAY.  Information he did not have but could have used because that information contradicts his theory.   Darwin did NOT know about DNA and therefore could NOT have know where on the DNA strand mutations even take place.  Turns out the part of the DNA strand that identifies SPECIES -is extremely RESISTANT to mutation and so much so that mutations on THAT part of the DNA strand are 100% lethal to the individual -meaning it won't even LIVE long enough to be born or hatched -much less live long enough to reproduce and pass it on.  Only the part that deals with how the individual will look and how its parts will function or not function can be mutated and not kill the individual.  But no amount of mutations on that part of the DNA EVER changes its species.  As in NEVER.  Which is why it is a SCIENTIFIC FACT that two parents of one species can only produce an individual of that same identical species.  And sorry  no matter how far back you want to go, with the theory of evolution you are still talking about at SOME point in time two parents of one species producing an individual that is a different species -which we know is BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.  Meaning that what Darwin did not know is that no amount of mutations will EVER turn one species into another one and it doesn't matter how fact back you want to go.  The only thing that changes is what the average member of that species may look like -but at all times the species is the same.  For example -horses originally looked MUCH different than horses do today -but at all times the species never changed in spite of natural and manipulated traits that make them look as they do today.  And never will.   Darwin did not know about DNA and where mutations actually take place -there is NO role for his theory about the nature of mutations because we know today he got that wrong too. OOPS BIG TIME DARWIN.

Darwin theorized the vast majority of mutations were harmless and benign.  He was WRONG.  Repeated studies by different scientists around the world have repeatedly proven that there is no such thing as a "beneficial" mutation.  One has NEVER been found in any species.   *What scientists have proven about mutations is that they don't take place on the part of the DNA that identifies the species -and when it does occur there, nature HATES mutations and kills the individual even before it is born or hatched so it will never be passed on.  Meaning its much harder to turn a species into a totally new one by means of mutations than even Darwin believed -OOPS.   What scientists REALLY proved is that nature HATES mutations and weeds them out by killing the individual with mutations on that part of their DNA -for the protection of the species. * It means nature is working to prevent the very thing Darwin theorized was fairly common place!

Think about it -because this is a big one.  Since it is a SCIENTIFIC FACT that two parents of one species can only produce individuals of that same species -then Darwin's theory about one species turning into a totally different one over times contradicts that.  Both cannot be true at the same time.    Darwin got the mutation thing totally wrong -studies have proven that most of them are harmful, even lethal to the individual, no individual will survive if the mutation occurs on the part that identifies the species.  In other words, the part of the DNA that would alter the species is NOT transmissible to offspring because the individual doesn't even survive to pass it on.   NATURE tries to PROTECT a species from mutations, not use them to make a new species!  Big OOPS there Darwin.   

Natural selection totally failed to explain how it was possible for one species to turn into another -it could only explain how changes  occur over time WITHIN a species -but at all times, with natural selection -it still remains the same species.  Always.  Mutations didn't pan out as a satisfactory explanation either because Darwin did not know the mathematical probabilities that the length of time needed to accumulate enough benign or beneficial mutations to change its species would take many times longer than life has existed on the planet!  Oops Darwin.  So the real diehards came up with the Mammoth Mutation Theory -which says instead of an exceedingly rare beneficial mutation showing up once every billion eons which can't work with the real time line here - let's pretend about once every 50,000 years a gigantic set of positive, only beneficial mutations all show up at once.  Oh, as a totally random and completely meaningless event though -just out of the blue.  And of course, had no explanation for how that would even be possible that entire BUNDLES of only beneficial mutations just randomly show up at once.  But in addition that one doesn't pan out with the time line either.  This is a theory that in effect says it IS possible for two parents of one species to lay an egg -and the individual that pops out of it is not the same species as its parents.   Again defying what we all know is a scientific fact -which is why when testing the paternity of a child, testing whether its father is even human is NEVER done.  

So this dumb ass theory is a hard sell, isn't it?  This means if your mother is a human and your father is a human but you turned out to be a toothless, legless, armless, blind slug  -you'd still be a human being anyway.  One that was pitied by the rest of us but your species would still be 100% human being.  Even though you don't look like the average human.  And if an accident happened that killed everyone but the toothless, legless, armless blind slugs that all looked like you -it doesn't mean its a new species.  It only means what the average person looks like changed.  But NEVER its species.  And THAT can be proven by DNA testing too.  Something Darwin was totally ignorant about what science would learn in the future about DNA and mutations  -but totally contradicts his theory on numerous fronts.  

So pretending Darwin, ignorant about future scientific discoveries and the fact they would end up totally contradicting nearly everything he theorized was true -got it correct anyway  is demanding we CHOOSE ignorance over advancements in scientific knowledge.

There are MANY other things Darwin got wrong -but another big one here.  In total contradiction to his theory that moving forward through time would show an increasing diversity of life with MORE species and moving back in time would show less diversity of life with fewer species -we now know that since the Cambrian period, it is the EXACT OPPOSITE.  Moving forward through time from the Cambrian to the present -some 500 million years - each era since has had FEWER species than the one before.  *Life has been getting LESS diverse over time -NOT more as Darwin theorized. *  (And NO, it is not man's fault either.)  Another OOPS.   There were very few species of life before the Cambrian, during it diversity just exploded and it has never happened since.  Instead with each passing era more species become extinct and life is becoming LESS diversified over time.   Totally contradicting Darwin AGAIN.  In a MAJOR, MAJOR way.   Both cannot be true -life doesn't get more diverse over time while getting less diverse over time.  But we know for a fact which of those IS true -and sorry, it ain't Darwin.  

While you mock Bachmann -I assure you that our descendants will be doing some major MOCKING of some of the people of this era alright -just not the ones you think.

See THIS is the real difference between the left and me.  I don't care if the theory of evolution is true or not true.  I don't give a rat's ass.   The left DESPERATELY cares -to the point they are rabid about it and in total denial.   They think it allows them to rule out any role for God and they fear further scientific discovery will not so easily do so as they think this theory does.  But science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.  So it doesn't matter to me if this theory were true or not -if true, it has no bearing on my religious beliefs because my religion isn't science and unlike the left, _science is not my religion_!  I care about scientific TRUTH and FACT because if you don't build ONLY on those, you build worthless crap that eventually collapses and can only set back scientific discovery until the crap is tossed on the junk heap where it belongs.  And sorry but the theory of evolution is so badly flawed as to be useless as to be able to explanation a damn thing about how anything in our natural world works.  Which is why it isn't even used as a working theory to explain ANYTHING or ANY specific phenomena in the natural world by ANY scientist doing research in any field of research.   They are ALL looking for the REAL explanations for how the natural world works.


----------



## St.Blues (Aug 6, 2011)

Michelle Bachmann is not a Senator........ She is a member of the house. Congress..
And we are relying on you to vote? Ott Oh!

I would consider voting for her.. She would be the first lady President, but more importantly the first president I would literally want to do the Monica thing with.
If Sarah gets in I'd want to go all out and do everything with her. Hunt, Fish, Fuck. name it!.........

I know this is nasty...........  But so is politics.

Blues


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 6, 2011)

Sallow said:


> lilbug said:
> 
> 
> > > Bachmann will win!!
> ...


I find it oh so revealing that the obvious candidates for worst presidents in the last 50 years, Carter and Nixon are ignored.  And the worst presidents in the last 100 years (Wilson, FDR and LBJ) are worshiped by the libs.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 6, 2011)

The last time a member of the House won a presidential election was Grover Cleveland.  Although I'd love to see her make the jump, I don't think she'll make it.


----------



## St.Blues (Aug 6, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > lilbug said:
> ...



I can sympathize with the Libs socially although I don't agree with a lot of it, I can mind my business.  I will, like you never understand how anyone could be in favor of liberal economic policy.
And if you don't mind I would to add Obama to the list of worst Presidents.

Blues


----------



## BDBoop (Aug 6, 2011)

St.Blues said:


> Michelle Bachmann is not a Senator........ She is a member of the house. Congress..
> And we are relying on you to vote? Ott Oh!
> 
> I would consider voting for her.. She would be the first lady President, but more importantly the first president I would literally want to do the Monica thing with.
> ...



And the person who was quoted called her Senator; not me. I hope you know that, else you're no smarter than the one you accuse.


----------



## St.Blues (Aug 6, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> St.Blues said:
> 
> 
> > Michelle Bachmann is not a Senator........ She is a member of the house. Congress..
> ...



I wasn't calling you out Boop.. Last time I looked we were pals.. Still are...
If any one gets on you I'll be there for ya.
How's that for an answer? _You like it Don'tcha!_
*
Blues*


----------



## BDBoop (Aug 6, 2011)

St.Blues said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > St.Blues said:
> ...



The bolded bit did seem to be speaking to me, yes.


----------



## St.Blues (Aug 6, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> St.Blues said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



You still should have known...... No excuse for that.
_*
Blues*_


----------



## BDBoop (Aug 6, 2011)

St.Blues said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > St.Blues said:
> ...



"No excuse for that"? This is a message board, and I hardly know you so yeah. Precedence is that people post from their gut, and take shots, regardless of friendship status, most especially if/when it happens to stretch across the aisle.


----------



## Woyzeck (Aug 6, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> I just know it. After all, she believes and says things like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That sound you heard was the sound of biologists and science teachers facepalming.


----------



## BDBoop (Aug 6, 2011)

Woyzeck said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > I just know it. After all, she believes and says things like this:
> ...



Truly, truly.


----------



## St.Blues (Aug 6, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> St.Blues said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 7, 2011)

Sallow said:


> lilbug said:
> 
> 
> > > Bachmann will win!!
> ...



So how the fuck did that idiot Jr. manage to get in?  He's the worst president EVER.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 7, 2011)

It is too bad all the top women in politics today are bat shit crazy.  What America needs right now is a woman to put this house in order and all we can come up with are Bachmann, Boxer, Feinstein, McKinney, Palin, Pelosi etc.

And for the record, yes, I am male.  The men we have sitting on the top are not worth spit so a woman might just be what we all need.

You know what?  I left Clinton off that list and I did it deliberately.  I wouldn't vote for her because she is part of the party establishment, but at least she is not bat shit crazy in her old age.  Fifteen years ago was a different story though.

Immie


----------



## Rozman (Aug 7, 2011)

Sallow said:


> lilbug said:
> 
> 
> > > Bachmann will win!!
> ...



And Obama beat out Jimmy Carter,the other worst President in my Lifetime...

See I can play this game too....


----------



## California Girl (Aug 7, 2011)

Trajan said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > If Bachman becomes president, I'm gonna go somewhere else.
> ...



Bachman just got my vote. Seems a small price to pay. She can't be any worse than Obama.... and we get rid of the AssBitBikerBoy.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 7, 2011)

> But even more important, as Bachmann revealed here, the blank check talking point is also completely absurd when viewed in light of, you know, the Constitution itself.



A Document whose case law Ms. Bachmann is clearly unfamiliar with. 


> You cannot possibly know that. Everyone thought Obama would going to be so great and look what a mess our country is in.



Thats ridiculous  you cant make a mess out of a mess. 


> So how the fuck did that idiot Jr. manage to get in?



Supreme Court appointments, because republicans controlled the Executive for the majority of the time between 1969 and 1999, they made the bulk of the appointment to the Court, and it paid off in 2000. Carter made no appointments and Clinton only two. Its one of the primary reasons the GOP is desperate to get the WH back.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 7, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > But even more important, as Bachmann revealed here, the blank check talking point is also completely absurd when viewed in light of, you know, the Constitution itself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fine, if it was a mess before, P-BO has managed to set fire to it, cause smoke and water damage...

...before it exploded.

...and left a crater.


----------



## auditor0007 (Aug 8, 2011)

Mr.Owl said:


> BDboop, I would be in a constant state of humor if that loon won the election.



Can you imagine how much fun the late night hosts would have with that?


----------



## Spud (Aug 8, 2011)

I certainly hope Bachmann wins, it'll be the funniest presidency ever.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 8, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> I just know it. After all, she believes and says things like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Reality Check.  Only 19% of the American population accepts Darwinism.  about half believe the bible version, and most of the rest think God had some role in the creation of life.  

If you really think that Obama is going to beat Bachmann on the "Darwin" ticket, you are up for a rude awakening.


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 8, 2011)

Obamabots are some of the shallowest people I have ever seen.

But they voted for the shallow one so that should tell you something.


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 8, 2011)

Reading through these types of thread is the SCARY part.

These shallow people GET TO VOTE

maybe Dr. Grumpy was on to something when he said,  WE ARE FUCKED


----------



## BDBoop (Aug 8, 2011)

Spud said:


> I certainly hope Bachmann wins, it'll be the funniest presidency ever.



It'll be sunshine and lollipops from day one, that's for sure. She knows how to turn around the economy immediately.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 8, 2011)

Spud said:


> I certainly hope Bachmann wins, it'll be the funniest presidency ever.



Rather have funny than tragic.


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 8, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> Spud said:
> 
> 
> > I certainly hope Bachmann wins, it'll be the funniest presidency ever.
> ...



Do you just make shit up as you go along, or did you get that off thinkprogress or the dailykos?
she CAN'T do any worse on the economy than the Obama and his clown administration has done in THREE YEARS.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 8, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Spud said:
> ...



Considering she doesn't know shit about history, or this country, wanna explain why she's suddenly a genius on the economy, mr. Stupidity?


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 8, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



she knows about as much as your community organizer in chief does, isn't THAT all that matters.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Aug 8, 2011)

toxicmedia said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > I just know it. After all, she believes and says things like this:
> ...



I can, her picture is on the cover of Newsweek this week.  See,

Backlash Over Bachmann Newsweek Cover - Michele Bachmann - Fox Nation

Caption:  "The lights are on, but no one is at home"


----------



## BDBoop (Aug 8, 2011)

No, actually. SHE SAID IT. About 60 miles NW of here.

Bachmann claims improving economy wont take that long | St. Cloud TIMES | sctimes.com



> Bachmann told reporters after a campaign event in Newton that the economy would start to improve almost immediately after she becomes president because she would immediately implement conservative economic policies to slash the nations debt, rule out tax increases and cut regulations.
> 
> It wont take that long if we send signals to the marketplace, she said, standing by an earlier comment that the improvement would begin within the first quarter.


----------



## BDBoop (Aug 8, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Which stated in part:



> One is overcoming the perception of hypocrisy. Democratsand some of Bachmanns Republican opponentshave noted the gulf between her rhetoric and record. She earned a federal salary as a lawyer for the IRS (an agency despised by the Tea Party), for example. Pressed on whether she took Americans to court to force them to pay back taxes, she answers carefully. Our employer was the United States Department of Treasury. Thats who paid my salary, she says. And the client that we represented was the IRS. She also says that the job opened her eyes to the huge bureaucracy and how devastating high taxes are on almost every sector of the economyfarmers and families and small businesses and individuals.
> 
> Bachmann owned a stake in her father-in-laws farm that received more than $250,000 in federal agriculture subsidies between 1995 and 2008. She says that money all stayed with her in-laws. In Congress, she tried to secure more than $3.7 million in federal earmarks for her districtthe kind of pet projects she has blamed for excessive spending. And she railed against Obamas $800 billionplus Recovery Act as wasteful, then signed a half-dozen letters seeking stimulus funds for local projects. Her requests in 2009 echoed the arguments Republicans lampooned Obama for using. A bridge project could create nearly 3,000 jobs a year, Bachmann wrote, while a highway project would promote economic prosperity.


----------



## BDBoop (Aug 8, 2011)

Love the last paragraph, that about says it all.



> Sitting on the edge of a metal folding chair in a sweltering parking lot, Donna Fouts, 73, doesnt seem to care that Bachmann planned to vote against the debt-ceiling compromise that would ensure the arrival of her Social Security check and the military benefits owed to her sons and nephews. Well, Im sick of all them other politicians that tell me what to do with my life, she answers. Something about her tells me to follow her.


----------



## derk (Aug 8, 2011)

The TP never created the stimuli's that caused this immense deficit. They are the result of it and the Health care legislation the majority party passed last term. It is SPIN to say the tea party caused this.  Now we have to deal with revisionist  knee jerk forumisim by left leaning government advocates that got their way! And now wanna blame everyone else for the legislation they passed while in power hahaha OMG.
_Democrat majority much?_ Not now the American people see how reckless you were with the treasury and their national security. You ruined our financial standing in the free market capital system.
Run Michelle Run!!!!!


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 8, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> Love the last paragraph, that about says it all.
> 
> 
> 
> > Sitting on the edge of a metal folding chair in a sweltering parking lot, Donna Fouts, 73, doesn&#8217;t seem to care that Bachmann planned to vote against the debt-ceiling compromise that would ensure the arrival of her Social Security check and the military benefits owed to her sons and nephews. &#8220;Well, I&#8217;m sick of all them other politicians that tell me what to do with my life,&#8221; she answers. &#8220;Something about her tells me to follow her.&#8221;


Ranks up there with that idiot in Deeetroit in line to get gubmint money from Obama's stash.  Again, is it a crime to have stupid people follow you?  I'd be more worried about stupid people being put in positions of power.  Timothy Geithner.... I'm looking at youuuuuuu...!


You know... I'll take Ms. Fouts over this retard every time.


----------



## Zona (Aug 8, 2011)

Trajan said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > If Bachman becomes president, I'm gonna go somewhere else.
> ...



Did Rush leave when Obama won?


----------



## Zona (Aug 8, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Love the last paragraph, that about says it all.
> ...



What an accurate portrayal of so many, righty?


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 8, 2011)

Zona said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...


About as accurate as examples your ilk used.


----------



## cloudy (Aug 9, 2011)

Trajan said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > If Bachman becomes president, I'm gonna go somewhere else.
> ...


Some people still believe in mythical bullshit, there is no god, there is no fucking tooth fairy, no santa clause, no easter bunny. sorry to break your beliefs, but it's time someone told you the truth, but since you're probably a t party republican, it'll be hard to convince you otherwise.


----------



## cloudy (Aug 9, 2011)

Trajan said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > If Bachman becomes president, I'm gonna go somewhere else.
> ...


there is no god, no tooth fairy, no easter bunny, no santa clause, but it's nice to believe in myths.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 9, 2011)

cloudy said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


If a lobster doesn't crawl on your plate for dinner, do lobsters not exist?


----------



## BDBoop (Aug 9, 2011)

cloudy said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...





cloudy said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Yeah, honey? It's only insightful/interesting/funny/noteworthy the first time. After that, it's spam.


----------



## St.Blues (Aug 9, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> cloudy said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



Spam, That shit is garbage.. I wouldn't feed a dog spam.

Blues


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 9, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> cloudy said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



In this case it was neither insightful, interesting, funny or noteworthy.  It was his one-sided, boring, stale and unsupported opinion.  

Immie


----------



## BDBoop (Aug 9, 2011)

St.Blues said:


> Spam, That shit is garbage.. I wouldn't feed a dog spam.
> 
> Blues



I <3 Spam. I should have been born in Hawaii.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 9, 2011)

St.Blues said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > cloudy said:
> ...


Probably not.  You know what that amount of sodium will do to a dog's kidneys?

On the other hand, my doctor would be pissed if they knew I was eating it.  

mmmmmmm


----------



## Zona (Aug 9, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> cloudy said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



Well, considering you can go see a lobster at a fish market, your example makes no sense.  I just saw a few yesterday.  You and god, how are the sightings coming along.  (seriously, what a dumb analogy you are trying to use.)


----------



## Zona (Aug 9, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> St.Blues said:
> 
> 
> > Spam, That shit is garbage.. I wouldn't feed a dog spam.
> ...



My wife was born in Hawaii and loves the stuff.  It is funny...in Hawaii, in McDonalds, they offer spam on the menu.  lol

Spam is fine every once in a while and if you substitute it for bacon on a blt, it is delicious.


----------



## BDBoop (Aug 9, 2011)

Zona said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > St.Blues said:
> ...



 Agreed.


----------



## driveby (Aug 9, 2011)

BDBoop said:


> I just know it. After all, she believes and says things like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



2003? how pathetic....

You're digging awful deep to demonize someone who has no chance of winning the primary. Or maybe you're simply just another moonbat hag that just hates conservative women....


----------



## LilOlLady (Aug 9, 2011)

You think Obama is bad and things could not get worse, if we get Bachmann we are really screwed. No, Bachman don't have a chance in hell and if she is the canidated, which I hope she it, Obama is a sure win for 2012. People don't ususally "change horses midstream." I am not all that happy with Obama but things would have been much worse with McCain and Palin and if not for Obama we would be in a Depression with 20% unemployment instead of 9.1%. If this holds Obama will be fine.
Remember who got us here. Dead Beat Bush.
S&P is obviously bias.
What has Obama done? He isn't the Anointed.
President Obama's 244 accomplishments | Occasional Planet


----------



## xotoxi (Aug 9, 2011)




----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 9, 2011)

> It'll be sunshine and lollipops from day one, that's for sure. She knows how to turn around the economy immediately.


Shell start issuing EOs the first day mandating Christian prayer in public schools, that gays be registered as sex offenders, and that public office holders acknowledge Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.

Of course all of the above would be un-Constitutional, but Bachmann wouldnt know that being a graduate of Oral Roberts University, Coburn School of Law, where American law is based on the bible, not the Constitution.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 9, 2011)

LilOlLady said:


> You think Obama is bad and things could not get worse, if we get Bachmann we are really screwed. No, Bachman don't have a chance in hell and if she is the canidated, which I hope she it, Obama is a sure win for 2012. People don't ususally "change horses midstream." I am not all that happy with Obama but things would have been much worse with McCain and Palin and if not for Obama we would be in a Depression with 20% unemployment instead of 9.1%. If this holds Obama will be fine.
> Remember who got us here. Dead Beat Bush.
> S&P is obviously bias.
> What has Obama done? He isn't the Anointed.
> President Obama's 244 accomplishments | Occasional Planet



I literally despise McCain, but I think anyone that says things would have been much worse under McCain are being foolish.  You don't know what he would have done or how he would have handled the things we have come across.  Would have have saddled us with $787 Billion dollars in stimulus money?  Would he have bailed out banking and auto?  What would have been the consequences of not doing those three things?  Would he have dumped a piece of shit Health Care Reform Act upon us that no one knows what the hell it is going to do this country in two years?  The answers to all four of those questions are speculative.

Despite what the government wants you to believe this economy sucks and it sure as hell is not getting any better.  I, for one, do not believe the bullshit that it would have been worse if we had not elected your Anointed One and yes, you did anoint him.  

History has repeated itself.  Conservatives (and I am one) bailed on Bush and turned against him when he proved to be a failure.  Now many liberals are bailing on Obama.

Don't give me that crap that things could have been worse.  It is bullshit.  And don't give me that crap that  we would be really screwed with Bachmann without something more than your bias against people that don't think we can spend our way out of debt.

Immie


----------



## BDBoop (Aug 9, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > It'll be sunshine and lollipops from day one, that's for sure. She knows how to turn around the economy immediately.
> 
> 
> Shell start issuing EOs the first day mandating Christian prayer in public schools, that gays be registered as sex offenders, and that public office holders acknowledge Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.
> ...



ORU gives new meaning to the word 'joke'.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Aug 9, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> > You think Obama is bad and things could not get worse, if we get Bachmann we are really screwed. No, Bachman don't have a chance in hell and if she is the canidated, which I hope she it, Obama is a sure win for 2012. People don't ususally "change horses midstream." I am not all that happy with Obama but things would have been much worse with McCain and Palin and if not for Obama we would be in a Depression with 20% unemployment instead of 9.1%. If this holds Obama will be fine.
> ...



You are pro-Bachmann, Immie?

Good luck with that.


----------



## Lovebears65 (Aug 9, 2011)

I am a Rep and I dont want her to win.  I really wish Chris Christy would run. He would stand up for the union thugs. He says what he mean and means what he says.  That is the kind of person who should be in office.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 9, 2011)

Bachmann possibly may win.
American voters are currently ignorant in both parties.
Obama and Bachmann having any support proves that.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 9, 2011)

Sky Dancer said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > LilOlLady said:
> ...



No, not at all.  But, one cannot predict what would have happened had we not been saddled with President Obama or that Bachmann will be worse than what we have now.

In fact, I am not pro-any candidate.  Personally, I think we're screwed with whomever we elect.  There is not a candidate out there that I would trust the life of a friend who was terminally ill to for thirty seconds.

Immie


----------



## hipeter924 (Aug 10, 2011)

Obama will win again, but his approval ratings will be low for the rest of his Presidency.


----------



## derk (Aug 10, 2011)

hipeter924 said:


> Obama will win again, but his approval ratings will be low for the rest of his Presidency.



Obama will be a one term president. Most likely just like Obama did in 2008 it will be a relatively unknown republican who is supported by the tea party that will offer outside the beltway leadership that will win the majority of votes. Barack Obama has not shown presidential qualities he has shown organizational abilities at times not Leadership and originality he is the poster boy for the DEMOCRATS big ideas like NATIONAL health care he caries water for his party. America wants change and real leadership. Especially from the democrats
 & the republicans big government agendas. Medicare part b anyone? Stimulis? Super congress? Homeland security? National Health Care?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 11, 2011)

derk said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > Obama will win again, but his approval ratings will be low for the rest of his Presidency.
> ...



You've obviously been drinking the tea.

Wanna talk about how the tea bagging idiots brought down our credit rating?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Aug 11, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> derk said:
> 
> 
> > hipeter924 said:
> ...


Please do....


----------



## annesmith (Aug 11, 2011)

May the best candidate wins


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 11, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> derk said:
> 
> 
> > hipeter924 said:
> ...




So Standard and Poors listens to the T Party, a party with NO candidates in office?
Credit rating agencies do not go by political parties' rhetoric.
They gauge debt ratios. Ours has doubled in 2 years.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 11, 2011)

annesmith said:


> May the best candidate wins



The best candidates are to smart to run.

And welcome to USMB.

Immie


----------



## St.Blues (Aug 11, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> derk said:
> 
> 
> > hipeter924 said:
> ...



Stop watching MSNBC.. Get the truth elsewhere.


----------



## Dot Com (Aug 11, 2011)

Mr.Owl said:


> BDboop, I would be in a constant state of humor if that loon won the election.





toxicmedia said:


> God I hope so....can you picture that brainless twerp debating with Obama?...nirvana.....



It would be a boon for late night comedians and political satirists. That's what happened when Bu$h was reelected too


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 11, 2011)

annesmith said:


> May the best candidate wins


well hell... let's just jinx it right away!  When HAS the "best" candidate ever won?  I think Reagan was the last time that happened.  Since then I believe it's been the "Least Disgusting" candidate who's won.


----------



## Indy Terry (Aug 11, 2011)

Bring up this thread after the election. It will be interesting to see these responses then. Bachmann????
That is extremely funny.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 11, 2011)

Indy Terry said:


> Bring up this thread after the election. It will be interesting to see these responses then. Bachmann????
> That is extremely funny.


All predictions on potential candidates outside of the primaries/caucuses are way off.  What else is new?

In 2008, many thought it'd be Guliani or Thompson or Paul or Kookcinich, or Hillary.

Nobody... and I mean NOBODY picked P-BO of the experts till after he trounced Hillary.  McCain wasn't a surprise, but he wasn't an odds on favorite either.  Romney was that.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 11, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Indy Terry said:
> 
> 
> > Bring up this thread after the election. It will be interesting to see these responses then. Bachmann????
> ...



Most of the idiots were trying to use polling as a way to figure out the winners.

They REALLY messed up when they said Hillary would get the nomination.


----------



## Russell (Aug 12, 2011)

on Taxes:  "Praise the Lord and support the rich."
on the EPA: "Who needs clean air, if the rich can't make a buck off it?"


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 12, 2011)

Russell said:


> on Taxes:  "Praise the Lord and support the rich."
> on the EPA: "Who needs clean air, if the rich can't make a buck off it?"



Needs work...


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 12, 2011)

Russell said:


> on Taxes:  "Praise the Lord and support the rich."
> on the EPA: "Who needs clean air, if the rich can't make a buck off it?"


No.  That is not what's being said.

A sensible policy would be returning the EPA to 1992 levels of regulation, forcing them to provide cost analysis to congress and the public of it's proposed changes, and require congress to approve by single issue only any new regulation limited to a 10 year period, where the whole process must be done again.

Let me also ask you this.  When is the last time a poor person employed you?


----------



## CryingKoala (Aug 12, 2011)

Bachmann doesn't deserve to be anywhere near the White House. Even as a tourist. 

She will split the religious crazy vote with Rick Perry and with any luck they will cancel each other out. 

The woman has some serious personal conflicts over upholding the Constitution.
Bachmann?s Law School Mentor Asserts Biblical Roots of American Political System | Religion Dispatches


----------



## Russell (Aug 17, 2011)

Big Fitz,
The last time I worked for someone "rich", a private corporation was about 35 years ago. Your "rich" friends do create jobs - overseas. The servants they hire in the USA are usually illegal aliens from overseas.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 17, 2011)

Russell said:


> Big Fitz,
> The last time I worked for someone "rich", a private corporation was about 35 years ago. Your "rich" friends do create jobs - overseas. The servants they hire in the USA are usually illegal aliens from overseas.


  oops, undersized.  Gotta throw this one back.


----------



## toxicmedia (Aug 17, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Indy Terry said:
> ...


This morning I listened to Rush. I was doing house work and giving my dog a bath. That guy went on and on citing polls that supported his crazy delusions. Last winter...when the polls were all coming back showing the eroding support for Scott Walker...all Rush could say is that polls are bogus.

It is truly intellectually repulsive to cherry pick polls you agree with, and ignore the ones that you don't. It's one of the worst things a poster can do IMO. Right up there with the olde "you guys did it first!!!"


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 17, 2011)

toxicmedia said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


I maintain Mark Twain was right and needed to be updated:

"There lies, damn lies, statistics, computer models and opinion polls."


----------



## Disenchanted61 (Aug 25, 2011)

Bachmann need to save face and say nothing to public


----------

