Michele Bachmann could win the nomination... [Archive] - HungAngels

PDA

View Full Version : Michele Bachmann could win the nomination...

Ben

06-24-2011, 05:29 AM

YouTube - ‪Michele Bachmann's Holy War! Matt Taibbi‬&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDy0QrUzMLg)

Ben

06-24-2011, 05:37 AM

YouTube - ‪Michele Bachmann Says The Darndest Things‬&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9bvreW08X0)

robertlouis

06-24-2011, 05:41 AM

Ah, the American answer to Ahmadinejad.

Ben

06-24-2011, 06:02 AM

Ah, the American answer to Ahmadinejad.

Ha! ha! ha! That might be stretching it a bit... :)

YouTube - ‪Countdown with Keith Olbermann - Matt Taibbi On Michele Bachmann‬&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jacb8bmm-g)

Ben

06-24-2011, 06:05 AM

MB on gay marriage and homosexuality.... The video isn't completely clear.
But her message is frightening. Bizarre. Bigoted.

YouTube - ‪A Messsage From Bachmann on Homosexuality‬&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yscUo5Qr64)

Ben

06-24-2011, 06:18 AM

Michele Bachmann Spying On A Gay Rights Rally Behind Some Bushes....

robertlouis

06-24-2011, 06:19 AM

Ha! ha! ha! That might be stretching it a bit... :)

True. He's not that extreme. :dancing:

Stavros

06-24-2011, 05:39 PM

One of the arguments about Bachmann is that if she is serious about seeking the nomination she will have to soften some of her rhetoric about Gay people, and it remains to be seen how important her arguments about homosexuality are; but there is also no doubt that she appeals to a lot of otherwise 'silent' Americans; the article in the Guardian is quite good I think for that paper:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/18/michele-bachmann-tea-party-us?INTCMP=SRCH

The same paper also has an article claiming that Rick Perry will win the nomination. I think its too early to tell, there are now about 11 or 12 candidates, with more to come, so there is still a lot to play for. The Perry article is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2011/jun/24/rick-perry-republican-nomination-2012?INTCMP=SRCH

Silcc69

06-24-2011, 06:19 PM

Well i'd do her in a heartbeat but she probably doesn't do the "darker" meat.

onmyknees

06-25-2011, 01:10 AM

Well i'd do her in a heartbeat but she probably doesn't do the "darker" meat.

Stick with Michelle Obama...not Bachman...she's more your type in more ways than one ...Bachman would probably kick you in the nuts. LMAO

onmyknees

06-25-2011, 01:59 AM

YouTube - ‪Michele Bachmann's Holy War! Matt Taibbi‬&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDy0QrUzMLg)

Thanks for elevating the dialogue with a weasel like Taibbi. Here's the thing with Taibbi....

besides being the weirdest looking dude with those thick eyebrows and beatty eyes, he's paid fairly well for his columns. Certainly well enough to pay a visit to The Hair Club for Men to do something about that thinning hair. LOL...I mean if you're going to be on TV...get it together dude. At least Bachmann is pleasing to look at ! He's an angry dude....He does however possesses some talent as a writer, but he simply can not apply the talents to his trade without his articles dripping with hate, vitriol, misogyny, schoolyard bully name calling, anger and over emotion. His hate is to such a level he is incapable of writing a critical well constructed article without savaging his subject matter. We get that he despises conservative woman, but his writing has become so vicious it's hard to take. He would have impressionable, ignorant readers believing that Michelle Bachman is the political equivalent of Susan Smith who murdered her 4 children. It just isn't reality. She not the dope that hacks like Taibbi would have you believe. ( ask Dan Rather...) Disagree with Bachman, but no
need to savage and disrespect her. This is an interesting little revealing clip .....watch toward the end as he reverts to name calling as Dana Loesch starts to make some relevant points he can't answer or doesn't like....Watch the stupid Alfred E. Newman grin on his pretentious face... I think he's got a real issue with strong conservative women. He's a disturbing, disgusting dude....IMHO of course. LOL

http://www.breitbart.tv/left-wing-criticism-of-tea-party-smacked-down-by-big-governments-dana-loesch/

Dan Rather on Bachmann...

http://www.mofopolitics.com/2011/05/21/dan-rather-on-michele-bachmann-it-would-be-a-mistake-to-underestimate-her-this-woman-is-for-real/

Ineeda SM

06-26-2011, 04:26 AM

Well i'd do her in a heartbeat but she probably doesn't do the "darker" meat.

NO Her party doesn't like dark meat. At least not in public, or that they would ever admit to. They only have "dark meat" as tokens for show to prove they are not racists. Republicans display "The Blacks" (as Trump calls you) like paintings so they can say, "See we love black people. Aren't we such good white folks?"

Stick with Michelle Obama...not Bachman...she's more your type in more ways than one ...Bachman would probably kick you in the nuts. LMAO

Then we could just kick Bachman in her nuts. I know she is hiding them. LMAO

arnie666

06-29-2011, 09:32 PM

Isn't it interesting that Bachmanns former opponents on MSCBC and CNN ,who not too long ago made her out to be some kind of total homophobic lunatic are suddenly talking her up? I remember how Chris Matthews in particular would speak about her ,but now suddenly he is gushing over her. I can't count the number of times it has now been mentioned on these left wing media that she is in fact a tax lawyer ,so this must mean she is extremely intelligent and certainly qualified to run for president, like nothing else matters.

Much has been made about how she is biting at the heels of paper champion Romney, when frankly beating him is like a heavyweight in his prime knocking out a broke up former champion who has lost his legs looking for a payday.Hardly something to get a tingle down your leg about.

Basically the MSM want someone Obama can beat. Romney would be ideal but frankly they are nervous that he will not end up getting the nomination. I think most sensible republicans remember how the liberal MSM's choice of Mcain by soft soaping him went for them. So they need someone else, someone too the right of romney ,associated with the tea party and not a friend of theirs. So while they make some occasional digs about her politics ,they talk her up as a serious candidate.

The real elephant in the room,the one the media do not want to run, is Sarah Palin. It is obvious by the way ,comparisons are constantly made ,where Bachmann is talked up. They have tried for years to consign Palin to political oblivion , and will do anything to keep it that way.Even asking their readers to go through tons of Palins emails. Even talk up a 'homophobic lunatic'. If Bachmann wins the nomination, the claws will come out against her and the msm will complete revert to past behaviours when it comes to her. It is not just that Palin could make a fight of it against Obama, they just don't like everything about her. From her upbringing, her politics, the way she keeps bouncing back, her appearance,her maverick rebellious streak in particular.

trish

06-29-2011, 10:14 PM

Yeah, she's got a real maverick view of history; the way she's got Paul Revere ringing those bells and warning the Brits not to take away our guns. Lol

onmyknees

06-30-2011, 01:44 AM

NO Her party doesn't like dark meat. At least not in public, or that they would ever admit to. They only have "dark meat" as tokens for show to prove they are not racists. Republicans display "The Blacks" (as Trump calls you) like paintings so they can say, "See we love black people. Aren't we such good white folks?"

Then we could just kick Bachman in her nuts. I know she is hiding them. LMAO

She's got more balls than you sweetie pie !!!!!! LMAO

hippifried

06-30-2011, 01:49 AM

Well i'd do her in a heartbeat but she probably doesn't do the "darker" meat.
Is there anybody you wouldn't do? :)

onmyknees

06-30-2011, 02:20 AM

Yeah, she's got a real maverick view of history; the way she's got Paul Revere ringing those bells and warning the Brits not to take away our guns. Lol

OOPS...you may have stepped in it this time Trish...Your blind loathing of Ms. Palin has once again caused you to be inaccurate....Seems like the eminent historian on Paul Revere is closer to Palin's version than your's . At least the one I hear on NPR ( not a "maverick" right wing think tank, to be sure) Give a read.

It occurs to me that if you wanna catch a big Fish named Trish, just throw out the Palin net and start trolling !!!! LOL

As fact check might say..........FAIL TRISH !!!!! (again) :dancing:

How Accurate Were Palin's Paul Revere Comments?

June 6, 2011

Listen to the Story (http://javascript:NPR.Player.openPlayer(137011636, 137012129, null, NPR.Player.Action.PLAY_NOW, NPR.Player.Type.STORY, '0'))

All Things Considered (http://www.npr.org/programs/all-things-considered/)
[4 min 45 sec]

Add to Playlist (http://javascript:NPR.Player.openPlayer(137011636, 137012129, null, NPR.Player.Action.ADD_TO_PLAYLIST, NPR.Player.Type.STORY, '0'))
Download (http://pd.npr.org/anon.npr-mp3/npr/atc/2011/06/20110606_atc_17.mp3?dl=1)

text size A (http://javascript: void();) A (http://javascript: void();) A (http://javascript: void();)
June 6, 2011
Sarah Palin caused a colonial-era commotion last week with comments she made in Boston about Paul Revere's famous ride. Melissa Block speaks with Robert Allison, a professor and historian at Suffolk University, about Palin's comments to see just how historically accurate they were.

Copyright © 2011 National Public Radio®. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.
MELISSA BLOCK, host:
Sarah Palin is defending her knowledge of American history. Last week, after Palin visited Old North Church and Paul Revere's house in Boston, a reporter asked her what she had seen, and what she'd take away from her visit.
Ms. SARAH PALIN (Former Governor, Alaska): We saw where Paul Revere hung out as a teenager, which was something new to learn. And you know, he who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms, by ringing those bells and making sure, as he is riding his horse through town, to send those warning shots and bells, that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.
BLOCK: Well, after that generated howls of derision for historical inaccuracy, Palin amplified on "Fox News Sunday." Here's part of what she said.
(Soundbite of TV show, "Fox News Sunday")
Ms. PALIN: Part of Paul Revere's ride - and it wasn't just one ride; he was a courier, he was a messenger - part of his ride was to warn the British that we're already there, that hey, you're not going to succeed. You're not going to take American arms. You are not going to beat our own well-armed persons, individual, private militia that we have. He did warn the British.
BLOCK: We are going to fact-check Palin's Paul Revere history now with Robert Allison. He's chair of the history department at Suffolk University in Boston.
Professor Allison, welcome to the program.
Professor ROBERT ALLISON (Chairman, History Department, Suffolk University): Thanks, Melissa.
BLOCK: And let's review Paul Revere's midnight ride, April 18, 1775. He's going to Lexington, Massachusetts. And according to Sarah Palin, he's riding his horse through town, sending warning shots and ringing those bells. True?
Prof. ALLISON: Well, he's not firing warning shots. He is telling people so that they can ring bells to alert others. What he's doing is going from house to house, knocking on doors of members of the Committees of Safety, saying the regulars are out. That is, he knew that General Gage was sending troops out to Lexington and Concord, really Concord, to seize the weapons being stockpiled there, but also perhaps to arrest John Hancock and Samuel Adams, leaders of the Continental Congress who were staying in the town of Lexington.
Remember, Gage was planning - this is a secret operation; that's why he's moving at night. He gets over to Cambridge, the troops start marching from Cambridge, and church bells are ringing throughout the countryside.
BLOCK: So Paul Revere was ringing those bells? He was a silversmith, right?
Prof. ALLISON: Well, he was - he also was a bell ringer. That is, he rang the bells at Old North Church as a boy. But he, personally, is not getting off his horse and going to ring bells. He's telling other people - and this is their system before Facebook, before Twitter, before NPR - this was the way you get a message out, is by having people ring church bells, and everyone knows there is an emergency.
And by this time, of course, the various town committees of safety, militia knew what the signals were, so they knew something was afoot. So this is no longer a secret operation for the British.
Revere isn't trying to alert the British, but he is trying to warn them. And in April of 1775, no one was talking about independence. We're still part of the British Empire. We're trying to save it. So this is a warning to the British Empire what will happen if you provoke Americans.
BLOCK:Sarah Palin also was saying there that Paul Revere's message to the British in his warning was: You're not going to take American arms - you know, basically a Second Amendment argument, even though the Second Amendment didn't exist then.
Prof. ALLISON: Yeah. She was making a Second Amendment case. But in fact, the British were going out to Concord to seize colonists' arms, the weapons that the Massachusetts Provincial Congress was stockpiling there.
So, yeah, she is right in that. I mean, she may be pushing it too far to say this is a Second Amendment case. Of course, neither the Second Amendment nor the Constitution was in anyone's mind at the time. But the British objective was to get the arms that were stockpiled in Concord.
BLOCK: So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.
Prof. ALLISON: Well, yeah, she did. And remember, she is a politician. She's not an historian. And God help us when historians start acting like politicians, and I suppose when politicians start writing history.
BLOCK: Are there other historians, Professor, whom you've talked with who say you're being entirely too charitable towards Sarah Palin here, and she really did misread American...
Prof. ALLISON: I haven't talked to many - well, I don't know. I mean, I haven't talked to too many historians today. And you know, Sarah Palin is a lightning rod. I just was thinking about how many times, you know, I've spoken about Paul Revere. I've organized events about the American Revolution. No one ever pays any attention. Suddenly, Sarah Palin comes to town, makes an off-the-cuff remark about what she learned, and suddenly, you're calling me to find out what I think about Paul Revere and the American Revolution.

onmyknees

06-30-2011, 02:21 AM

Is there anybody you wouldn't do? :)

Himself !!!!!!!!!!!

trish

06-30-2011, 02:53 AM

Prof. ALLISON: Well, he's not firing warning shots. He is telling people so that they can ring bells to alert others. What he's doing is going from house to house, knocking on doors of members of the Committees of Safety, saying the regulars are out. That is, he knew that General Gage was sending troops out to Lexington and Concord, really Concord, to seize the weapons being stockpiled there, but also perhaps to arrest John Hancock and Samuel Adams, leaders of the Continental Congress who were staying in the town of Lexington.
Remember, Gage was planning - this is a secret operation; that's why he's moving at night. He gets over to Cambridge, the troops start marching from Cambridge, and church bells are ringing throughout the countryside. Nothing in there about ringing bells. Sure he was a silversmith and he rang bells. I've rung a bell or two also; but not on the night April 18, 1775, and neither did Paul Revere. Nor is there anything in there about warning the British. Nothing in there about telling the Brits not to take our guns.

BLOCK:Sarah Palin also was saying there that Paul Revere's message to the British in his warning was: You're not going to take American arms - you know, basically a Second Amendment argument, even though the Second Amendment didn't exist then.
Prof. ALLISON: Yeah. She was making a Second Amendment case. But in fact, the British were going out to Concord to seize colonists' arms, the weapons that the Massachusetts Provincial Congress was stockpiling there.
So, yeah, she is right in that.Yes, she's making a Second Amendment argument. No, Palin is wrong about Revere's purpose. She claimed Revere was warning the British against taking colonial arms. He wasn't.

BLOCK: So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.
Prof. ALLISON: Well, yeah, she did. And remember, she is a politician. She's not an historian. And God help us when historians start acting like politicians, and I suppose when politicians start writing history. Half hearted praise indeed, even from Prof. Allison.

So let's see what Sarah got on her history quiz. Paul Revere didn't ring any bells on his famous midnight ride. Sarah knew bells figured in there somewhere, but of course completely forgot about the famous signal lanterns. She got the entire purpose of the midnight ride all screwed up. Revere was warning the colonists that the British had arrived. He was not warning the British. Of course she screwed it up because she has a political message she wants to push. So what does it matter if she has Paul warning the British not to take our guns. Insignificant plot modification, right? So on the details she['s] incorrect and incomplete. And she corrupted the storyline to make room for her own agenda. I give her a D-.

Stavros

06-30-2011, 03:57 AM

A small point: as a matter of law, were most 'Americans' at the time British subjects, including Mr Revere? Presumably foreign nationals living in 'the Colonies' could insist they were French, Italian or whatever, even though there were no passports at the time, but how does one get round this? After all, you people did not want to remain subjects of His Majesty King George III, you did not want to be British.

A more important point: if, hypothetically speaking, Obama is not re-elected, and if, as some people suggest, the current Republican challengers are not up to much, could the USA be about to experience a string of one-term Presidencies? The key problem might be public dissatisfaction with Presidents who are not able to make a real change to the economy, health care and foreign adventures.

hippifried

06-30-2011, 06:33 AM

Is there anybody you wouldn't do? :smile:Himself !!!!!!!!!!!
That's just because he can't reach. the question was "wouldn't", not "can't". :geek:

Silcc69

06-30-2011, 10:49 AM

Is there anybody you wouldn't do? :)

Coulter and Hilary Clinton. :confused:

Prospero

06-30-2011, 10:58 AM

arnie666

06-30-2011, 01:21 PM

Palin and Bachmann are both nasty nutjobs. Why is it that the US right throws up bovinely stupid people as potential candidates. Much as I dislike david Cameron and his crew in the UK, you can't really accuse them of being simple minded.

Flashman is not equipped to manage a supermarket,never mind the country.It beggars belief that there are people in the UK who vote for either Labour ,tories or the limp dems. I don't think we are in a position to criticise the US right at all when our own country is slowly being driven into a third world toilet.

The floppy haired limp wristed idiot who uturns more than a mini cab driven by an indian with poor english is not in the same ball park as sarah palin. flashman was born into wealth, flogged some fags (uk public school slang) at school and was transported through media jobs and then into politics due to family and school connections.Palin started at the bottom, and worked her way up, similar to mrs thatcher at least in the way Mrs Thatcher came from the normal middle class background. You don't get to where she is without at the very least cunning and strong political acumen.

And there is more to intelligence than being an intellectual. I know several people who went to oxford and got firsts, and both could not survive in the outside world without support.Extremely talented in their field yes, but also very naive and poor in social situations. One at 35 can't pass his driving test despite taking it 10 times. I mean look at the current idiot in the whitehouse for reference ,that going to the best academic institutions doesn't make you a decent president or more importantly a leader.

Prospero

06-30-2011, 03:22 PM

Thanks Arnie666. So there is more to intelligence than being an intellectual? But surely you could go further. There is more to being intelligent than knowing anything at all for that matter and on that basis Bachmann and Palin are geniuses to rank with Leonardo or Einstein. Indeed yes. Their knowledge of the world is unrivalled among current political figures. Palin was hugely impressive during the last election and surely helped McCain gain such an admirable success. So why not the dream team of the two women running for president and VP. Certainly be better than the "current idiot" in the White House for sure. Let's string up the fags or intern them. Let's give big tax breaks to the rich and make the poor suffer even more. Let's bomb Mecca maybe... that'd teach those troublesome Muslims a thing or two.

I'm certainly no fan of Cameron I readily admit. I think he and his pals are craven. But they are pygmys compared to these impressive Americans Palin and Bachmann. I guess should either of these get elected the US will get what it deserves.... after all who can forget the glorious leaderships of Nixon and George W Bush.The glorious invasion of Iraq and a commitment to mid east wars that is now on schedule to cost more than World war Two. God stand up for idiots.

Prospero

06-30-2011, 05:31 PM

An american Dylan fan friend of mine sent me this.

"The sweet, pretty things are in bed now, of course

Sarah Palin, she's trying to endorse

A reinterpretation of Paul Revere's horse

But the nation has no need to be nervous."

hippifried

06-30-2011, 10:00 PM

Coulter and Hilary Clinton. :confused:
Oh. Standards!

C'mon... You know that if either of them dropped their drawers in front of you, all bets would be off.

Stavros

07-01-2011, 01:39 AM

C'mon... You know that if either of them dropped their drawers in front of you, all bets would be off

...hmmm..I think with my preferences I would be, shall I say, a little disappointed at what I was being offered....

Ben

07-09-2011, 04:40 AM

YouTube - ‪Ban Porn! Michele Bachmann 2012 Pledge‬&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTVM24WBmXE)

nonnonnon

07-09-2011, 04:55 AM

the right's 2012 candidate will be someone like Michael Steele. they get votes that someone like Hilary couldn't and they're exempt from criticism for fear of being un-p.c.

trish

07-09-2011, 06:15 AM

Before any of you porn-forum frequenters votes for Michele Bachmann, know that the nutter has just signed the FAMiLY LEADER pledge to ban all forms of pornography.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/and_then_shes_going_to_invade.php

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58591.html

flabbybody

07-09-2011, 06:32 AM

Stavros

07-09-2011, 11:17 AM

Surely with all politicians who make controversial comments on social issues, the key is whether or not, once they find themselves in the Oval Office, they deliver: and in fact, how would a President Bachmann deal with pornography, homosexuality, and the family, to take three topic she regularly comments on: in practical terms that is. I am not defending her, but its not different from people on the left making bold claims about the changes they are going to make to education, health, prisons and so on: its not so easy to make fundamental changes to something as obscure as, for example, the family. She can give a good speech, but as Obama has discovered, speeches don't translate easily into law...

Ben

07-09-2011, 07:09 PM

Bachmann is nasty but she's not stupid.
That's what makes her scary.

She is smart. I think, um, it's a Romney-Bachmann ticket. As Mitt needs, well, religious support, as it were. He's weak on the religious front. She's strong. It'll be a powerful combo.
And watch Obama dump Biden for, well, Clinton. That is Hill. Not Bill -- ha! ha!

Stavros

07-09-2011, 10:11 PM

Ben

07-09-2011, 10:45 PM

Sorry Ben I can't agree: Obama will retain Biden unless Biden for some reason wants out -for continuity of purpose. My feeling is that Hillary Clinton is more likely to bow out of political life than seek to extend it. She will be 65 at the next election, I think she knows her chance for the Oval Office has been and gone, and that she will decide she has other things to do as she gets older. I also think its too soon to predict the Republican contenders, but I understand your enthusiasm for the game...

I just think it'll be Romney. He, well, looks presidential. He's got the height, the hair, the jaw -- :)
It's a fairly weak field of candidates. (I like Ron Paul. Because he's very principled. Plus he's good on some issues. But, sadly, bad on others. But you know where he stands.
The profound problem with politicians is, well, they don't have any core beliefs. As money talks. And they don't really care about issues. As they serve, to quote Adam Smith, the Masters of Mankind or the elite corporate class.
Whereas Ron Paul does care about issues. Ron Paul actually believes in free markets. Now pure capitalism or free markets mean no state intervention.
Which means no child labor laws -- and nothing public. Meaning we'd have to privatize the police, the fire department, the roads. Again, that's pure capitalism or free markets.
Public schools, transportation and parks would disappear. I mean, again, pure/authentic/flawless free markets mean there's absolutely no state intervention.
I find it frightening to conceive of free markets. Again, who builds the roads, the sidewalks, highways, bridges? A private police force scares me. I mean, they'd simply serve certain areas. I mean, that's capitalism. Oh, and capitalism means: no bailing out the banks and the auto companies. Well, that sounds pretty good... :) And we'd have to have the free circulation of labor. Which I do support.)

Stavros

07-09-2011, 10:57 PM

Ben

07-11-2011, 03:30 AM

Ron Paul might sound sensible but that doesn't make him electable -unfortunately these days -possibly since JFKs campaign, looks and soundbites do matter: but even the soundbites must refer to something that can be analysed: if Ron Paul were President then, even if he is a 'pure' liberal in the mould of Adam Smith the state must still pay for its defence, and those 'publick works' which the private sector is not willing or able to finance: moreover, if you were to calculate the percentage of contracts entered into by the Federal government with businesses up and down America, and then suggest they be cancelled, a) how many people would lose their jobs, and b) can you guarantee that the private sector will step in to fill that gap? The Fed is directly or indirectly a major employer in the USA -as I said with Bachmann and her waffle about Gays and Marriage -once in office, they are shown the accounts, and retreat to the Oval Office, ashen faced, trembling with fear and emotion, and forget whatever it was they said on Prime Time Tv....but then too many people expect too much of central government and politics anyway-sometimes the solutions are right 'here': where you are and in what you do...not in Washington DC...

You're right. I, too, don't think Ron Paul is electable, as it were. I just think he's a very principled politician. Which is a rarity. Again, you can agree or disagree with him. But you know where he stands.
I agree. If Ron Paul were elected (a big if) then he would have to compromise on his, well, anti-state mindset. Because the state does play a big role. From roads to police to the military to the highway system. Yes. The overall state does employ a lot of people. Directly and indirectly.
I think Bachmann is typical of most politicians. Ya know, they've no core beliefs and they do not care about issues. They serve themselves and corporate power. I mean, how many politicians actually get into public office to serve people. Just people. Not corporate power. But people. Well, maybe at the local level. But not at the federal level. I mean, Dick Cheney didn't get into public service to serve people. (I think the likes of, say, Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich. And, again, Ron Paul is genuine. But who else???????)
I just want principled politicians who are genuine. But, well, politics is all entertainment, ain't it -- ha! ha! ha! :)

Stavros

07-11-2011, 12:03 PM

Prospero

07-11-2011, 12:26 PM

nonnonnon

07-11-2011, 07:19 PM

snl shouldn't be a deciding factor when you're in the booth but I'm sure it is

Ben

07-12-2011, 03:32 AM

I don't consider it entertainment at all when the President has the key to the nuclear arsenal. Nor when he or (maybe one day she) has the executive power to wage war as the CinC. Nor as showbiz when he (or she) is the most powerful political figure in the world. etc.... but yes the showbiz dimension is so clearly there in how we choose these people.

Thank god for Tina Fey last time around. Is there as good a Michele Bachmann baiter in the wings for the next election?

It is serious. I agree. I mean, politicians have power. They're extremely powerful. They shape policy.
But the point being: acting, theatrics have a lot to do with politics. (The former Governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura, described politics as like, well, wrestling. Ya know, in front of the cameras we're at each other's throats. But behind the scenes we're all friends. Again, acting.
I mean, look at Arnold Schwarzenegger and Ronald Reagan. Both actors. Um, Al Franken. Fred Thompson. It's entertainment.)
The "entertainment" aspect to politics is clearly evident.
YouTube - ‪Jesse Ventura speaks about Politics‬&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybtnEKqWmg8)

Ben

07-12-2011, 04:16 AM

I just want principled politicians who are genuine. But, well, politics is all entertainment, ain't it -- ha! ha! ha!

There are principled politicians out there, but it doesn't mean a thing if it aint got that swing -ie where policy matters. Also to describe it as entertainment is to let them off the hook -its much more important than that. As I said, on a range of issues people expect too much of government -the quality of our environment would be so much better if we, as individuals were more careful with our rubbish, to take just one issue. Its about balance, in the end. But if you descend into cynicism, you end up with nothing to say, which suits politicians who too often prefer to listen to the sound of their own voices.

There are principled politicians. But few and far between. OK. I'm cynical -- ha! ha!
Policies are imperative. And if we lived in a meaningful democratic society public policy would reflect public opinion. That's democracy.
We have a profound democratic deficit. Whereby public policies do not reflect public opinion.
So, if you look at public opinion, well, Americans are -- now this is the majority -- social democratic. So, policy decisions should ultimately reflect that.
Now one could either be for it or against it. That's one's personal choice. But, again, I don't see how anyone would be against this unless they're high up in the corporate or political structure. I mean, meaningful democracy doesn't benefit, say, the CEO of Microsoft.
I think another crucial point is: it isn't fair for the many to control the few. That's very unfair.
And likewise it isn't fair for the few to control the many. That, too, is highly unfair.
So, what's the solution? Well, Adam Smith had a solution.
Markets.
His argument for markets was quite clear. He supported markets under the conditions that, well, under conditions of perfect liberty you get perfect equality. That was the argument he gave in support of markets. Again, under conditions of perfect liberty (capitalism &/or free markets) you get perfect equality.
Lastly, in order for markets to work, well, you need informed consumers making RATIONAL choices. Well, corporations work to undercut markets. Look at any TV commercial. What they want is: UNINFORMED consumers making IRRATIONAL choices. Therefore markets can't and don't work in their proper and appropriate fashion.
And I haven't even mentioned externalities -- ha! ha!

trish

07-12-2011, 06:25 AM

Did someone in this thread claim Michele Bachmann was smart? Smarter than Palin doesn't mean smarter than a doornail.

In just the last couple of weeks, Bachmann revealed her reading of the First Amendment by signing a pledge to eradicate pornography in all forms. She showed which side of the Emancipation Proclamation she stands on claiming slavery was better for black families than living free in the second decade of the 21st century. And today we learn that before she joined Congress, she wasn't really an attorney as she claimed to be, but a tax collector for the IRS. Irony or hypocrisy?

Stavros

07-12-2011, 11:54 AM

Lastly, in order for markets to work, well, you need informed consumers making RATIONAL choices. Well, corporations work to undercut markets

Ben, the modern corporation that we know today emerged in the last quarter of the 19th century, almost a hundred years after Smith, who was describing an industrial capitalism in its infancy -one of the reasons for his reputation is the relative objectivity with which he wrote. Smith's free market capitalism in his day was revolutionary -industry was both increasing yields and power to agriculture, but eroding the 'landed gentry' most of whom sat on their easy profits without investing in machinery, and for whom, socially -and esp in the UK- connections in high places were more important than practical evidence of achievement: Smith was in favour of a social and political economy unfettered by the privilege of birth, that succeeds from hard work, imagination, enterprise. Smith himself believed that markets and trade were the natural condition of humankind, and that a government was pledged to defend the state from attack/invasion by its enemies, but also believed that if the market could not provide then in some cases the state should -his free market capitalism was never 'pure', Smith was a genius, and a practical Scotsman, not an idiot. Historically, there is no one explanation for economic development, the same rapacious corporations you probably sneer at, opened up virgin territory to industry, they built the roads people used to drive down; they built towns, places for people to live, to work in: Marx, whose description of capitalism in the 19thc is loaded with moral indignation, goes to great pains to show how the circuits of capital -production, distribution and so on -resemble a fish eating its own tail: producers consume, consumers produce: this is capitalism: if you want to overthrow it, fair enough, but what replaces it? If you want to be more practical, its not such a big deal: corporations create jobs and products, contribute taxes and so on: regulation in a democratic society to maintain healthy competition and restrain arrogant corporations really isn't that difficult: I have accepted that capitalism is here to stay for a hundred years or more, the best we can do is ensure that the Murdoch's of the 21st century do not act like the robber barons of the 19th -I think thats fair for all. No need for cynicism or despair, just use the democratic instruments you have to create a level playing field, and give a red card to the ones who get out of line!

Ben

09-23-2011, 10:59 PM

Jay Leno confronts Michele Bachmann on gay marriage - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRs9m4YXj3E&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL6274C2D2B8C963AD)

Michele Bachmann & Dangerous Food - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwwewB_nz84)

Ben

12-03-2011, 03:36 AM

Michele Bachmann, Iran: More Stupidity - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3ZgVljoTu8&feature=channel_video_title)

Faldur

12-03-2011, 05:31 PM

Did someone in this thread claim Michele Bachmann was smart?

Well my bet would be she knows how many states are in the US, she probably knows that Hawaii is not in Asia, and if she stumbled upon a gasping asthmatic child odds are she wouldn't give them a breathalyzer.

trish

12-04-2011, 08:49 PM

My god, she doesn't even know we don't have an embassy in Iran!!!!!! It wasn't just a slip of the tongue sort thing...she ACTUALLY DIDN'T KNOW!!!!!!!!!!

Faldur

12-05-2011, 04:12 AM

My god, she doesn't even know we don't have an embassy in Iran!!!!!! It wasn't just a slip of the tongue sort thing...she ACTUALLY DIDN'T KNOW!!!!!!!!!!

57 states sweetie.. Do we have selective hearing? Or are we vacationing in "Asia"?

trish

12-05-2011, 07:24 AM

Bachmann is truly ignorant and everyone but you knows it. [] Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, Paul, Gingrich and Mitt are all goofballs. Tell me, without lying, that you don't know that.

Stavros

12-05-2011, 11:17 AM

As with the Cain 'moment' on Libya, I think it exposes the weakness of the team not just the person -although Bachmann isn't going to get the nomination, when we look at these Presidential candidates, we should also be looking at the teams behind them, as they seem for the most part to become the White House staff and have an input on policy. If a news story grabs the headlines, surely someone on the team should have a response to any potential question -the attack on the British embassy in Iran, Hillary Clinton meeting the military leader of Burma/Myanmar and Daw Aung Sang suu Kyi; the fate of the Euro; why is there no snow in Switzerland? and so on. Or could it be that the Bachmann team knows what the future holds and can't be bothered?

pantybulge69

12-11-2011, 10:52 PM

Bachmann is truly ignorant and everyone but you knows it. The Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, Paul, Gingrich and Mitt are all goofballs. Tell me, without lying, that you don't know that.

Even FOX's host chris wallace couldn't resist in asking here
if she was a " flake" . He knows she's a joke and in the way. and she really believes that she's the best the tea party has to offer. She joins Perry and Trump as a complete hilarious sideshow circus.

Ben

12-14-2011, 11:29 PM

Even FOX's host chris wallace couldn't resist in asking here
if she was a " flake" . He knows she's a joke and in the way. and she really believes that she's the best the tea party has to offer. She joins Perry and Trump as a complete hilarious sideshow circus.

It's a total freakshow. Never seen anything like this before. I mean, maybe they should try and coax John McCain into running again. At least he has the war hero credentials. Does Bachmann, Newt, Santorum, Mitt? Absolutely not. Actually, why didn't Mitt serve in Vietnam? He's the right age. 64. What about Newt? Why didn't he serve in Vietnam???
At least John McCain and John Kerry did.
I mean, this should be a crucial issue: WHY DIDN'T NEWT AND MITT SERVE IN VIETNAM???????

Ben

12-14-2011, 11:32 PM

TOO FUNNY:

SAM KINISON IN BACK TO SCHOOL - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfi4s8cjLFI)

onmyknees

12-17-2011, 05:45 AM

Bachmann is truly ignorant and everyone but you knows it. [] Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, Paul, Gingrich and Mitt are all goofballs. Tell me, without lying, that you don't know that.

Didn't you just have a pissy fit on another thread about presumption ? And here you are presuming you know what "everyone" else knows. Here's what I think....I think you're insane. Why you ask.....3 polls out last week show Mitt beating Obama by 2 points, and Gingrich trailing 2. So...if they're goofballs as you suggest....what does that make your guy? And that's not a rhetorical question.
Do you say these things because you believe them, or because you can't believe anyone else could ever have a different opinion than you?
Or is all this to creepy for you?

trish

12-17-2011, 08:19 AM

Didn't you just have a pissy fit on another thread about presumption ? And here you are presuming you know what "everyone" else knows. Here's what I think....I think you're insane. Why you ask.....3 polls out last week show Mitt beating Obama by 2 points, and Gingrich trailing 2. So...if they're goofballs as you suggest....what does that make your guy? And that's not a rhetorical question.
Do you say these things because you believe them, or because you can't believe anyone else could ever have a different opinion than you?
Or is all this to creepy for you?Where did I fucking suggest they're all goofballs??? Show me! I said they ARE all goofballs. Oh and I made no presumptions (of the personal sort referred to in http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=1063504&postcount=956 ). I asked Faldur to tell me he didn't know that they were all goofballs. He declined to respond.

Come to think of it, it is a bit creepy of you to be responding to a remark I made to Faldur one week ago. It's as if you went looking for a post where I might have been presumptive, failed to find one but thought this one was close enough to remark upon, all because you're still upset with something I wrote this morning in the general forum. Yeah...that's creepy. It's something a real loser might find himself doing.

hippifried

12-17-2011, 09:08 AM

Don't be so subtle, Trish. It's confusing.

Faldur

12-17-2011, 06:15 PM

I asked Faldur to tell me he didn't know that they were all goofballs. He declined to respond.

Huh? WTF did I miss? You ask a lot of things Trish, some are worth responding to others well there best just left to the wind.

trish

12-17-2011, 06:33 PM

...and I draw no conclusion from your non-response. There must be hundreds of comments, invitations and questions that people post and others choose (often wisely) to pass over.

Ben

01-05-2012, 12:05 AM

Nope! Sadly, this scary social conservative has left the race -- :( Anyway, Romney will win. It's all but decided.
So, you'll have Tweedledee, the Mitt-ster, and Tweedledum, the Barack-ster.
It'll be exciting. They'll have rip-roaring debates about... what?... I'm not exactly sure. I mean, are there any really differences between the two?
The same powerful financial sectors are heavily behind both of them. Again, the whole thing is a joke.
Ron Paul, even though I've stark disagreements with him, would inject some actual debate about actual policies. The foreign policy issue would be debated, it would ACTUALLY be debated. Whereas what's the f'n difference between the Rom-ster and the Obam-ster??? Can anyone elucidate on any real differences between the two Wall Street SLICKSTERS??????????????

Ben

06-27-2012, 06:03 AM

Best way to control people: fear -- :)

Muslims Taking Over U.S. Government - Michele Bachmann - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5gvzCEMmro&feature=context-chv)

Gaffney: Muslim Brotherhood "Is Trying To Keep Us Stupid" About Plans To Take Over U.S. - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8R8GfQFtwY)

Ben

10-11-2013, 02:30 AM

She could've been the President....

Michele Bachmann: We Are Living in End Times (Also She'll Probably Be Indicted) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF0ITjO5o1M)