YouTube - ‪Michele Bachmann's Holy War! Matt Taibbi‬‏
Printable View
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
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
Michele Bachmann Spying On A Gay Rights Rally Behind Some Bushes....
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...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/rich...12?INTCMP=SRCH
Well i'd do her in a heartbeat but she probably doesn't do the "darker" meat.
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-cr...s-dana-loesch/
Dan Rather on Bachmann...
http://www.mofopolitics.com/2011/05/...n-is-for-real/
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
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.
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
All Things Considered
[4 min 45 sec]
text size A A A
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Half hearted praise indeed, even from Prof. Allison.Quote:
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.
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-.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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....
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.
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/2..._to_invade.php
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58591.html
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...
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!
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.)
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! :)
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.
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?