Michele Bachmann could win the nomination...

[onmyknees]

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/

[Ineeda SM]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)


How Accurate Were Palin's Paul Revere Comments?


June 6, 2011

Listen to the Story

All Things Considered
[4 min 45 sec]

• Add to Playlist
• Download

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.

[onmyknees]

Is there anybody you wouldn't do?

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

[trish]

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]

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.