Warning: be Cautious of Bachmann

[He Who Pawns]

http://minnesotaindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/bachmannhardball.jpg

Bachmann made a laughing stock of herself during the 08 elections, calling for "investigations" into the patriotism of members of congress who she felt might be "unamerican." Her face and name are now synonymous with idiocy. We should be very cautious before getting into bed with this woman.

And then to have her trying to propose serious legislation about economics and global currencies... no one will take her seriously. She dresses and carries herself like a librarian in a porno. Plus she is a long-time supporter of ludicrous atrocities like trying to promote the teaching of "Intelligent Design" in science classrooms. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/icons/icon13.gif

Beware. Or be sorry.

[Cowlesy]

I support her bill to ban the United States adopting a global currency.

Of course it makes sense you'd want to discredit her, as you're our resident Global Currency is good guy. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=186009)

[rockandrollsouls]

I support her bill to ban the United States adopting a global currency.

Of course it makes sense you'd want to discredit her, as you're our resident Global Currency is good guy. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=186009)

I'm not sure we need a bill for that as it's already unconstitutional to submit to a global currency.

Agreed, she's not someone I look up to, but she can be an ally on some issues.

[He Who Pawns]

I support her bill to ban the United States adopting a global currency.

Of course it makes sense you'd want to discredit her, as you're our resident Global Currency is good guy. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=186009)

I didn't say it was good. I said that Peter Schiff said that a global reserve currency made from a basket of other currencies "would probably be better" than the dollar. I myself don't yet have an opinion on that. One thing to consider is that it would probably restrain Obama from enacting most of his socialist agenda, if he and Bernanke were not able to print their trillions and have the world loan us the blood money to do it. So that would be one good result.

You seem to be against this global reserve. I wonder if you personally think that you know more about economics than Peter Schiff? Have you seriously thought this through yet, or are you just giving a knee-jerk response to anything with the word "global" in it?

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

There's an undertone which makes me think you have a personal reason not to like Michele. There is no such perception of Michele here in MN outside the far left. But maybe those are the people you associate with.

I donated to her again after her grilling of Bernanke and Geithner.

[Zera]

I didn't say it was good. I said that Peter Schiff said that a global reserve currency made from a basket of other currencies "would probably be better" than the dollar. I myself don't yet have an opinion on that. One thing to consider is that it would probably restrain Obama from enacting most of his socialist agenda, if he and Bernanke were not able to print their trillions and have the world loan us the blood money to do it. So that would be one good result.

You seem to be against this global reserve. I wonder if you personally think that you know more about economics than Peter Schiff? Have you seriously thought this through yet, or are you just giving a knee-jerk response to anything with the word "global" in it?

but o noes the nwo alex jones sed it wud hapen!1!!11

EDIT: Scribbler de Stebbing, don't get yourself involved with this whole "left vs right" bullshit. Bachmann reputation on a nation wide scale has been tarnished, no matter how it has happened, and looking for her to spread any message is a step in the wrong direction. Looking at it from a perspective that just because Liberals don't like her, we shouldn't either, is stupid. The greatness about what we stand for is something that everyone can enjoy: liberty. When you turn it into Liberals against Conservatives, you're not getting anyone on our side.

[He Who Pawns]

There's an undertone which makes me think you have a personal reason not to like Michele. There is no such perception of Michele here in MN outside the far left. But maybe those are the people you associate with.

I donated to her again after her grilling of Bernanke and Geithner.

Well I voted for Barr in 08, but I remember watching her disgraceful appearance on Hardball and thinking to myself, "Is this what the GOP has come to?"

She seems like a real idiot to me. And her support of "Intelligent Design" being taught in science classes confirms it.

[dr. hfn]

I'll get in bed with her...LOL...but really, we must be weary and vigilant...there are few we can trust

[LibertyEagle]

but o noes the nwo alex jones sed it wud hapen!1!!11

EDIT: Scribbler de Stebbing, don't get yourself involved with this whole "left vs right" bullshit. Bachmann reputation on a nation wide scale has been tarnished, no matter how it has happened, and looking for her to spread any message is a step in the wrong direction. Looking at it from a perspective that just because Liberals don't like her, we shouldn't either, is stupid. The greatness about what we stand for is something that everyone can enjoy: liberty. When you turn it into Liberals against Conservatives, you're not getting anyone on our side.

The only 100% pure person I know is Ron Paul.

Bachmann supports Ron's bill on auditing the federal reserve.

She is taking a stand against a global currency.

I support her stance on those 2 issues.

Think about it like this. Ron is able to work with people like Kucinich on issues surrounding foreign affairs, but besides that they don't agree on much at all. But, HE DOES work with him on that one issue. And why shouldn't he?

If we're going to refuse to work with anyone unless they are 100% pure, we are going to be waiting a very long time. There are no other Ron Paul's that I've EVER seen.

Be faithful to principles; not a person. Work with those who agree with us, on an issue-by-issue basis. That's what I think, anyway.

[fedup100]

I think she is fan tas tik we need more like her.

[Cowlesy]

I didn't say it was good. I said that Peter Schiff said that a global reserve currency made from a basket of other currencies "would probably be better" than the dollar. I myself don't yet have an opinion on that. One thing to consider is that it would probably restrain Obama from enacting most of his socialist agenda, if he and Bernanke were not able to print their trillions and have the world loan us the blood money to do it. So that would be one good result.

You seem to be against this global reserve. I wonder if you personally think that you know more about economics than Peter Schiff? Have you seriously thought this through yet, or are you just giving a knee-jerk response to anything with the word "global" in it?

Ah there we go, the typical second paragraph pivot-to-attack. You guys are great.

No, I do not "know more" about economics than Peter Schiff. What is this some sort of knowledge-level pissing match?

A global reserve currency comprised of a basket of currency solves absolutely nothing in my opinion. Labor and production need a solid standard of measure, worldwide. Until you do that, you will always have central bank induced distortions in the cost of capital. That's my "knee-jerk" reaction.

[malkusm]

The only 100% pure person I know is Ron Paul.

Bachmann supports Ron's bill on auditing the federal reserve.

She is taking a stand against a global currency.

I support her stance on those 2 issues.

Think about it like this. Ron is able to work with people like Kucinich on issues surrounding foreign affairs, but besides that they don't agree on much at all. But, HE DOES work with him on that one issue. And why shouldn't he?

If we're going to refuse to work with anyone unless they are 100% pure, we are going to be waiting a very long time. There are no other Ron Paul's that I've EVER seen.

Be faithful to principles; not a person. Work with those who agree with us, on an issue-by-issue basis. That's what I think, anyway.

+1

If people are willing to work with you on issues, why should we turn them away just because they haven't been supportive of other things in the past? Indeed, there are very few "Ron Paul's" out there. Which is why I question those who are so quick to trash and disown people like Beck for talking up libertarian issues. People might be right - he might not truly subscribe to those views - but there is a value in him preaching them. Similarly, there is a value in Bachmann talking about transparency in the Fed, the Constitution, etc....

[Zera]

The only 100% pure person I know is Ron Paul.

Bachmann supports Ron's bill on auditing the federal reserve.

She is taking a stand against a global currency.

I support her stance on those 2 issues.

Think about it like this. Ron is able to work with people like Kucinich on issues surrounding foreign affairs, but besides that they don't agree on much at all. But, HE DOES work with him on that one issue. And why shouldn't he?

If we're going to refuse to work with anyone unless they are 100% pure, we are going to be waiting a very long time. There are no other Ron Paul's that I've EVER seen.

Be faithful to principles; not a person. Work with those who agree with us, on an issue-by-issue basis. That's what I think, anyway.

I'm sorry if I wasn't being clear, but I didn't mean we should just push her to the side completely. What I meant was that we shouldn't try to push policies we support through her.

[invisible]

Here we go with yet another thread that is meant to divide us. Are we noticing a pattern yet with certain people's posts?

[He Who Pawns]

I'm sorry if I wasn't being clear, but I didn't mean we should just push her to the side completely. What I meant was that we shouldn't try to push policies we support through her.

The idea is not to push her away, just to be cautious. I see a lot of threads her suddenly praising Bachmann. But we need to keep in mind where she is coming from.

We should work with everyone who can help us.

[MRoCkEd]

we're praising her for her recent good work
if she says something pro-war, we'll call her out on it

[Ninja Homer]

Bachmann made a laughing stock of herself during the 08 elections, calling for "investigations" into the patriotism of members of congress who she felt might be "unamerican." Her face and name are now synonymous with idiocy. We should be very cautious before getting into bed with this woman.

And then to have her trying to propose serious legislation about economics and global currencies... no one will take her seriously. She dresses and carries herself like a librarian in a porno. Plus she is a long-time supporter of ludicrous atrocities like trying to promote the teaching of "Intelligent Design" in science classrooms. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/icons/icon13.gif

Beware. Or be sorry.

Here's the transcript of Bachmann on Hardball. Frankly, I agree with pretty much everything she said. She did not "call for 'investigations' into the patriotism of members of congress who she felt might be 'unamerican.'" See the bold part at the end for what she really said. Really, this interview was just overblown by liberal media.

__________________________________________



WASHINGTON--In a matter of minutes, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) in an interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC's "Hardball" has gone where no other Republican has --mentioning Barack Obama and Tony Rezko, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Rev. Michael Pfleger, Bill Ayers and Saul Alinsky. Bachmann called for the media to probe members of Congress to determine who held "anti-American" views.

Transcript courtesy Federal News Service

MSNBC "HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS" INTERVIEW WITH REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MN) INTERVIEWER: CHRIS MATTHEWS

5:02 P.M. EDT, FRIDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2008

MR. MATTHEWS: Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann from Minnesota joins us right now.

Congresswoman, thank you very much for joining us. I want you to look at something from David Letterman last night. It concerned, well, Governor Palin's comments about Barack Obama.

(Begin videotaped segment.)

DAVID LETTERMAN: I think she's the one who says that Barack Obama pals around with terrorists. Has she, in fact, said that at rallies and stuff?

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ, Republican presidential nominee): I don't -- yes. And he did.

(End videotaped segment.)

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, let's take a look now, Congresswoman, at the radio tape message that's going in a number of states right now, being put out by the Republicans and the John McCain campaign. It's called a robo call. You just pick up the phone and you hear this recording.

ANNOUNCER: (From audiotape.) Hello. I'm calling for John McCain and the RNC because you need to know that Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, a judge's home, and killed Americans. And Democrats will enact an extreme leftist agenda if they take control of Washington. Barack Obama and his Democratic allies lack the judgment to lead our country. This call was paid for by McCain-Palin 2008 and the Republican National Committee.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, what do you make of that, Congresswoman, that what's called a robo call and what Senator McCain said last night on Letterman?

REP. BACHMANN: Well, I think it's fun to have a sense of humor right now. And especially last night on Letterman, I thought that John McCain was extremely funny.

As far as the robo calls go, I think that the Obama campaign is very worried, because Americans are just now starting to find out about Bill Ayers and about the questionable connection that Obama has with Bill Ayers. These are legitimate questions. And I think the Obama campaign has a right to be worried, because they don't want the American people to know about these connections.

MR. MATTHEWS: Let me talk to you. What do the connections mean to you, this connection you're talking about between the Democratic candidate for president and his connection back in the '90s with Bill Ayers, who was involved with the Weathermen group back in the '60s and early '70s, when he was eight years old? What is your concern about that?

REP. BACHMANN: I think it's devastating, because this is an unrepentant terrorist who says he wishes he would have bombed more people. Remember, this is a man who bombed the Pentagon and was happy to be bombing Americans as well. This is not a person that the president of the United States would want to be associated with.

Had John McCain been associated with Bill Ayers, it would have been a nightly story. It would have been everywhere. But the media's been kind of avoiding this story, and Barack Obama's been avoiding it too. He actually did start his state senate campaign in Bill Ayers' home, and Obama worked very closely with him on education matters -- very liberal, leftist agenda of education matters as well.

I think that it's important that the American people know that Barack Obama didn't have a mild association with Bill Ayers. He had a very strong association with Bill Ayers. Bill Ayers is not someone that the average American wants to see their president have an association with.

MR. MATTHEWS: Why is it of concern? What is wrong with it? Tell me what it tells you about Barack Obama. Does it say he's got a character problem? Does it say he has a problem with his patriotism? Just give me a term for it so we can put it in a category. Why do you care enough to bring this up at the end of this campaign? Why is it an important election eve issue?

REP. BACHMANN: I think it's important, Chris, because --

MR. MATTHEWS: I mean, we've got a lot of problems in this country. Why is this so important that it's being pushed out on telephone calls to all the key states now with two weeks to go?

REP. BACHMANN: It's important because we look at the collection of friends that Barack Obama has had over his life, and usually we associate with people who have similar ideas to us. And it seems that it calls into question what Barack Obama's true beliefs and values and thoughts are -- his attitudes, values and beliefs with Jeremiah Wright on his view of the United States --

MR. MATTHEWS: Okay --

REP. BACHMANN: -- which is negative; Bill Ayers, his negative view of the United States. We've seen one friend after another. It calls into question his judgment, but also what is it that Barack Obama really believes? And we know that he's the most liberal senator in the United States Senate, and that's just after one year after being there. He's the most liberal. Joe Biden is the third most liberal. You've got Harry Reid who's liberal, Nancy Pelosi who's liberal.

MR. MATTHEWS: Right. What's the connection?

REP. BACHMANN: You have a troika of the most leftist administration in the history of our country.

MR. MATTHEWS: If you have liberal views, does that mean you have anti-American views? What's the connection? I don't get the connection. What's the connection between liberal and leftist and anti-American?

REP. BACHMANN: Anti-American is the point, because --

MR. MATTHEWS: I mean, if you're liberal, are you anti-American?

REP. BACHMANN: Well, the liberals that are Jeremiah Wright and that are Bill Ayers, they're over-the-top anti-American. And that's the question that Americans have. Remember, it was Michelle Obama who said she's only recently proud of her country. And so these are very anti-American views.

MR. MATTHEWS: Okay.

REP. BACHMANN: That's not the way that most Americans feel about our country. Most Americans, Chris, are wild about America, and they're very concerned to have a president who doesn't share those values.

MR. MATTHEWS: Okay, let's take a look at Governor Palin, because she said something very much like what you just said. Let's hear Governor Palin on the very same topic of the connection between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers and what that tells you about his view of America. Let's hear.

ALASKA GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN (Republican vice presidential nominee): (From videotape.) Our opponent is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country? (Chorus of boos.)

MR. MATTHEWS: So you think that's a fair critique of Barack Obama, that his view of America is so -- that America is so imperfect that he pals around with terrorists. You think that's a fair comment.

REP. BACHMANN: It's a fair comment, because Barack Obama does have a close association with Bill Ayers. It's one that the American people have a right to have some answers to. And Barack Obama still hasn't come clean on his relationship with Bill Ayers. It's been under the radar, and only recently has it been coming out. And people need to know.

MR. MATTHEWS: So this is a character issue. You believe that Barack Obama may -- you're suspicious because of this relationship -- may have anti-American views. Otherwise it's probably irrelevant to this discussion.

REP. BACHMANN: Absolutely.

MR. MATTHEWS: So you believe it brings into --

REP. BACHMANN: I absolutely --

MR. MATTHEWS: So you believe that Barack Obama may have anti- American views.

REP. BACHMANN: Absolutely. I'm very concerned that he may have anti-American views. That's what the American people are concerned about. That's why they want to know what his answers are. That's why Joe the plumber has figured so highly in the last few days --

MR. MATTHEWS: Okay. I'm not going to get off this.

REP. BACHMANN: -- because Joe the plumber asked a question that a lot of Americans want to know.

MR. MATTHEWS: Sarah Palin was around today talking about pro- American parts of America, and assuming there's other non-parts of the country. What parts of America would you say are anti-American? What parts of this country?

REP. BACHMANN: Well, I would say that people who hold anti- American views. I don't think it's geography. I think it's people who don't like America, who detest America. And on college campuses, a Ward Churchill, another college campus, a Bill Ayers, you find people who hate America. And unfortunately, some of these people have positions teaching in institutions of higher learning. But you'll find them in all walks of life all throughout America.

MR. MATTHEWS: What about people like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the liberals you were mentioning a moment ago? Where would you put them? Would you consider them anti-American as well?

REP. BACHMANN: I would consider them to have --

MR. MATTHEWS: Are they anti-American?

REP. BACHMANN: -- far leftist views. I'm not going to say that they're anti-American or pro-American.

MR. MATTHEWS: The speaker of the House is --

REP. BACHMANN: I will say the speaker --

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, you were putting them together. You put three words together -- liberal, leftist and anti-American. How do they all fit together, those three terms -- liberal, leftist and anti- American?

REP. BACHMANN: Well, that's a good descriptor for Jeremiah Wright. It's a perfect descriptor for Bill Ayers. And those are friends and people that Obama has pointed to as his mentors. In his book, Barack Obama had pointed to Jeremiah Wright as one of his mentors, and also Father Pfleger as one of his mentors. Two of the three mentors are Father Pfleger and Jeremiah Wright. Now, these are very strange, anti-American mentors.

MR. MATTHEWS: Right. This --

REP. BACHMANN: If people like that were John McCain's mentors, you'd be all over John McCain.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you this. This country is roughly divided now over the last -- all our lifetimes between Republicans and Democrats and liberals and conservatives. Maybe 30 percent of the country, 30 to 40 percent, is conservative, and self- described -- people tell you what they are -- and 30-some percent are liberals. Do you think those 30 percent liberals are anti-American? The 30 percent of this country that calls itself liberals, are they anti-American?

REP. BACHMANN: I think the people that Barack Obama has been associating with are anti-American, by and large, the people who are radical leftists. That's the real question about Barack Obama -- Saul Alinsky, one of his teachers, you might say, out of the Chicago area; Tony Rezko, who is an associate also.

MR. MATTHEWS: He's a leftist? I thought he was a business guy.

REP. BACHMANN: These are very concerning figures that are in Barack Obama's past.

MR. MATTHEWS: I thought Tony Rezko was some business guy. I didn't know he was a leftist, anti-American guy.

REP. BACHMANN: Yeah, that's troubling too. Well, that's troubling too. Take a look at these associations, Chris, and add them all up --

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, let me --

REP. BACHMANN: -- and this is the totality of the package that Barack Obama has been, in Sarah Palin's words, palling around with. These are his friends. These are his associates. Very troubling.

MR. MATTHEWS: How many Congress people, members of Congress, do you think are in that anti-American crowd you described? How many Congress people do you serve with? I mean, it's 435 members of Congress.

REP. BACHMANN: Right now --

MR. MATTHEWS: How many are anti-American in the Congress right now that you serve with?

REP. BACHMANN: You'd have to ask them, Chris. I'm focusing on Barack Obama and the people that he's been associating with. And I'm very worried about --

MR. MATTHEWS: But do you suspect that a lot of people you serve with --

REP. BACHMANN: -- their anti-American nature.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, he's a United States senator from Illinois. He's one of the people you suspect as being anti-American. How many people in the Congress of the United States do you think are anti- American? You've already suspected Barack Obama. Is he alone, or are there others? How many do you suspect of your colleagues as being anti-American?

REP. BACHMANN: What I would say -- what I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America? I think people would love to see an expose like that.

MR. MATTHEWS: Okay, thank you very much, U.S. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota.

[malkusm]

we're praising her for her recent good work
if she says something pro-war, we'll call her out on it

Exactly. For those of you who are parents - when your child does something bad, I'm sure you scold them for doing so. But when your child does something good, do you affirm/praise them for doing so? Even if they recently did something bad? I can't imagine a parent saying "pffft, yeah you don't really mean what you just did. You're just pandering to try to get an extra piece of candy from me." Even if that's what you believe is going on, I doubt a parent would say that to their kid.

So why do we try to promote our political ideology through negativity all the time?

[FrankRep]

I'll support her good decisions and call her out on her bad decisions.

I like her ban on a Global currency.

[klamath]

I probably don't agree with her on all issues but she votes 80% with RP and he endorsed her in this last election. There are members on here that are susposedly great RP people that RP would disagree with on a lot more issues than he disagrees with Bachmann. We better be cautious about them.:rolleyes:

[Brian4Liberty]

We should be very cautious before getting into bed with this woman.


lol! I'll keep that in mind...

[Carole]

Frankly, I like the way she kept repeating those names like Bill Ayers. Repetition is a great tool in marketing. :D And schooling. :D

She did rather well considering who the interviewer was. :)

[FrankRep]

Frankly, I like the way she kept repeating those names like Bill Ayers. Repetition is a great tool in marketing. :D And schooling. :D

She did rather well considering who the interviewer was. :)
Calling Obama a terrorist is a bit dramatic.

[Young Paleocon]

I believe in a global currency......gold bitch.

[FrankRep]

I believe in a global currency......gold bitch.
We're against a central bank regulating a global fiat currency.

[Join The Paul Side]

http://minnesotaindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/bachmannhardball.jpg

Bachmann made a laughing stock of herself during the 08 elections, calling for "investigations" into the patriotism of members of congress who she felt might be "unamerican." Her face and name are now synonymous with idiocy. We should be very cautious before getting into bed with this woman.

And then to have her trying to propose serious legislation about economics and global currencies... no one will take her seriously. She dresses and carries herself like a librarian in a porno. Plus she is a long-time supporter of ludicrous atrocities like trying to promote the teaching of "Intelligent Design" in science classrooms. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/icons/icon13.gif

Beware. Or be sorry.

Our President and Congress are spending us into oblivion. They are destroying our dollar. They still insist on nation building and using our troops to fight wars in foreign countries when there is an insurgency going on right at our southern border. They are quickly trying to impose socialist and communist polices on America without debate while demanding powers beyond the scope of the Constitution.

All of the above mentioned are UnAmerican and Unconstitutional. These people aren't patriots. They're traitors. Of course they should be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

In other words, Michelle Bachmann was right.

End of story.

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

I have a somewhat mixed view of Bachmann. Her enlightenment about the Fed and money must be supported. This is also very positive, since it doesn't seem like she always had these views, and suggests she came around to supporting it after working with people like Ron Paul. Her "conversion" is something we should be proud of, and she should be encouraged when she does things like introduce the ban on world currency.

On the other hand, the problems noted by others here with her are some cause for concern. She has three things going against her: the stupid "unamerican" investigation, her support for military interventionism and the fail wars, and less importantly, her long handshake/hug with Bush back in 2006 or 2007 that made it look like she worshiped the guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzzjU62Q2ns).

Hopefully, her support for sound money and auditing the Fed is a sign that her more boorish days are behind her. She deserves our cautious support. I don't live in her district, but I can safely say I would vote for her if I had a choice between Bachmann and any mainline Democrat that the DFL usually puts up to run in this state.

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

Our President and Congress are spending us into oblivion. They are destroying our dollar. They still insist on nation building and using our troops to fight wars in foreign countries when there is an insurgency going on right at our southern border. They are quickly trying to impose socialist and communist polices on America without debate while demanding powers beyond the scope of the Constitution.

All of the above mentioned are UnAmerican and Unconstitutional. These people aren't patriots. They're traitors. Of course they should be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

In other words, Michelle Bachmann was right.

End of story.

No. She would have been right if she had extended those comments to most of the Congress (BOTH parties), including Bush and McCain. Yet, she confined them to Democrats generally and Obama specifically. There's plenty to criticize there, but it falls flat when you fail to apply the same standards to idiots in your own party doing the same things. Her "unamerican" stint was just a gross display of two party bickering, false Democrat vs. Republican garbage. I hope she has learned from it.

[specsaregood]

The only 100% pure person I know is Ron Paul.

Be faithful to principles; not a person. Work with those who agree with us, on an issue-by-issue basis. That's what I think, anyway.

Her stance on the federal reserve and financial issues are firm enough and in agreement enough with RP, to get RP to send out an email of endorsement during her reelection campaign. That is good enough for me for now.

[RonPaulMania]

Well I voted for Barr in 08, but I remember watching her disgraceful appearance on Hardball and thinking to myself, "Is this what the GOP has come to?"

She seems like a real idiot to me. And her support of "Intelligent Design" being taught in science classes confirms it.

So the gospel of evolution is reason for your dislike? Funny, people like you talk about the "freedom message" yet you are against open discussion with freedom being the principle.

In other words you believe in freedom as long it doesn't touch your gospel and dogmas. Ironic isn't?

The freedom message is allowing your children to be taught anything you freaking want as long as it is not an undeniable falsehood. Intelligent design has never been debunked but argued. If argument and free discussion is bad, then the problem is you, not this woman.

[He Who Pawns]

So the gospel of evolution is reason for your dislike? Funny, people like you talk about the "freedom message" yet you are against open discussion with freedom being the principle.

In other words you believe in freedom as long it doesn't touch your gospel and dogmas. Ironic isn't?

The freedom message is allowing your children to be taught anything you freaking want as long as it is not an undeniable falsehood. Intelligent design has never been debunked but argued. If argument and free discussion is bad, then the problem is you, not this woman.

No I don't want religion being taught in public science classrooms; it's as simple as that. We don't teach religious nonsense in science class. Some of these religious loonies would have our science teachers telling kids that "man walked with the dinosaurs" and that the world is only 6,000 years old... utter garbage. It has no place in science classroom, period.

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

No I don't want religion being taught in public science classrooms; it's as simple as that. We don't teach religious nonsense in science class. Some of these religious loonies would have our science teachers telling kids that "man walked with the dinosaurs" and that the world is only 6,000 years old... utter garbage. It has no place in science classroom, period.

Why should that be for you to decide? Decide that for your own kids, and let others decide it for theirs. Your "my way is right for everyone" answer has no basis in liberty. (And I doubt Michele wants to dictate that from the federal government level to the states. Please cite the bill if so.)

[RonPaulMania]

No I don't want religion being taught in public science classrooms; it's as simple as that. We don't teach religious nonsense in science class. Some of these religious loonies would have our science teachers telling kids that "man walked with the dinosaurs" and that the world is only 6,000 years old... utter garbage. It has no place in science classroom, period.

Honestly, this is histarical and it points out your hypocrisy and pseudo-outrage. First you are defending public schooling over private decisions, then you equate intelligent design with creationism, and then finally finall you make a conclusion based on a false premise.

There are differing views on the origin of life you know, none of them are facts, but theories. I believe theories have legitimate debate. I believe evolution should be debated, that intelligent design should be debated, that even creationism should be debated (although I disagree with it) because it's their right to.

Unless someone is disseminating a fact, and the keyword here is FACT, debate is always good. You just know, like I do, that the god of secularism is the dogma you can't give up, despite your attempt to seem like you like liberty. It's humorous to see you unravel and get exposed, but you might want to re-think what message board you are on.

You might want to try a secularist/atheist board and preach your totalitarian ideas of atheism and secularism over freedom of thought and expression. You know, the Constitution...

[He Who Pawns]

Honestly, this is histarical and it points out your hypocrisy and pseudo-outrage. First you are defending public schooling over private decisions, then you equate intelligent design with creationism, and then finally finall you make a conclusion based on a false premise.

There are differing views on the origin of life you know, none of them are facts, but theories. I believe theories have legitimate debate. I believe evolution should be debated, that intelligent design should be debated, that even creationism should be debated (although I disagree with it) because it's their right to.

They've already been debated. Should we still be debating whether the earth is flat??

I wonder if you think the basic laws of gravity are still up for debate? Want to take a step off the Golden Gate bridge to test it?

This is all nonsense. Creationism is not science, anymore than flat-earth theory is science.

[AuH2O]

They've already been debated. Should we still be debating whether the earth is flat??

I wonder if you think the basic laws of gravity are still up for debate? Want to take a step off the Golden Gate bridge to test it?

This is all nonsense. Creationism is not science, anymore than flat-earth theory is science.

While you are so busy arguing that only science, and not religion, should be taught in public schools, you completely miss the fact that your dogmatic zealotry against ID and creationism amounts to religious teaching.

Furthermore, discussion what "you want" taught to all children is rigidly totalitarian.

[He Who Pawns]

While you are so busy arguing that only science, and not religion, should be taught in public schools, you completely miss the fact that your dogmatic zealotry against ID and creationism amounts to religious teaching.

Furthermore, discussion what "you want" taught to all children is rigidly totalitarian.

It's not religion, my friend, it's science. I suppose you know the difference? One requires valid, peer-reviewed evidence, the other has no valid evidence of any kind. That's what science means. And that's why nonsense like flat-earth belief or Creationism have no validity in the world of science.

Government should never be in the business of funding the teaching of religion in public schools. I hope we can at least agree on that. Otherwise, why not teach Muslim ideas about "science" in science classes? What's good the for goose is good for the gander, right?

[AuH2O]

It's not religion, my friend, it's science. I suppose you know the difference? One requires valid, peer-reviewed evidence, the other has no valid evidence of any kind. That's what science means. And that's why nonsense like flat-earth belief or Creationism have no validity in the world of science.

Government should never be in the business of funding the teaching of religion in public schools. I hope we can at least agree on that. Otherwise, why not teach Muslim ideas about "science" in science classes? What's good the for goose is good for the gander, right?

I did not say that evolutionism is religion, despite your cult-like fanaticism about it. But teaching evolution without allowing any discussion of the merits of other positions makes a statement that is indisputably religious in nature, that statement being: "Your religion is wrong."

I am not religious and do not believe in intelligent design or creationism, by the way.

[johnrocks]

The only 100% pure person I know is Ron Paul.

Bachmann supports Ron's bill on auditing the federal reserve.

She is taking a stand against a global currency.

I support her stance on those 2 issues.

Think about it like this. Ron is able to work with people like Kucinich on issues surrounding foreign affairs, but besides that they don't agree on much at all. But, HE DOES work with him on that one issue. And why shouldn't he?

If we're going to refuse to work with anyone unless they are 100% pure, we are going to be waiting a very long time. There are no other Ron Paul's that I've EVER seen.

Be faithful to principles; not a person. Work with those who agree with us, on an issue-by-issue basis. That's what I think, anyway.

+infinity and beyond! Well said:)

[He Who Pawns]

I did not say that evolutionism is religion, despite your cult-like fanaticism about it. But teaching evolution without allowing any discussion of the merits of other positions makes a statement that is indisputably religious in nature, that statement being: "Your religion is wrong."

I am not religious and do not believe in intelligent design or creationism, by the way.

Would you support the teaching of flat-earth theory alongside actual geology in science classrooms?

Would you support the teaching that man walked with dinosaurs alongside legitimate anthropology?

Would you support the teaching of ancient Chinese medicine that eating deer penis cures cancer in medical science classrooms? Even if every test ever conducted debunked it?

Not only is there no evidence for Creationism, there are MOUNTAINS of valid evidence disproving it.

[He Who Pawns]

*Crickets*

[AuH2O]

*Crickets*

No, a *job* actually.

And we do tell children that people used to think the world was flat. If a class were studying some tribes around the world, we might teach them that they believe a number of things we currently understand to be untrue.

I think children are capable of coming to a decision based on evidence offered. If the preponderance is in favor of evolution, as I believe it is, they will be convinced.

I'm just not sure why it should be the concern of you -- or the government -- what children ought to believe.

[He Who Pawns]

Okay, that's fine with me if you want to point to Creationism as an example of a phony and debunked "scientific" belief, in the same way that flat-earth theories are commonly used to demonstrate debunked ideas about geology. No one will argue with that.

But now you're actually ceding ground to me in this discussion, because the religious loonies don't want that. They want to teach their bizarre religious fairytales as valid "science" in public classrooms.

I notice that you did not answer the questions in my previous post. Probably wise, because if you had, you would be on ever shakier ground in this debate.

[specsaregood]

Perhaps we really should be cautious of Bachmann.



Congresswoman Bachmann Urges Armed Uprising
Posted on March 29th, 2009
http://www.bloggernews.net/120274

Read 426 times.Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann ® Minnesota became the first prominent Neocon to openly call for the violent overthrow of the Obama administration. During an impassioned interview with fellow Neocon and FOX host Sean Hannity Representative Bachmann abandoned rhetoric and urged armed insurrection. Bachmann seems expressive of a growing sentiment amongst neocons, that the only hope to save America as they see it, may lie with supporters taking to the streets.

More at link above. Note it is biased....

[He Who Pawns]

Perhaps we really should be cautious of Bachmann.

Actually, I agree with her on this... :)

[RonPaulMania]

Would you support the teaching of flat-earth theory alongside actual geology in science classrooms?

Would you support the teaching that man walked with dinosaurs alongside legitimate anthropology?

Would you support the teaching of ancient Chinese medicine that eating deer penis cures cancer in medical science classrooms? Even if every test ever conducted debunked it?

Not only is there no evidence for Creationism, there are MOUNTAINS of valid evidence disproving it.

You are either young or ignorant, maybe both. Those are complete non-sequitors. One does not come from the other, and you are getting funnier and funnier with your illogical statements. Why not point out that people used blood-letting too? You do realize one of your arguments is disproving eastern medical scientific theory right?

Real are real questions your religion of "science" has no answer for:

Do you believe that abiotic reproduction is possible although science debunks it?

Do you believe that the genome can successively increase without outside influence?

Science debunks those too genius.

Here are other things modern science cannot answer, but classical science (metaphysics) can:

How something can come from nothing in the form of intermediate states while being in the state of contingency?
How can their being motion in the universe without a terminus from which it starts?
How is the order and design of the world without cause? If you refute causality and teleology explain the basis for evolutionary theory at it's base which is assigns causality to inferior species to superior ones.
Where is the assignment of intelligence and will in evolution? Both are spiritual function not found in nature.

You forget, your religious belief on evolution is more "religious" than my believe in intelligent design through Deistic evolution. At least I don't pretend that intermediate, contingent beings can be randomly assumed into existence which logically cannot happen with pure chance without intelligence propelling design. That's more of a belief of faith than any one religious tenets of an institutional religion. Frankly Creationism (which I'm against) makes more sense than thinking non-living beings became "alive" like Frankenstein, and became a man.


If you want to engage in real debate realize you don't have argument other than your brainwashed belief taught to the masses. I'm not a creationist either. I believe in Deistic Evolution.

Humanist Evolution is a theory, not a fact, with beliefs that are illogical and based on faith. Did you watch "Expelled" when Stein asked the big evolutionists where life came from? Dawkins said intelligent design has merit, as long it was an alien, and other big gurus came up with equally ridiculous statements.

If you can prove it's a fact, which you can't, and no one has since even the scientific community calls it a "theory", than you have a sliver of a point. You don't have a strong enough background in epistemology or metaphysics to understand how to rationally think, but you pretend you do. Honestly, you couldn't engage in a debate with me, just demagoguery.

I own 2 businesses, so don't pretend you "won" a debate because I have responsibilities and try being productive and can't answer your sophomoric arguments.

[He Who Pawns]

You are either young or ignorant, maybe both. Those are complete non-sequitors. One does not come from the other, and you are getting funnier and funnier with your illogical statements. Why not point out that people used blood-letting too? You do realize one of your arguments is disproving eastern medical scientific theory right?

Real are real questions your religion of "science" has no answer for:

Do you believe that abiotic reproduction is possible although science debunks it?

Do you believe that the genome can successively increase without outside influence?

Science debunks those too genius.

Here are other things modern science cannot answer, but classical science (metaphysics) can:

How something can come from nothing in the form of intermediate states while being in the state of contingency?
How can their being motion in the universe without a terminus from which it starts?
How is the order and design of the world without cause? If you refute causality and teleology explain the basis for evolutionary theory at it's base which is assigns causality to inferior species to superior ones.
Where is the assignment of intelligence and will in evolution? Both are spiritual function not found in nature.

You forget, your religious belief on evolution is more "religious" than my believe in intelligent design through Deistic evolution. At least I don't pretend that intermediate, contingent beings can be randomly assumed into existence which logically cannot happen with pure chance without intelligence propelling design. That's more of a belief of faith than any one religious tenets of an institutional religion. Frankly Creationism (which I'm against) makes more sense than thinking non-living beings became "alive" like Frankenstein, and became a man.


If you want to engage in real debate realize you don't have argument other than your brainwashed belief taught to the masses. I'm not a creationist either. I believe in Deistic Evolution.

Humanist Evolution is a theory, not a fact, with beliefs that are illogical and based on faith. Did you watch "Expelled" when Stein asked the big evolutionists where life came from? Dawkins said intelligent design has merit, as long it was an alien, and other big gurus came up with equally ridiculous statements.

If you can prove it's a fact, which you can't, and no one has since even the scientific community calls it a "theory", than you have a sliver of a point. You don't have a strong enough background in epistemology or metaphysics to understand how to rationally think, but you pretend you do. Honestly, you couldn't engage in a debate with me, just demagoguery.

I own 2 businesses, so don't pretend you "won" a debate because I have responsibilities and try being productive and can't answer your sophomoric arguments.

LMAO.... is that you, Kent Hovind? I thought you were in jail.