Michelle Bachmann:Homophobic Goddess

[sammie19]

I first heard of her a few days ago as a woman who was a political bore compared to Sarah Palin but who was expected to make a run for the American Presidency. My dad being much more aware of the American political scene sent me this link under the heading "God Save America" with the subheading "and everyone else".

Is she really so scary or, as one friend said to me, a political joke.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/22/michele-bachmann-gay-republicans

[Okie1970]

Well, I live in the conservative (read evangelical christian homeland) Midwest and most people around here seem to regard her as a complete joke.

[bideman]

I like her, and I think she has more important goals on her mind than peoples sexual preference, like saving the country so we can all afford to pursue our lifestyles, whatever they may be.

Keep in mind, if they keep running us broke, we will become weak and other nations will prey on us, and there is no more tolerant government than here in the USA, in spite of it's faults.

How do you think our little quirks would be viewed by the Chinese, or Muslims?

Lets not find out.

JMHO

[niftyshellshock]

She's a Tea Partier, what's there to like?

Not only that, but she doesn't have Palin's attractiveness going for her (Palin's one redeemable trait).

I can't wait for the next election, President Obama's going to SLAUGHTER the opposition. :D

[Pasadenacpl2]

President Clinton, the other day said the following. "It's still the economy, stupid."

President Obama, barring an economic miracle of epic proportions, will not win. He cannot win with 9.5% unemployment, trillions in new debt and Obamacare. No matter what else he says or does, this is his burden.

As to this new contender, she is far better than Palin, but I don't see her as a viable candidate. If we want a female president, better get Professor Condi Rice to run. But she is eyeing the NFL commisioner's position after the current guy fucks upthe lockout situation. Personally, I hope she goes for the NFL. I have always been poor, but a world without football is no place to live.

Pasa

[JP1986UM]

I echo Pasa's comments.

Secondly, she's a Tea Partier. So what?

Like, who can possibly be against limited govt intrusions, limited govt spending, a balanced budget, strong economy and job creation? Oh yes, fascist liberals who can't stand anything except a man whose policies they can't explain without a road map to nowhere. Thanks.

She won't win, it will be Romney or maybe even Cain, or Perry. No matter, the real problems aren't with sexuality issues, even though Hilda Solis is turning a blind eye to gay bashing and intimidation at the DoL where posters are being torn down and destroyed in the DoL building, its all about the economy here and right now, it sucks.

When real unemployment is at 16%....you aren't winning shit. He's Carter II and he knows it. Witness the refusal to listen to the Generals and try and placate the base by pulling out of Afghanistan before the mission is completed. He adds new meaning to the words "Dumber than a Brick".

[BiCplAz]

Hooray for all the responces to this post, except for nifty who has his head up his ass.

[DanniNeels]

The only person who is happy with Obama is Jimmy Carter... Because now Jimmy is the 2nd worst president in history!

[Pasadenacpl2]

I think it is unfair to judge Obama as the worst president in history, or even in my lifetime. I remember the late 70s. It was worse than this, economically and militarily speaking. Even so, to judge this president so soon amongst his peers is premature, I believe. We can't really even judge W yet, and we're just now at a point where we can look at Clinton with an objective eye.

There are many things to praise President Obama for. I do find him to be a dignified president who has grown into the position in a manner befitting what I expect in a president. His initiatives to promote fatherhood (and fathers sticking around) are something I respect. In many ways, I think he has been the sort of president we have needed since Reagan as far as stature and a genuine attempt to do what he perceives as the right thing.

Now, I disagree with him on almost everything else, and can't stand his economic policies or his drive to place as many Americans under the thumb of the federal government for social services as possible. His military handling is ok (not a failure, but not great either).

I posted this because, especially in politics, I hate hyperbole.

Pasa

[BiDaveDtown]

If Conservatives and Tea Party members were in power they'd make being anything but heterosexual and Christian punishable as a crime.

GLBT people in the United States are already second class citizens.

I've never understood why any GLBT person would actually vote Conservative, let alone support a Conservative politician or the Tea party since these groups do not care about our rights at all and will do anything to stop us.

[Falke]

Bachmann? Pffft, what a joke.

I still want to see her debate Amy Myers. For those whom don't know of Ms. Myers, read here:

http://minnesotaindependent.com/81476/high-schooler-challenges-bachmann-to-debate-on-u-s-constitution

"A high school sophomore from New Jersey is challenging Rep. Michele Bachmann to a debate on civics and the U.S. Constitution. In an open letter to Bachmann, Amy Myers of Cherry Hill, N.J., said, “I have found quite a few of your statements regarding The Constitution of the United States, the quality of public school education and general U.S. civics matters to be factually incorrect, inaccurately applied or grossly distorted.”

“I, Amy Myers, do hereby challenge Representative Michele Bachmann to a Public Forum Debate and/or Fact Test on The Constitution of the United States, United States History and United States Civics,” Myers wrote, according to a report by City Pages’ Nick Pinto.

Politifact rated Bachmann’s statements about the U.S. Constitution’s census requirements in 2009 as “Pants on Fire” false. CNN’s Anderson Cooper dinged Bachmann back in January for her revisionist history regarding the U.S. Constitution’s racist past.

Here’s Myers full letter:

Dear Representative Bachmann,

My name is Amy Myers. I am a Cherry Hill, New Jersey sophomore attending Cherry Hill High School East. As a typical high school student, I have found quite a few of your statements regarding The Constitution of the United States, the quality of public school education and general U.S. civics matters to be factually incorrect, inaccurately applied or grossly distorted. The frequency and scope of these comments prompted me to write this letter.

Though I am not in your home district, or even your home state, you are a United States Representative of some prominence who is subject to national media coverage. News outlets and websites across this country profile your causes and viewpoints on a regular basis. As one of a handful of women in Congress, you hold a distinct privilege and responsibility to better represent your gender nationally. The statements you make help to serve an injustice to not only the position of Congresswoman, but women everywhere. Though politically expedient, incorrect comments cast a shadow on your person and by unfortunate proxy, both your supporters and detractors alike often generalize this shadow to women as a whole.

Rep. Bachmann, the frequent inability you have shown to accurately and factually present even the most basic information about the United States led me to submit the follow challenge, pitting my public education against your advanced legal education:

I, Amy Myers, do hereby challenge Representative Michele Bachmann to a Public Forum Debate and/or Fact Test on The Constitution of the United States, United States History and United States Civics.

Hopefully, we will be able to meet for such an event, as it would prove to be enlightening.

Sincerely yours,
Amy Myers"


My money would be on Ms. Myers.

[TaylorMade]

If Conservatives and Tea Party members were in power they'd make being anything but heterosexual and Christian punishable as a crime.

GLBT people in the United States are already second class citizens.

I've never understood why any GLBT person would actually vote Conservative, let alone support a Conservative politician or the Tea party since these groups do not care about our rights at all and will do anything to stop us.

Because we don't all think the same, as evidenced here. This is the FIRST thread I've seen where where the majority of posters at least were willing to not toe the leftward line. You may not agree with it, but not being a monolithic bloc is the best way to ensure political viability. If we all are on one side of the aisle and too afraid to cross over, the side we are on can use fear (as you did) to keep us there, and can do anything to us they want.

*Taylor*

[Pasadenacpl2]

If Conservatives and Tea Party members were in power they'd make being anything but heterosexual and Christian punishable as a crime.

This is patently untrue. It is, without mincing words, a lie. Please, if this is the extent of your ability for rational thought on who should lead us, don't vote.

I don't care if people vote the issues or their conscience. But spreading lies, no matter which side you're on is not helpful. Discuss the issues rationally, please.


GLBT people in the United States are already second class citizens.

I've never understood why any GLBT person would actually vote Conservative, let alone support a Conservative politician or the Tea party since these groups do not care about our rights at all and will do anything to stop us.

Perhaps for the following reasons:

1. They enjoy having a good economy over a bad one.
2. They believe that one can be a fiscal and military conservative and still be socially moderate.
3. They think that the particular candidate will do a better job than the other guy.
4. They don't vote with their penis. While gay rights is important, perhaps it's not the most important thing to them over things like national security, economics and other matters of national importance.
5. They don't believe anyone on the left is doing a good enough job on GLBT issues either, so why the hell not?

Any of these are possible reasons. Perhaps people are more complex in their reasons for supporting or opposing a candidate than it would seem. Personally, LGBT issues are number 6 or 7 on my list of priorities in a candidate. There are at least 5 other issues far more important for someone running for high office than their stance on LGBT issues (in my mind, anyway).

Pasa

[niftyshellshock]

I echo Pasa's comments.

Secondly, she's a Tea Partier. So what?

Like, who can possibly be against limited govt intrusions, limited govt spending, a balanced budget, strong economy and job creation? Oh yes, fascist liberals who can't stand anything except a man whose policies they can't explain without a road map to nowhere. Thanks.

She won't win, it will be Romney or maybe even Cain, or Perry. No matter, the real problems aren't with sexuality issues, even though Hilda Solis is turning a blind eye to gay bashing and intimidation at the DoL where posters are being torn down and destroyed in the DoL building, its all about the economy here and right now, it sucks.

When real unemployment is at 16%....you aren't winning shit. He's Carter II and he knows it. Witness the refusal to listen to the Generals and try and placate the base by pulling out of Afghanistan before the mission is completed. He adds new meaning to the words "Dumber than a Brick".

Tea Partiers had a good start, back when they actually WERE for small government, limited government spending, and the rest.
I could've backed that, but then, the neo-cons took over.
The new Tea Party wants the government to stop intruding on your personal liberties...unless you're gay or want to have an abortion.
The new Tea Party wants government to stay away from running healthcare...while clutching to their medicare and medicaid slips.
The new Tea Party hates the idea of taxes...but freely takes advantage of things like, oh, you know, highways...and fire services...and police services.

Oh, and Cain and Perry as viable candidates?
Secessionist Perry and "I can't be bothered to read anything more than 3 pages" Cain? Please. I stand a better chance to getting elected President than either of those two, and I'm not even a natural-born citizen.

Romney has a shot...except...he doesn't. He's practically pro-choice and a Mormon. There's a reason so many people backed Huckabee over him last election cycle.

And hey, BiCplAz, want to actually contribute something next time?

Hell, I'm not a democrat and don't agree with Obama on a lot of things, but I'm going to totally be celebrating when we get four more years of Tea Partiers bitching about their "sekrit moooslem president"

Neoconservative tears....mmmh....so tasty.

[niftyshellshock]

This is patently untrue. It is, without mincing words, a lie. Please, if this is the extent of your ability for rational thought on who should lead us, don't vote.

I don't care if people vote the issues or their conscience. But spreading lies, no matter which side you're on is not helpful. Discuss the issues rationally, please.



Perhaps for the following reasons:

1. They enjoy having a good economy over a bad one.
2. They believe that one can be a fiscal and military conservative and still be socially moderate.
3. They think that the particular candidate will do a better job than the other guy.
4. They don't vote with their penis. While gay rights is important, perhaps it's not the most important thing to them over things like national security, economics and other matters of national importance.
5. They don't believe anyone on the left is doing a good enough job on GLBT issues either, so why the hell not?

Any of these are possible reasons. Perhaps people are more complex in their reasons for supporting or opposing a candidate than it would seem. Personally, LGBT issues are number 6 or 7 on my list of priorities in a candidate. There are at least 5 other issues far more important for someone running for high office than their stance on LGBT issues (in my mind, anyway).

Pasa

See, this is why I like you. Educated. I disagree with you on other things, but I can have a discussion with you.

I'm also with you that "stance on gay rights" is not even in my top 5 of reasons I vote for someone. It's a non-issue, just like stem-cell support, pro-choice/pro-life stance, etc. etc.

When I voted for Obama, I saw him as an equal candidate to McCain, and during the primaries, I was very much against Hillary. The only reason I voted for Obama was because McCain proved that his integrity was for sale when he toed the party line. Neither of the candidate's issues on GLBT policy affected me at all.

[DanniNeels]

BiDave we live in America, which means you are free to fuck or get fucked by any legal adult as long as it is consensual. This also means you don't need the government, the church or society to subsidize, bless or agree with your sexual choices, as long as they are consensual... Why do GLBT people try so hard to get "married" so they can be accepted by the rest of society who do not understand nor agree with their lifestyle? Nobody is knocking down your door trying to prevent you from being bi or gay, so stop trying to force your sexual preferences on society and society will leave you alone. Conservatism is based on Capitalism, which allows you to profit off of anything as long as there is demand... So if enough GLBT people share the need for something, then Capitalism will give birth to supply such demand and they will supply what you want, giving you what you desire & them what they desire... Profit! It's a win/win situation!! Capitalism is to society what the ecosystem is to the environment... It creates the perfect balance and anyone who tries to "fix it" is a fool at best... Capitalism is blind to everything except profit; it doesn't care what gender you are or what color you are or if you are tall or short or who you have sex with... It will figure out these things, but it will do so with the result of giving you what you need, want & desire!*
Simplified: Smaller Gov't = Less Taxes = Freedom & Prosperity & Bigger Government = More Taxes = Restrictions & Poverity

Pasadena: There is nothing to praise B.O. for... B.O. Stinks!
Here's an example of his hypocrisy:
He disagreed with the Iraq war, but while GW got congressional approval to go to war from nearly every member of congress... Now B.O. gets us into a war in Libya without any approval whatsoever or any justification to do so. The Liberal media suppresses this hypocrisy and how many soldiers are dying now, and how high the gas prices are, and how truly bad the economy really is... They are fixing the news & liberals are eating it up.
The world is falling apart & silly spoiled Americans such as the President are focusing on social rights in the most free country on the face of the earth, while we lose the edge we've gained over the last century which resulted from our unique constitution and it's result... Capitalism!*

[Katja]

BiDave we live in America, which means you are free to fuck or get fucked by any legal adult as long as it is consensual. This also means you don't need the government, the church or society to subsidize, bless or agree with your sexual choices, as long as they are consensual... Why do GLBT people try so hard to get "married" so they can be accepted by the rest of society who do not understand nor agree with their lifestyle? Nobody is knocking down your door trying to prevent you from being bi or gay, so stop trying to force your sexual preferences on society and society will leave you alone. Conservatism is based on Capitalism, which allows you to profit off of anything as long as there is demand... So if enough GLBT people share the need for something, then Capitalism will give birth to supply such demand and they will supply what you want, giving you what you desire & them what they desire... Profit! It's a win/win situation!! Capitalism is to society what the ecosystem is to the environment... It creates the perfect balance and anyone who tries to "fix it" is a fool at best... Capitalism is blind to everything except profit; it doesn't care what gender you are or what color you are or if you are tall or short or who you have sex with... It will figure out these things, but it will do so with the result of giving you what you need, want & desire!*
Simplified: Smaller Gov't = Less Taxes = Freedom & Prosperity & Bigger Government = More Taxes = Restrictions & Poverity

Pasadena: There is nothing to praise B.O. for... B.O. Stinks!
Here's an example of his hypocrisy:
He disagreed with the Iraq war, but while GW got congressional approval to go to war from nearly every member of congress... Now B.O. gets us into a war in Libya without any approval whatsoever or any justification to do so. The Liberal media suppresses this hypocrisy and how many soldiers are dying now, and how high the gas prices are, and how truly bad the economy really is... They are fixing the news & liberals are eating it up.
The world is falling apart & silly spoiled Americans such as the President are focusing on social rights in the most free country on the face of the earth, while we lose the edge we've gained over the last century which resulted from our unique constitution and it's result... Capitalism!*

I do believe you watch too much children's television. If I were you it may be time to advance to MTV.:)

[sammie19]

Maybe it is just me, but I'd prefer to live in a less well off world where there was love, compassion, true liberty and where people got along and understood each other.

There are other kinds of freedom than wealth, prosperity and a desperate need to be better than everyone else at all costs. How much do we need to be happy and tolerant?

[binjlooking]

People should not vote for anyone seeking political office in this country who jumps on the Bandwagon of Non-Issues like Smoking or what people eat. As for Obama in the next Election ? He blew it when he suggested Israel give up land it won in the '67 War. This Country is in Deep Trouble !

[bitongue69]

There are more important issues facing us as a country than "your" sexual preference. Apparently Bachmann is a Christian and has her values and ethics. She is an individual, she doesn't have to like your lifestyle. We are all individuals, we may agree and my not agree with each other. But labling her as a "homophobic" is childess. You may not agree with her and that is fine but she is looking at the "big" picture and that is saving this country from left wing idealogues like Obama, Reid, and Clinton.
Thank you.:)

[Katja]

There are more important issues facing us as a country than "your" sexual preference. Apparently Bachmann is a Christian and has her values and ethics. She is an individual, she doesn't have to like your lifestyle. We are all individuals, we may agree and my not agree with each other. But labling her as a "homophobic" is childess. You may not agree with her and that is fine but she is looking at the "big" picture and that is saving this country from left wing idealogues like Obama, Reid, and Clinton.
Thank you.:)

Darling, the difficulty when you live in a land which is not a pluralist multi party democracy is that you do tend to find a polarisation of view which is unhealthy. The fewer candidates the less choice and the greater opportunity for intolerance at the top and at other levels of society.

I have to endure 'christian' values and ethics every day. I am ostracised by family because of it. I do not expect people to like or live my lifestyle, but I do have a right to expect it to be respected and not treat me like shit because of it. Michelle Bachmann is my grandmother, for my grandmother has done exactly to me as she has to members of her own family and my own mother is little better. Most Christian people are not as she in my country, and I thank God for it. Those who are, can hardly be considered Christian in the proper sense of the word.

As an outsider and a non American, it is plain that she is homophobic. Her 'religion' cannot exempt or excuse her guilt for that.

From my observation from afar, she appears like so many of her ilk to be as great an idealogue as ever those you name ever are. She looks at a rather small picture if I can be blunt. The picture of self interest and prejudice like so many of her kind born out of a fundamental corruption of Christan doctrine. If she and her kind are to corrupt something so dear to the hearts of so many, how much integrity can we expect them to have when they have power over other aspects of our lives?

In a multi party democracy we have greater choice and so people such as Michelle Bachmann are more marginalised by the electorate. Choice ensures that the common decency of most ensures that their prejudice and intolerance is never effected. In a democracy we can never ensure that, but in a multi party democracy such as exists in most of the western world the the worst of extremes become less likely. In what is in effect a Duocracy, it becomes so much easier for extremes to gain a foothold and wield real power.

For a nation which believes so much in freedom of the individual, the United States is a nation of contrasts. Even more than economic prosperity, there are several important things which human beings must have. Freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and expression, freedom from oppression, freedom from want, freedom from exploitation and freedom to be themselves. Without those basic freedoms we stifle and crush the human spirit from which all true prosperity and happiness derives. Whatever economic and political philosophy people espouse, without those freedoms humankind will truly be unable fully to live in peace and contentment. The United States holds itself up as a standard bearer for those basic freedoms and yet it cannot entirely be free of accusations of hypocrisy for suppressing some or even all of them within and without the country.

From my observation from afar, Michelle Bachmann represents the suppression of the human spirit, and of all those basic freedoms most human beings hold dear. She, and people like her appeal to the most base prejudices of humanity, and they are ruthless in their exploitation.

[Pasadenacpl2]

I agree except on the 'freedom from want.'

If you want it, do something about it. If you don't, then you and your kids will suffer the consequence of that choice/action/inaction/etc.

Just because you're alive doesn't mean you have a right to anything other than the freedom to make your way in the world as best as you can without undue hindrance. Breathing doesn't mean you are owed anything.

Pasa

[void()]

"Just because you're alive doesn't mean you have a right to anything other than the freedom to make your way in the world as best as you can without undue hindrance. Breathing doesn't mean you are owed anything."

I somewhat agree with you on this point and somewhat disagree. Please let me assert both points in fairness.

I agree because yes, there should be a means of earning a desire or reward. You do good work, get good pay.

I disagree because no, that is not how it is in the United States, not at all. We still abide in a system which allows for the age old "rich keep getting richer, poor get poorer."

And I have experienced this first hand. I have adequate skills using computers. I can weld with oxyacetylene torch well, I write well, I create solutions to problems well. I am a creative thinker and feel I have at least a few skill sets.

But ultimately I am left 'taking what's available' for work. That work is usually the skill set of banal manual labor which pays jack shit at best. You're left with having to work a full time job to pay for your full time job. Minimum wage is only $7.00 hrly, the jobs I have been working really do not pay much more than that until you average out transportation, food, rent, utilities and so on.

$7.00hrly may have been fine for the 1970's. We're not there now, though. And the jobs which do pay more require highly specialized education, which costs money to attain. Yes, the government does have helps out there but they are difficult to manage. I have finally broken though.

My wife's dad is going to arrange for me to apply for disability. He says then, I can be able to get further assistance and be retrained and educated. Once I start earning a level of income to sustain me and the wife, perhaps start saving toward either renting to buy or buying outright, then the disability stops. But I do need that help.

I'm very critical of myself and often get lost because of feeling to blame for a shitty country, a shitty economy, a shitty this or that. Recently, I have began to see the light. I am not alone in feeling what the professionals once called shell shock. Lots of people feel it, lots are depressed to the point of obituaries reading 'died at home'.

'Died at home' is often the EMS code for suicide. Yeah, have been to that point a few times, at least in thought. And there is no call for that sort of oppression in America. Yes, I'm willing and able to work. I can do damn good work. But am I getting rewarded justly or fairly? No, but I see the illegals making it quite well. And I'm not prejudiced, just hate seeing injustice especially when it is of the sort which can not be denied nor called otherwise.

Being preyed on in the future? Shit, they got America by the balls already.
So yes, I agree we ought to work and attain our desires. But I disagree that America is exactly a level playing field or some utopia you would infer it to be.

P.S.

This falls under impediment of one our basic rights granted, the right to pursue happiness. If you have to continually fend off adversity in any form there is no peace nor sign of happiness. You can not likely then pursue what you can not even glimpse, because you're not in the right class socially or economically.

Even being someone such as myself, whom can not tell exactly what makes them happy, we should retain a right to at least try different things to find out. And I don't know because it is not afforded so far. I learn skills, trades, crafts until able to do them well enough to get by and then get complacent out of boredom. It's a 'hacker' trait if you will, "don't solve the same problem twice."

[Katja]

I agree except on the 'freedom from want.'

If you want it, do something about it. If you don't, then you and your kids will suffer the consequence of that choice/action/inaction/etc.

Just because you're alive doesn't mean you have a right to anything other than the freedom to make your way in the world as best as you can without undue hindrance. Breathing doesn't mean you are owed anything.

Pasa

The freedom from want does not mean that automatically for contributing nothing that we obtain anything simply because we want it, save possibly for those who because of age or infirmity, society has an obligation to provide. That in itself many would argue, but is how I feel.

It does mean, that in a world of plenty, and we do have plenty for all, although this may not be the case for much longer, that artificial barriers are not placed in the way of those who wish to make valuable contributions to society and their fellow human beings because they are poor, ill educated, because of their sex or sexual orientation or for any other human invented discriminatory reason.

In a world where plenty becomes a thing of the past, heaven and earth must be moved to ensure that all are provided with as much as can be supplied on much the same basis. It means enabling human beings to obtain what they need to survive and prosper as best they can.

What then do we do with those who are lazy and slothful and do not wish to contribute? Do we leave them to starve and expire in misery? I know several very wealthy people who make absolutely no contribution to our society, except extract their wealth from it at the expense of others like the parasites they are. There also exist people in much less privileged strata of society who do the same, many out of despair, some out of sloth and not a few out of a feeling that society owes them a living, but such people survive at more of a subsistence level, although the Bachmannites of this world would probably take issue with that.

Some, like those who are in despair, I understand that despair, and many more dispossessed and barred from sharing in prosperity for reasons to do with economics and social prejudice, but many (far fewer in number than claimed by the less progressive among us, including those like Michelle Bachmann) rich, poor and in between, who live parasitically off the backs of the rest of us, can we allow any of them to simply waste away?

I would argue that we cannot out of common decency, but that they retain the same opportunities which are open to the vast majority of us, but with loopholes closed to prevent them from benefiting to the same degree as those who do contribute something valuable to the betterment of the rest of us. Enticements and encouragement should be made to correct their anti social attitudes short of physical or disciminatory moral coercion of any kind. But it is imperative that those opportunties for betterment are open to all such people, no matter how badly they may have abused the system in the past.

Human beings respond best not to threat or to initimidation, but to respect and being considered as worthy as any other, and by appreciation of their efforts by their peers. All human beings should be free from want by being allowed equal access to the benefits of our world. Those who choose not to share in the bounty of human prosperity by refusing to contribute to it, cannot be simply cast aside and allowed to be starved into oblivion, but nor can they possibly expect to share in its greatest benefits until and unless they ctively contribute to it. But access should never be closed and equal opportunity for all must be retained.

[niftyshellshock]

Quoting DanniNeels:

"BiDave we live in America, which means you are free to fuck or get fucked by any legal adult as long as it is consensual."

Unless you're a teacher fucking a student, a boss fucking an employee, etc.

"This also means you don't need the government, the church or society to subsidize, bless or agree with your sexual choices, as long as they are consensual... "

Except employers can fire you/not hire you if they find out you're gay or polyamorous or bisexual, because discrimination policies don't have 'sexual orientation' as a protected class.

"Why do GLBT people try so hard to get "married" so they can be accepted by the rest of society who do not understand nor agree with their lifestyle?"

It's a little something called equality. I'm sure you've heard of it in your history books. An awful lot of people were using that same argument during the civil rights era when it came time to legalize interracial marriages.

"Nobody is knocking down your door trying to prevent you from being bi or gay, so stop trying to force your sexual preferences on society and society will leave you alone."

I've heard that one before, too, "If you didn't do anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear now, do you?" I'm bisexual. I don't force my bisexuality on anyone, but yet, I'm routinely told by the media and society that homosexuality of any sorts is wrong (unless it's two hot chicks making out in which case it's so hawt) and organizations out there that keep on propagating the myth that sexual orientation is a choice and anything other than hetero-sexuality is the wrong choice.

Let me quote you something...

--No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.--

Sound familiar? It's in the United States constitution. You know why that amendment came about? Because people were going around believing that blacks did not deserve the same rights that whites did. That's all the general GLBT population wants...equal rights.

"Conservatism is based on Capitalism, which allows you to profit off of anything as long as there is demand... So if enough GLBT people share the need for something, then Capitalism will give birth to supply such demand and they will supply what you want, giving you what you desire & them what they desire... Profit! It's a win/win situation!! Capitalism is to society what the ecosystem is to the environment... It creates the perfect balance and anyone who tries to "fix it" is a fool at best... Capitalism is blind to everything except profit; it doesn't care what gender you are or what color you are or if you are tall or short or who you have sex with... It will figure out these things, but it will do so with the result of giving you what you need, want & desire!*"

Simplified: Smaller Gov't = Less Taxes = Freedom & Prosperity & Bigger Government = More Taxes = Restrictions & Poverity"

I remember the last time the United States government, all three branches of it, decided to take an entirely laissez-faire approach. You might remember who was President then...a man named Herbert Hoover. Do you remember what else happened during the Hoover administration? Here's a hint. Two words. First one starts with G, second one ends with 'epression'

"Pasadena: There is nothing to praise B.O. for... B.O. Stinks!"

Hmm...abridged list of things President Obama has done:

Passed the Lilly Ledbetter Act, shifted focus from Iraq to Afghanistan, reation of a Joint Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record for members of the U.S. Armed Forces to improve quality of medical care, Ended media blackout on war casualties and the return of fallen soldiers to Dover AFB, forced insurance cartels to stop denying coverage to children and those with pre-existing conditions, and pretty much saved the American auto industry from going balls up.

Sure beats a President that managed to piss off the entire world and sink the economy while he was at it, in my own opinion.

Here's an example of his hypocrisy:
"He disagreed with the Iraq war, but while GW got congressional approval to go to war from nearly every member of congress... Now B.O. gets us into a war in Libya without any approval whatsoever or any justification to do so."

Under the War Powers act, President Obama could have done it, furthermore, the constitutionality of said War Powers act has always been pretty much set aside by every president.
Oh, about that Congressional approval, it's easy to get approval when you lie and come up with crazy things like "Axis of Evil" and certain dictators having "nukular" capabilities. People are prone to fear, and fear makes them vote stupid.
Not only that but, yeah, you're right, the invasion of Libya was an invasion of a sovereign land with no real reason (just like Iraq), but, check THIS shit out -- American involvement was there for the initial stages, and now it's scaled back only for light support of NATO forces. NATO's running the show now, just as much as they should have been running the show in Iraq.

" The Liberal media suppresses this hypocrisy and how many soldiers are dying now, and how high the gas prices are, and how truly bad the economy really is..."

You know how I know you don't know shit about the media? You're spouting off nonsense about "the liberal media". Please. If there was truly a liberal media, there'd be more outrage over the fact that our education is in the shitter, how historical revisionists want to ensure our kids stay dumb, how education is not seen as a desirable trait, how no one's doing anything about civil rights abuses in our "allied" countries, how no one cares about the genocides still going on in Africa, etc, etc. The media is driven by profit. Fear sells. Sex sells. "Liberal" ideas don't.

" They are fixing the news & liberals are eating it up."

The only thing you're eating up is Glenn Beck precum.

[IndyBiFun]

I think Bachman has messages we need to hear and I agree too that the current president is among the worst our country has ever had.

[IanBorthwick]

I echo Pasa's comments.

Secondly, she's a Tea Partier. So what?

Like, who can possibly be against limited govt intrusions, limited govt spending, a balanced budget, strong economy and job creation? Oh yes, fascist liberals who can't stand anything except a man whose policies they can't explain without a road map to nowhere. Thanks.

She won't win, it will be Romney or maybe even Cain, or Perry. No matter, the real problems aren't with sexuality issues, even though Hilda Solis is turning a blind eye to gay bashing and intimidation at the DoL where posters are being torn down and destroyed in the DoL building, its all about the economy here and right now, it sucks.

When real unemployment is at 16%....you aren't winning shit. He's Carter II and he knows it. Witness the refusal to listen to the Generals and try and placate the base by pulling out of Afghanistan before the mission is completed. He adds new meaning to the words "Dumber than a Brick".

I LOL'd at this...mainly because I love conservatives that talk shit, but also because Leftism is not Fascism, that's the demesne of the Right. Look it up, you might learn something.

Secondly, calling Barack stupid makes you sound like a kid, especially since your rationale isn't being presented at all. The idea of anyone that is Bisexual voting conservative is mindbending....it's not just voting against your own interests, it's asking for a jurisdiction handled by theocrats willing to stone you, kill you, imprison you or even forcibly transgender you similar to apartheid South Africa. Congrats, you should be forced to live it so you don't mistake its stench when it walks past.

Lastly, all you need is to YOuTube Bachmann and her gay hating and you'll know better than to claim sexism as to why this turnip for brains won't become president. She doesn't know jack about history, politics and can't even lie effectively. She claimed to have a legal degree from a college that doesn't grant them to US citizens, and only grants legal degrees for tax law.

If you and any other conservative show-pony wants to back this grapefruit for a power bid, go for it. it's still a free country. But when you put these dumbass, doubly talking theocrats in office you need to goose-step up and inform them of what your sexuality is so they can deal with you appropriately. As for me, I'l move to some other country and wait for the "All Clear".

As for our president being the worst ever, I won't agree to any of that horse-puckey. You want to put your faith in Rasmussen Polls, a known conservative propaganda machine, you go right ahead and think what you want...

...ignorance is bliss they say, but I wouldn't know it except to watch the Rethuglicans dance around and spin the truth like a harp from hell.

[JP1986UM]

If Conservatives and Tea Party members were in power they'd make being anything but heterosexual and Christian punishable as a crime.

GLBT people in the United States are already second class citizens.

I've never understood why any GLBT person would actually vote Conservative, let alone support a Conservative politician or the Tea party since these groups do not care about our rights at all and will do anything to stop us.

This is complete crap, while Pasa has already dissected and viscerated you above, I'll merely add that your understanding of the Tea Party is as neanderthal as Weiner's behavior toward women.

Witness a group I am proud to be part of for conservative gay and lesbian people who don't toe the leftist line:

http://www.goproud.org/

GOProud represents gay conservatives and their allies. GOProud is committed to a traditional conservative agenda that emphasizes limited government, individual liberty, free markets and a confident foreign policy. GOProud promotes our traditional conservative agenda by influencing politics and policy at the federal level

Secondly, there isn't one Tea Party, since you obviously are a lemming following MSNBC and/or Huffpo, let me simply inform you on how many there are:

Over 50 different groups.

There is no leader. There is no secret handshake. The vast majority of these groups are for the above bolded statements and no more. So you are either sadly misinformed or lying. Either way, you are still wrong.

[JP1986UM]

I LOL'd at this...mainly because I love conservatives that talk shit, but also because Leftism is not Fascism, that's the demesne of the Right. Look it up, you might learn something.


Fascism, in reality, truly is a far left tool people like you evidently have never truly analyzed, so here:

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=21599

If you can read YOU might learn something. Other than that, you win the Rudeness and Tool of the Left Award.


Socialism has never been a buzzword in North American Leftist circles but it certainly was for a very long time in the rest of the world. And to modern day British Leftists too socialism has a meaning that is more nostalgic and emotional than concrete and many would be prepared to admit that it is functionally "dead". Mussolini, however was 70 years earlier in announcing the death. It should be noted, however, that Mussolini was principally referring here to the policies and doctrines of his own former Socialist Party — which was explicitly Marxist — and which were far more extreme than the socialism of (say) Clement Attlee and the postwar British Labour party.

"Fascism ..... was born of the need for action and it was itself from the beginning practical rather than theoretical".

Modern-day Leftist demonstrators too seem to be more interested in dramatic actions than in any coherent theory.

"One would there find no ordered expression of doctrine but a series of aphorisms, anticipations and aspirations".

This is how Mussolini described early Fascist meetings. Modern-day Leftist agitators too seem more interested in slogans than in any form of rational debate.

"If the 19th century has been the century of the individual (for liberalism means individualism), it may be conjectured that this is the century of the State.

This is Mussolini's famous prophecy about the 20th century in the Enciclopedia Italiana. It came true with the aid of the modern-day Left and their love of big government.

Oh and one other thing tool, next time use the latin version, I was rusty on my french.....

[TaylorMade]

As one of the original Right Wing Cranks on this site... this thread does me proud. I'm like ...dare I say it? A proud mama grizzly watching her cubs catch fish on their own for the first time. :p

*Taylor*

[Katja]

Fascism, in reality, truly is a far left tool people like you evidently have never truly analyzed, so here:

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=21599

If you can read YOU might learn something. Other than that, you win the Rudeness and Tool of the Left Award.



Oh and one other thing tool, next time use the latin version, I was rusty on my french.....

I really do think you seriously should consider analysing the difference between the two creeds. Similarities exist between the two but similarities exist between the philosophies of social and christian democracy, liberalism and conservatism, democratic socialism and all of these credos. All too have some similarities to fascism and Marxism, both in economic and social terms.

One important area where these credos differ from fascism, socialism of all kinds save that of national socialism, is a commitment to a form of democracy and that the power of the state lies with the people.

In the most extreme form of fascism, that of the aforesaid national socialism, lies a denial of the right of man to discriminate against his peers on grounds of race. In the case of socialism and its marxist creed, there exists a commitment to universal brotherhood and is an internationalist philosophy which preaches the unity and equality of man and of the voluntary cooperation of humanity to achieve his betterment.

In socialism, there is also the commitment to world peace and a recognition that war is destructive, which can never be said to be a claim of fascism or nazism, save possibly under the jackboot. Neither the philosophies of fascism or national socialism comes close.

Other substantial areas of difference exist between fascism and socialism and I suggest that it is you who does some learning.

[Katja]

As one of the original Right Wing Cranks on this site... this thread does me proud. I'm like ...dare I say it? A proud mama grizzly watching her cubs catch fish on their own for the first time. :p

*Taylor*

What I can say, darling, is that mama bear is not doing a very good job of teaching her cubs to feed, for all I have observed are cubs swishing their paws in mid air and missing their catch.:(

I do believe it is time to go back to mama bear school before the poor little mites starve to death.:)

[niftyshellshock]

I think Bachman has messages we need to hear and I agree too that the current president is among the worst our country has ever had.

Really? More so than Polk, who invaded a sovereign nation and stole 1/3 of its land in arguably the most unpopular war in American history?
More so than Andrew Johnson, who did his best to screw over recently-freed slaves post-Civil War?
More so than Woodrow Wilson, who not only is responsible for setting back race relations in the federal government back fifty years, but also led America into WWI, a war it didn't need (and his interference likely led to the anti-Germany truce that would blow up in '36 and onwards)?
More so than Richard Nixon, who made a mockery of the Presidential office?
More so than George W. Bush, who...well, I don't have the time to list his scandals, but let's just say that when Supreme Court justices call your election an insult to the people's faith in the judicial branch....you're not exactly on a right path.

Seriously. If you're going to call President Obama one of the worst presidents in American history, you need to brush up on your history. Seriously.

No mention of men like Grant, who surrounded himself with the most corrupt men at that period in American History.
No mention of President Taylor -- whose ineffectiveness in battle, to no one's surprise translated to inefficiency as a President.
Then there's an entire string of presidents in the last two centuries that 1) stood by quietly (and even encouraged) the spread of slavery and supported a Confederacy or 2) Turned a blind eye to U.S.-funded massacres across the world.

Yet somehow...President Obama is as bad as them.
I do not understand.

[niftyshellshock]

Fascism, in reality, truly is a far left tool people like you evidently have never truly analyzed, so here:

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=21599

If you can read YOU might learn something. Other than that, you win the Rudeness and Tool of the Left Award.



Oh and one other thing tool, next time use the latin version, I was rusty on my french.....

That's some great source you have there, sparky.

[Molecular]

It really just blows my mind when I see stuff like this! We should be united against the tea party as the value the "real American family" but not just that we should be against both political parties because all they do is divide us as a nation. We Are rapidly becoming the worlds punch line because all we do if fight amongst ourselves! This is pathetic by any standards! Unfortunately I feel that this country is on it's way out of our super power position because of this insestant squabbling that our government incites. We all need to stand up as one people and tell the government that we arE tired of the bullshit that they are feeding us and we need a fresh start!

[Katja]

It really just blows my mind when I see stuff like this! We should be united against the tea party as the value the "real American family" but not just that we should be against both political parties because all they do is divide us as a nation. We Are rapidly becoming the worlds punch line because all we do if fight amongst ourselves! This is pathetic by any standards! Unfortunately I feel that this country is on it's way out of our super power position because of this insestant squabbling that our government incites. We all need to stand up as one people and tell the government that we arE tired of the bullshit that they are feeding us and we need a fresh start!

All pull together and think as one. Not realistic or desirable. If you believe in democracy then it is necessary to have distinct philosphies and differing views of the world.

If the United States is 'a punch line' as you put it, it has nothing to do with divisions in your society, but more to do with the perceived political, military, social and economic policies of whichever government you have. Your country is declining in influence because other powerful economic and military powerhouses are on the rise, and the United States economy has peaked and begun the long slow downward spiral which happens to all great nations. Nations can delay and even reverse their decline, but not indefinitely.

Weakness is perceived and will be difficult to heal. You may patch it up but I very much doubt you can eliminate it entirely.

The US is still the most powerful and the richest nation on earth. It will be for some time to come, but it is in decline. In my lifetime I expect that at least one other nation shall replace it militarily and technologically, and probably economically. Whether that is for the good of the world I have my doubts, but it is likely.

I do agree that the United States is poorly governed and badly served by those it elects to office, but so is probably every nation on earth, even the most vibrant economies and most socially liberal and advanced. That change is required in how nations govern themselves to improve matters is unquestioned, but no one has quite come up with the right answer as yet. the systems of representative democracy as practiced around the globe by an increasing number of nations are the best developed so far, yet they too have such imperfections and are open to abuse by the unscrupulous and the powerful within their society.

Michelle Bachmann in her way represents abuse of power by her adherance to a philosophy of intolerance and hate. There are many like her in every nation, yet multi party democracy does minimise their influence in a way that what is in effect a two party state cannot.

Your heartfelt appeal is misplaced because what you are in effect saying as that you wish to crush the system that you do have and replace it with a one party system which is totalitarian and unlikely to be benevolent. That is not your intention of your proposition but it is the most likely result of its success.

In such a state, people like Michelle Bachmann are more likely to be produced, for in every nation, within every political system, scapegoats are required by the ruling party to achieve and hold on to power. They are required by opposition parties, legal and illegal, and all parties, ruling or otherwise, they are used to appeal to the prejudice and base instinct of their constituents to disguise and detract from policies about and into which they wish us to study anything but carefully.

Michelle Bachmann uses ourselves and gay people for just such a purpose, and others do too. People use religious, ethnic and xenophobic prejudice for much the same reason, and so what you propose is a very dangerous and risky venture indeed. If we believe in democracy, then I am afraid we have to live with its imperfections while endeavoring to improve upon them and make it better.

[Molecular]

All pull together and think as one. Not realistic or desirable. If you believe in democracy then it is necessary to have distinct philosphies and differing views of the world.

If the United States is 'a punch line' as you put it, it has nothing to do with divisions in your society, but more to do with the perceived political, military, social and economic policies of whichever government you have. Your country is declining in influence because other powerful economic and military powerhouses are on the rise, and the United States economy has peaked and begun the long slow downward spiral which happens to all great nations. Nations can delay and even reverse their decline, but not indefinitely.

Weakness is perceived and will be difficult to heal. You may patch it up but I very much doubt you can eliminate it entirely.

The US is still the most powerful and the richest nation on earth. It will be for some time to come, but it is in decline. In my lifetime I expect that at least one other nation shall replace it militarily and technologically, and probably economically. Whether that is for the good of the world I have my doubts, but it is likely.

I do agree that the United States is poorly governed and badly served by those it elects to office, but so is probably every nation on earth, even the most vibrant economies and most socially liberal and advanced. That change is required in how nations govern themselves to improve matters is unquestioned, but no one has quite come up with the right answer as yet. the systems of representative democracy as practiced around the globe by an increasing number of nations are the best developed so far, yet they too have such imperfections and are open to abuse by the unscrupulous and the powerful within their society.

Michelle Bachmann in her way represents abuse of power by her adherance to a philosophy of intolerance and hate. There are many like her in every nation, yet multi party democracy does minimise their influence in a way that what is in effect a two party state cannot.

Your heartfelt appeal is misplaced because what you are in effect saying as that you wish to crush the system that you do have and replace it with a one party system which is totalitarian and unlikely to be benevolent. That is not your intention of your proposition but it is the most likely result of its success.

In such a state, people like Michelle Bachmann are more likely to be produced, for in every nation, within every political system, scapegoats are required by the ruling party to achieve and hold on to power. They are required by opposition parties, legal and illegal, and all parties, ruling or otherwise, they are used to appeal to the prejudice and base instinct of their constituents to disguise and detract from policies about and into which they wish us to study anything but carefully.

Michelle Bachmann uses ourselves and gay people for just such a purpose, and others do too. People use religious, ethnic and xenophobic prejudice for much the same reason, and so what you propose is a very dangerous and risky venture indeed. If we believe in democracy, then I am afraid we have to live with its imperfections while endeavoring to improve upon them and make it better.

I feel that you misunderstood me as I am not for a one party system at all! I am merely suggesting that we overhaul our system here in America so that the wealthiest people cant dictate what happens to the little guy!

[Pasadenacpl2]

Sigh...I still hear a ton of people here being douchebags where ideology is concerned. "Those liberals" "those neocons" "you people"...don't y'all get tired of it? I know I do.

It's too soon to tell whether Obama is good or not. I suspect he's in the bottom third. I don't suspect he's amongst the worst. I will say the same about President Bush (Nifty, your description of his 'crimes' is like listening to a skinny leftwing Rush Limbaugh).

Don't some of you realize that you are every bit as bad in your rhetoric as the right wing conservatives you demonize? It's exactly the same problem I see in the GLBT community as a whole. So quick to demonize the straight world and to pull back the hand of compassion and tollerance, when compassion and tollerance is what the GLBT community demands of everyone else. So ironic.

How about this? How about we try to have a political discussion that leaves 'us/them' aside, and just discusses the problem or issue at hand. Let's use facts, rather than talking points. How about we do it without accusations and finger pointing. How about we avoid the "oh yeah? well your guy is worse at that..."

Just a thought. I believe we can be better than this.

Pasa

[Pasadenacpl2]

Oh...as for Fascism...

Fascism is not a part of the right. Conservatism (with the notable exception of what we do in the bedroom) wants a removal of governmental control. The right opposes any blocks in freedom by the government (with the above exception...which I argue with my conservative brethren about all the time).

This is not in any form what facism is about. Fascism wants governmental control of social and economic factors with the point of keeping a populace in line. Things like extensive governmental subsidies, extensive social programs that keep a populace beholden to the government for their subsistence, and governmental ownership of corporations goes well under this heading.

I'd be happy to correct any misunderstandings about fascism, and what it is or isn't. I know it's popular to call it the next step of the right wing, using phrases like "neo con" to give that 'nazi' feel. But, a little reading, and a little thinking will show that this just isn't the case.

This is an example of what I'm talking about. We can rise above the rhetoric.

Pasa

[Katja]

Oh...as for Fascism...

Fascism is not a part of the right. Conservatism (with the notable exception of what we do in the bedroom) wants a removal of governmental control. The right opposes any blocks in freedom by the government (with the above exception...which I argue with my conservative brethren about all the time).

This is not in any form what facism is about. Fascism wants governmental control of social and economic factors with the point of keeping a populace in line. Things like extensive governmental subsidies, extensive social programs that keep a populace beholden to the government for their subsistence, and governmental ownership of corporations goes well under this heading.

I'd be happy to correct any misunderstandings about fascism, and what it is or isn't. I know it's popular to call it the next step of the right wing, using phrases like "neo con" to give that 'nazi' feel. But, a little reading, and a little thinking will show that this just isn't the case.

This is an example of what I'm talking about. We can rise above the rhetoric.

Pasa

The entire history of government, right and left can never be said to be about keeping out of peoples lives and a removal of government control. You may claim all you like what you like but right wing governments may govern slightly differently and allude to small government but that is not the reality as history shows.

Fascism and national socialism are considered right wing creeds because of their reliance on privilege, capital and prejudice to function. They are not about egalitarianism any more than is the Republican Party of the USA, the Conservative Party of the UK, or the the Christian Democrats of Germany. On the contrary they are but extreme manifestations of right wing ideologies.

The left cannot be excused its extreme elements either, with Stalinism and Maoism historical manifestations of Marxist philosophy, even if in reality they were nothing of the kind. That may have been their roots and their beginnings but it certainly was not their end. Yet they did borrow heavily from Marx and claimed to be the true heirs of Marxist thought while, as fascism and national socialism did and still does on their side of the political spectrum, corrupting the message of Marx and other left wing idealogical thinkers.

[niftyshellshock]

Sigh...I still hear a ton of people here being douchebags where ideology is concerned. "Those liberals" "those neocons" "you people"...don't y'all get tired of it? I know I do.

It's too soon to tell whether Obama is good or not. I suspect he's in the bottom third. I don't suspect he's amongst the worst. I will say the same about President Bush (Nifty, your description of his 'crimes' is like listening to a skinny leftwing Rush Limbaugh).

Don't some of you realize that you are every bit as bad in your rhetoric as the right wing conservatives you demonize? It's exactly the same problem I see in the GLBT community as a whole. So quick to demonize the straight world and to pull back the hand of compassion and tollerance, when compassion and tollerance is what the GLBT community demands of everyone else. So ironic.

How about this? How about we try to have a political discussion that leaves 'us/them' aside, and just discusses the problem or issue at hand. Let's use facts, rather than talking points. How about we do it without accusations and finger pointing. How about we avoid the "oh yeah? well your guy is worse at that..."

Just a thought. I believe we can be better than this.

Pasa

I'm just responding to the vitriol, and I cite facts. I'm not trying to demonize anyone, I'm trying to shield myself. Come on, you heard the rhetoric, "BUT IF YOU'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG, YOU SHOULDN'T BE AFRAID!" I hate it, because it hits close to home as a Hispanic, and I speak out against it. "Hey, you're complying with the law, so...you have nothing to worry about when we round up your questionably documented brethren ;) ;)"

For me it's not so much "you guys v. my guys"
I'm not a Democrat, a Libertarian, or a Republican. I don't have "a guy" for me, for me it's more of "your guys in power make me fear for my life and lifestyle"

[JP1986UM]

More so than George W. Bush, who...well, I don't have the time to list his scandals, but let's just say that when Supreme Court justices call your election an insult to the people's faith in the judicial branch....you're not exactly on a right path.

Seriously. If you're going to call President Obama one of the worst presidents in American history, you need to brush up on your history. Seriously.


When yer in the back pocket of Barry its easy to see why people like you should not be allowed to vote.:eek: I gather your ability to see the constitution for what it is was severely impaired. The other presidents aside, you listed all these Moveon.org scandals....oh wait, you didn't. Or the Code Pink list...oh wait....yeah...ummm....ok, then there was the SC thing.

Well, ha ha, I just happened to be a Fla recount panelist when those votes were recounted. I stood there while GORE lawyers high fived each other when military ballots were discounted for arriving late, when they were mailed from a ship serving our country. I saw them pull technical stunt after technical stunt trying to make up votes where clearly there weren't any. Further, the law in place at the time was where the standard for a legal vote was set and signs were posted. It was easy to follow, except for Gore voters. You really need to get over it. Signs were posted all over the polling places, so unless they were all blind, they either didn't vote, made errors and didn't correct them, or voted for someone else. The SC case was decided in that the SC wasn't going to try and play mystic and discern votes that were in question. They decided correctly according to the law, not making it up like Gore was asking them to do.

The SC decided a case Gore brought against BUSH, not the other way around, you really should read more. Further, the Miami Herald and several other papers did many tests and the winner was.....Bush. You really should read better sources other than Media Matters, a left wing hack site.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm

George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes — more than triple his official 537-vote margin — if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election.

man that was too easy. Do you really like being punted to the back of the end zone? I enjoy doing it. Its so much fun!! :disgust:

Scandals......good god, you left wingers are just pathetic. Instead of railing against Bush's spending which even conservatives hated, you wanna complain about something else because.....oh wait, your BOY spends far more than Bush ever did.

Here, lets look at the FACTS.
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg

3 points!!!

One other thing, Obama's last budget submitted only a few months ago was such a hit on capital hill, you'll never guess how much your boy got support?
Here, read thisit was so close (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/163347-senate-votes-unanimously-against-obama-budget). It was a shutout!! Yeah, cool huh?

Have a pleasant day.

[IanBorthwick]

Fascism, in reality, truly is a far left tool people like you evidently have never truly analyzed, so here:

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=21599

If you can read YOU might learn something. Other than that, you win the Rudeness and Tool of the Left Award.



Oh and one other thing tool, next time use the latin version, I was rusty on my french.....

One Google Search:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail?entry_id=84707
Wisconsin Republicans Move State Toward Fascism

http://dailycensored.com/2011/03/10/republican-fascism/
Republican Fascism

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/03/12/is-the-republican-party-becoming-fascist/
Is The Republican Party Becoming Fascist?

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Fascist-Republican_Party
Fascist-Republican Party

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail?entry_id=84707
Wisconsin Republicans Move State Toward Fascism

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-GOP-Chooses-Fascism-by-Bob-Burnett-090814-250.html
The GOP Chooses Fascism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Fascism is anti-anarchist, anti-communist, anti-conservative, anti-democratic, anti-individualist, anti-liberal, anti-parliamentary, anti-bourgeois, and anti-proletarian.

http://lubbockleft.com/2011/06/07/creeping-fascism-in-florida/
Creeping Fascism in Florida

http://www.care2.com/causes/fascism-comes-to-michigan.html
Fascism Comes To Michigan

And all this is being adopted as per the agenda of the Rethuglicans, the Right, the repressive, the ones in power....you should get the picture by now. And all this data from one google search and 2 minutes work. Sucks to be you, huh?

Guess what, the truth isn't RUDENESS no matter what you Goppers like to push. It hurts a bit, stings sometimes, but is still the truth. Suffering is good for the soul....enjoy Dewsh-Nozzle.

As for this BS on the deficit being Obama, guess what...it's your buddies tax Cuts to the Super Rich, not ANY spending period.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGMF-3o1V5o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDC8pmfmYc4&feature=related

Don't like it, tough...it's your fault, you guys get to own responsibilty and no amount of your Spinning or Rasmussen Conservative Crap jockey reports can change the truth.

[Katja]

I feel that you misunderstood me as I am not for a one party system at all! I am merely suggesting that we overhaul our system here in America so that the wealthiest people cant dictate what happens to the little guy!

I did acknowledge that your intention was not a one party state but based on your piece I feel it is an inherent danger.

We all wish to see how our countries political systems operate made better, maybe even so radically overhaauled that the system is almost unrecognisable, but democrtic they should remain and democratic on behalf of all not as you quite rightly observe for the wealthy or any other powerful group in society.:)

Unfortunately, as you know radical change to how our democracies work is not easily achieved, and those who would change them are often considered extreme when they are nothing of the sort.

[niftyshellshock]

When yer in the back pocket of Barry its easy to see why people like you should not be allowed to vote.:eek: I gather your ability to see the constitution for what it is was severely impaired. The other presidents aside, you listed all these Moveon.org scandals....oh wait, you didn't. Or the Code Pink list...oh wait....yeah...ummm....ok, then there was the SC thing.

Well, ha ha, I just happened to be a Fla recount panelist when those votes were recounted. I stood there while GORE lawyers high fived each other when military ballots were discounted for arriving late, when they were mailed from a ship serving our country. I saw them pull technical stunt after technical stunt trying to make up votes where clearly there weren't any. Further, the law in place at the time was where the standard for a legal vote was set and signs were posted. It was easy to follow, except for Gore voters. You really need to get over it. Signs were posted all over the polling places, so unless they were all blind, they either didn't vote, made errors and didn't correct them, or voted for someone else. The SC case was decided in that the SC wasn't going to try and play mystic and discern votes that were in question. They decided correctly according to the law, not making it up like Gore was asking them to do.

The SC decided a case Gore brought against BUSH, not the other way around, you really should read more. Further, the Miami Herald and several other papers did many tests and the winner was.....Bush. You really should read better sources other than Media Matters, a left wing hack site.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm

man that was too easy. Do you really like being punted to the back of the end zone? I enjoy doing it. Its so much fun!! :disgust:

Scandals......good god, you left wingers are just pathetic. Instead of railing against Bush's spending which even conservatives hated, you wanna complain about something else because.....oh wait, your BOY spends far more than Bush ever did.

Here, lets look at the FACTS.
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg

3 points!!!

One other thing, Obama's last budget submitted only a few months ago was such a hit on capital hill, you'll never guess how much your boy got support?
Here, read thisit was so close (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/163347-senate-votes-unanimously-against-obama-budget). It was a shutout!! Yeah, cool huh?

Have a pleasant day.

: yawn :

"We do risk a self-inflicted wound—a wound that may harm not just the court, but the nation..." Stevens' dissent. Not to mention -all- the other issues that went on. You were a panelist...I thought panelists were supposed to be objective when it comes to counting...hm...hey, here's a word of advice, when the majority decision is compared to the Dred Scott case by lawyers and justices, you know something's iffy.

As far as the other scandals I mentioned, it's all out there. I don't go to moveon.org or any other far-left web sites because they're just not objective. So, you're still not answering how President Obama (get used to saying that, by the way, it'll be four more years), is worse than any of the presidents I mentioned.

About that budget plan, the reason no democrats voted for it was because the President had already put in another one in its place. So...kind of stupid to shoot at something that's already dead, don't you think? It works great, because then idiots (read: you) can go around parroting "ZOMG WE BEAT OBAMA 97-0! YAY GO US"

Yes, President Obama spends money. Big deal, at what point did I say he didn't spend any money? Here's a little secret I'll share with you...sometimes, you have to spend money to make money. : gasp :

If he didn't spend any money to fix the failing economy, you'd have the same people bitching about spending going "HEY WHY IS OUR PRESIDENT NOT DOING ANYTHING! SEE HE SUCKS ASS!"
Some people just can't be pleased. Hell, he could introduce a bill right now to provide more care for wounded veterans, and the Republicans in Congress would still vote against it.

Also, I noticed you referred to the president as "my boy" couple of times.

I wonder...

[niftyshellshock]

One Google Search:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail?entry_id=84707
Wisconsin Republicans Move State Toward Fascism

http://dailycensored.com/2011/03/10/republican-fascism/
Republican Fascism

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/03/12/is-the-republican-party-becoming-fascist/
Is The Republican Party Becoming Fascist?

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Fascist-Republican_Party
Fascist-Republican Party

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail?entry_id=84707
Wisconsin Republicans Move State Toward Fascism

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-GOP-Chooses-Fascism-by-Bob-Burnett-090814-250.html
The GOP Chooses Fascism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Fascism is anti-anarchist, anti-communist, anti-conservative, anti-democratic, anti-individualist, anti-liberal, anti-parliamentary, anti-bourgeois, and anti-proletarian.

http://lubbockleft.com/2011/06/07/creeping-fascism-in-florida/
Creeping Fascism in Florida

http://www.care2.com/causes/fascism-comes-to-michigan.html
Fascism Comes To Michigan

And all this is being adopted as per the agenda of the Rethuglicans, the Right, the repressive, the ones in power....you should get the picture by now. And all this data from one google search and 2 minutes work. Sucks to be you, huh?

Guess what, the truth isn't RUDENESS no matter what you Goppers like to push. It hurts a bit, stings sometimes, but is still the truth. Suffering is good for the soul....enjoy Dewsh-Nozzle.

As for this BS on the deficit being Obama, guess what...it's your buddies tax Cuts to the Super Rich, not ANY spending period.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGMF-3o1V5o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDC8pmfmYc4&feature=related

Don't like it, tough...it's your fault, you guys get to own responsibilty and no amount of your Spinning or Rasmussen Conservative Crap jockey reports can change the truth.

Dude...citing uncyclopedia? Far-left sites? Really?

http://thesignalinthenoise.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/youre-not-helping.jpg

The GOP/Tea Party is a lot of things, but...fascists they aren't. Don't play their games. These people will very ignorantly go around yelling about their country going communistic all the while ignoring what the word means. Don't play their games, it just makes our side look bad.

[TaylorMade]

What I can say, darling, is that mama bear is not doing a very good job of teaching her cubs to feed, for all I have observed are cubs swishing their paws in mid air and missing their catch.:(

I do believe it is time to go back to mama bear school before the poor little mites starve to death.:)

I don't know... but posts like this...


Sigh...I still hear a ton of people here being douchebags where ideology is concerned. "Those liberals" "those neocons" "you people"...don't y'all get tired of it? I know I do.

It's too soon to tell whether Obama is good or not. I suspect he's in the bottom third. I don't suspect he's amongst the worst. I will say the same about President Bush (Nifty, your description of his 'crimes' is like listening to a skinny leftwing Rush Limbaugh).

Don't some of you realize that you are every bit as bad in your rhetoric as the right wing conservatives you demonize? It's exactly the same problem I see in the GLBT community as a whole. So quick to demonize the straight world and to pull back the hand of compassion and tollerance, when compassion and tollerance is what the GLBT community demands of everyone else. So ironic.

How about this? How about we try to have a political discussion that leaves 'us/them' aside, and just discusses the problem or issue at hand. Let's use facts, rather than talking points. How about we do it without accusations and finger pointing. How about we avoid the "oh yeah? well your guy is worse at that..."

Just a thought. I believe we can be better than this.

Pasa

This, Katja, is what I'm talking about. I don't need arguments to be won. When I first joined this site,I was one of the only dissenting political voices here. I earned quite a few bruises in dustups with various members about all sorts of shit. But, I'm not the only one anymore. Winning on a message board isn't that important, but the presence of an actual back and forth of thought is. A "you're not alone" in PMs that eventually becomes what you see here is what matters.

*Taylor*

[Katja]

I don't know... but posts like this...



This, Katja, is what I'm talking about. I don't need arguments to be won. When I first joined this site,I was one of the only dissenting political voices here. I earned quite a few bruises in dustups with various members about all sorts of shit. But, I'm not the only one anymore. Winning on a message board isn't that important, but the presence of an actual back and forth of thought is. A "you're not alone" in PMs that eventually becomes what you see here is what matters.

*Taylor*

What is important is being able to freely debate. I agree with that, but we all need to win an argument occasionally or we never move on. The trouble with forums such as this the argument often goes on ad infinitum, but that can actually be a good thing in a way since it means an issue felt by some will not just disappear in a puff of smoke. It is kept alive.

I'm glad you are not feeling alone any more although reading a number of back threads going back some years I am unsure that you ever were. Reading those old back posts there are members who were far more isolated than ever you seem to think you were.

[sammie19]

I'm just responding to the vitriol, and I cite facts. I'm not trying to demonize anyone, I'm trying to shield myself. Come on, you heard the rhetoric, "BUT IF YOU'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG, YOU SHOULDN'T BE AFRAID!" I hate it, because it hits close to home as a Hispanic, and I speak out against it. "Hey, you're complying with the law, so...you have nothing to worry about when we round up your questionably documented brethren ;) ;)"

For me it's not so much "you guys v. my guys"
I'm not a Democrat, a Libertarian, or a Republican. I don't have "a guy" for me, for me it's more of "your guys in power make me fear for my life and lifestyle"

The following poem I keep on my fridge door and is relevant to your comment about not being afraid if you are innocent. It is simple enough task to add gay and bisexual into the text.

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

It is all very well to tell us we should keep personalities out of our discussions, but it is personalities who speak and argue in favour of depriving us the right to be free, and who will impose upon us restrictions which can mean persecution, imprisonment or worse.

In the last few days this discussion has been going on I have thought some about what people have said and about Michelle Bachmann I have come to this conclusion;

It may be that she has other fish to fry, bigger and more important fish, as any President of the greatest nation on earth will have, but her thoughts and beliefs regarding gay and bisexual people cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged, nor can one who has so much bile and prejudice towards a group of people who only want to live in peace with the world ever be elected to office. Once she has squeezed the life out of that group of people, who next? There is an nasty ruthlessness about her which will demand other sacrificial victims. Rather than healing divisions in American society she is most likely to create greater rifts.

There is no greater responsibility any leader can have than the continued happiness and freedom of his or her people. Any leader who will, as she would and seems to do, spend so much time and effort in spreading prejudice and opposing the rights of millions of Americans to live in freedom, happiness and equality with the rest can ever be elected to office.

Any who uses division against one group, will not be wary of fostering prejudice against another out of self interest.

Contrast Michelle Bachmann and people like her, to the Conservative Prime Minister of my own country, who this week risked the ire of his own party and his constituents to speak out in support of gay and bisexual men and women in British sport, and to encourage them to out themselves to help begin the process of eliminating anti homosexual and bisexual bigotry within sport, and become role models for our youth, not as gay or bi, but as brave and decent successful human beings.

As a wishy washy liberal with often naive political opinions I may hate everything else Cameron stands for, but I can applaud his stand on that.

[ChicagoNormalGuy]

On what will happen if her same-sex marriage ban amendment fails to pass in 2004: “It isn’t that some gay will get some rights. It’s that everyone else in our state will lose rights. For instance, parents will lose the right to protect and direct the upbringing of their children. Because our K-12 public school system, of which ninety per cent of all youth are in the public school system, they will be required to learn that homosexuality is normal, equal and perhaps you should try it. And that will occur immediately, that all schools will begin teaching homosexuality.” -- Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 6, 2004.

[ChicagoNormalGuy]

On the gay community and same-sex marriage: “This is a very serious matter, because it is our children who are the prize for this community, they are specifically targeting our children.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

[ChicagoNormalGuy]

On homosexuality as a mental disorder: “Don’t misunderstand. I am not here bashing people who are homosexuals, who are lesbians, who are bisexual, who are transgender. We need to have profound compassion for people who are dealing with the very real issue of sexual dysfunction in their life and sexual identity disorders.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

[ChicagoNormalGuy]

Marcus Bachmann on treating homosexual patients in his therapy practice: “Barbarians need to be educated, they need to be disciplined, and just because someone feels it or thinks it, doesn’t mean we need to go down that road. We have a responsibility as parents and authority figures not to encourage such thoughts and feelings.” - Point of View Radio Talk Show for May 12, 2010

[Katja]

On homosexuality as a mental disorder: “Don’t misunderstand. I am not here bashing people who are homosexuals, who are lesbians, who are bisexual, who are transgender. We need to have profound compassion for people who are dealing with the very real issue of sexual dysfunction in their life and sexual identity disorders.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

From what little I know or have seen of her she as the same kind of compassion that we of the glbt as most of us would have for a terminally ill animal which was in agony.

[Molecular]

http://news.change.org/stories/montana-tea-party-leader-endorses-violence-toward-gay-people

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/julieingersoll/3522/tea_party_bullies_on_homosexuality%3A_“no_punish ment_too_severe”/

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/10/26/tea-party-loyalists-biased-against-blacks-latinos-immigrants-gays/

http://news.change.org/stories/the-tea-party-says-no-to-gay-marriage

Here is 5 mins worth of research that was done before going to work today! I realize that not all tea party members share these views but when the vast majority does isn't it stupid to expect a very small minoritys voice to be heard amongst all the bigotry and hatred?

[JP1986UM]

: yawn :

"We do risk a self-inflicted wound—a wound that may harm not just the court, but the nation..." Stevens' dissent. Not to mention -all- the other issues that went on. You were a panelist...I thought panelists were supposed to be objective when it comes to counting...hm...hey, here's a word of advice, when the majority decision is compared to the Dred Scott case by lawyers and justices, you know something's iffy.
And left wing lawyers are always the standard for calling something right or wrong true? Stevens is an old senile man. Interesting you would quote him and not Scalia or Thomas unless you are a bigot against a black man. Nothing was iffy about the case, they stuck to the facts and the vote was correct. The papers proved Bush won despite your protestations.
As far as the other scandals I mentioned, it's all out there. I don't go to moveon.org or any other far-left web sites because they're just not objective. So, you're still not answering how President Obama (get used to saying that, by the way, it'll be four more years), is worse than any of the presidents I mentioned.
Obama is a one termer. Carter II....say that for 18 more months.
About that budget plan, the reason no democrats voted for it was because the President had already put in another one in its place. So...kind of stupid to shoot at something that's already dead, don't you think? It works great, because then idiots (read: you) can go around parroting "ZOMG WE BEAT OBAMA 97-0! YAY GO US"
So Skippy throws out a budget, then submits yet another one because his original budget had a $1.5T deficit that no democrat would vote on anyway. Cool, at least he learned how stupid his first budget was and decided to take yet another vacation.
Yes, President Obama spends money. Big deal, at what point did I say he didn't spend any money? Here's a little secret I'll share with you...sometimes, you have to spend money to make money. : gasp :
name one thing the government makes to make a profit? My god, you are beyond obtuse, you are entering retard land. Here's a clue you obviously missed in Civics 101, government doesn't actually MAKE anything. Here's another secret you missed in Economics 101, when a government can't pay its debts and enters into default, the whole thing comes tumbling down. Unreal you liberals really believe this Keynesian crap. Spending money to make money only really happens in the PRIVATE sector. You know, the guy opening a restaurant, car repair shop, something like that? I know....govt is the answer to everything in your Stalinist little world.

If he didn't spend any money to fix the failing economy, you'd have the same people bitching about spending going "HEY WHY IS OUR PRESIDENT NOT DOING ANYTHING! SEE HE SUCKS ASS!"
Actually I was vehemently against TARP (under BUSH, voted on by Obama) and the Obama Trillion Dollar Suckplus. It didn't create jobs, we've lost 14.2 million and the unemployment level is close to 10% on the U-3 and 17% on the U-6. Govt spending money to fix an economy is like you actually understanding it doesn't work. It was a Chicago payoff to his cronies and union buddies. Nothing more. Sorry you didn't get the DNC memo.
Some people just can't be pleased. Hell, he could introduce a bill right now to provide more care for wounded veterans, and the Republicans in Congress would still vote against it.

Also, I noticed you referred to the president as "my boy" couple of times.

I wonder...

Well, you seem to defend him and I would merely ask, you DID vote for him its obvious. Keep on man. Its fun.

[JP1986UM]

On the gay community and same-sex marriage: “This is a very serious matter, because it is our children who are the prize for this community, they are specifically targeting our children.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

Since most people on here are democrats, it does no good to repeatedly post shit about her that will be irrelevant come primary time. She won't be winning. She won't even be on the ticket.

She doesn't have the pockets to continue to run beyond a certain point.

It will be either Romney or Perry. All the others are pretenders.

[Pasadenacpl2]

My only reason to vote for perry is that it will get him out of the governor's office. What he's allowed to happen to Texas's schools is criminal.

Pasa

[DuckiesDarling]

This may come as an unwelcome shock to this board but most voting Americans aren't really caring what someone thinks about their sexuality, they are thinking about the economy. Right now Congress is debating on raising our debt ceiling otherwise they won't be able to pay government workers. We have high unemployment and many, many people going without aid because they fall through the cracks of income limits, while the real poverty line is falling everyday to a lower and lower level of existing, not living, EXISTING.

Honestly, the one thing you can count on from the American public is that fact we are going to vote and we are going to vote for change. I don't like Obama, even though I'm a Democrat, but I have never had a problem voting for the other party if they are better qualified and can actually do something to improve this economy and get it going.

So again, sorry but the thoughts of someone on sexuality is a poor second when someone might have a plan to make sure kids go to bed with bellies full of healthy food.

[12voltman59]

It does get me how the right makes Obama out to be this horrible ogre that is leading America to socialism and all--which I think is a total bunch of crap---- while surely, Obama is more "liberal" than most anyone the Republicans would have-but in so many ways---Obama has basically continued the policies of George W Bush---like in keeping and following the provisions of way they prosecute our two ongoing wars, the USAPATRIOT Act is intact and in spite of an express Obama campaign promise to, within days of taking office, sit down with his Attorney General to undo all the things that Obama said he considered was illegal overreaching on the part of Bush---that was NEVER done.

I don't think that those in the right wing would have liked any Democratic Party candidate who would have won the presidency--whether it was Obama, Hillary Clinton or anyone else who would have emerged since they don't think that ANY person who does not come from their side has any right to be elected to a position like the presidency.

The thing is--we haven't had a REAL "progressive/liberal" Democrat for president since say, Richard Milhouse Nixon!!!:bigrin:

REALLY---think about the things that took place in the Nixon administration--for one thing HE imposed wage and price controls----and he signed on to the creation of the US Environmental Administration and the enactment of such "Communistic Regulatory" laws like The Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.

Nixon was the most democratic and liberal president since LBJ and JFK left the scene----there is no way that even the most strident democratic party president in these days and times could get through what became law in the days of Nixon.

As far as Michelle Bachmann is concerned---I think that she is on the far right fringe and even though she is a darling of the various Tea Party type groups---I don't think she or Sarah Palin have enough appeal to get elected in a general election even though they do surely appeal to the fringes on the right and to "the conservative base."

I will say one thing in comparing Palin and Bachmann---Bachmann is surely much more an accomplished person than is Sarah Palin--I really do think that Palin is a shallow, narrow and craven opportunist--who did capitalize on her moment in the sun--but her dog and pony show is starting to fade----THANKFULLY.

I may not agree with much or anything that Bachmann believes---but I do think she is capable--she surely is not a "quitter" as is Palin---Palin should have done the smart thing---go back to Alaska--get back to work as governor----and fade into the woodwork for a time--and go to school to get up to speed on basic facts of history, policy, and figure out the historical and other bases for her conservative bent-so she can explain it and be more consistent--her answers when she would be questioned by media people like Katie Curic where hardly really hard hitting questions--they were simply some basic questions that showed that Palin didn't really even know the foundations of why she believes as she does--her answers were like the kid that didn't do the work for some special school project.

The one thing Bachmann needs to learn to not do---not go off and quote as hard fact, stories like the one that went around that the Obama Administration was spending massive sums for a routine trip to India and elsewhere--in amounts far exceeding what was customary for such a trip--when that was not at all the case. Every fact that she keep on citing on all the various "talking head shows" on the 24/7 cable networks was just simply stuff some Indian reporter had made up out of thin air. She and the rest of her crowd also need to get off that crap about Barack Obama is out to destroy America, is so different and such from "real Americans" and the other ways that she and the Tea Party types like to diss Obama for---they should just get off those sorts of attacks making them more generalized that they feel that the "liberal way" is the wrong way for the nation to go--and then lay out the ways they will take things to make things better. There are enough real reasons to be critical of Obama--it is not necessary to make up all kinds of whacky, weird and boogeyman sorts of arguments about Obama---that only serves to make them weird and not deserving of taking control of the nation and trying to deal with the real problems we have in this country.

Right now--the only candidates that have any chance in getting elected on the Republican side in a general election are Mitt Romney and John Huntsman--if they can make a go of it in the Republican primaries--something Bachmann probably has a better chance of being successful.

I do say to Pasa--don't count Barack Obama down and out in getting re-elected in spite of the economy and such----he does hold the office of president and the power of incumbency is a huge mountain for challengers to overcome, he is amassing a HUGE campaign finance "war chest," that Barack Obama may be a failure or disappointment as president, depending upon one's perspective, when it comes to being an elected officer holder--he is one awesome political campaigner and if there is someone like a Palin, Bachmann, or Rick Perry who is the Republican presidential nominee---Barack Obama will clean their clocks because he will use his massive warchest to fund TV ad after ad to "scare" those on the left to get out to vote for him again--citing the alternative to him--and he will probably pick up enough of the independent vote to once again win the presidency.

It won't matter the economic situation or anything else---people may be on to Obama, but the country is not as conservative as those on the right like to think and at the very least---many will stick with Obama because they will go with the adage of "better to stick with the devil you know!"

[niftyshellshock]

Well, you seem to defend him and I would merely ask, you DID vote for him its obvious. Keep on man. Its fun.

Yeah, right, I'll totally quote Scalia, who would be perfectly OK fine with Plessy v. Ferguson (or even Dred Scott), or Clarence Thomas, whose Tea Party affiliations are quite open and his loyalty to the United States Constitution is at best, questionable. Thurgood Marshall turns in his grave every time Thomas parro...er, 'concurs' with Scalia.

[niftyshellshock]

My only reason to vote for perry is that it will get him out of the governor's office. What he's allowed to happen to Texas's schools is criminal.

Pasa

Yeah...but then we'd get David "What Establishment Clause?" Dewhurst, and I don't think he's that much better.

Plus, an Aggie in the white house? IS THAT WHAT YOU REALLY WANT?

[Katja]

This may come as an unwelcome shock to this board but most voting Americans aren't really caring what someone thinks about their sexuality, they are thinking about the economy. Right now Congress is debating on raising our debt ceiling otherwise they won't be able to pay government workers. We have high unemployment and many, many people going without aid because they fall through the cracks of income limits, while the real poverty line is falling everyday to a lower and lower level of existing, not living, EXISTING.

Honestly, the one thing you can count on from the American public is that fact we are going to vote and we are going to vote for change. I don't like Obama, even though I'm a Democrat, but I have never had a problem voting for the other party if they are better qualified and can actually do something to improve this economy and get it going.

So again, sorry but the thoughts of someone on sexuality is a poor second when someone might have a plan to make sure kids go to bed with bellies full of healthy food.

The governments, politicians and people of the United States preach to us about the inestimable value of the word 'freedom'. They continually tell us that without freedom all else is secondary for without freedom the human spirit cannot be properly nourished, nor can it be truly prosperous. The United States and its government spend billions of dollars trying to impose 'freedom' upon other nations and 'liberating' people from tyranny.

It is true that the good health of the economy is a vastly important enterprise, but true freedom and prosperity are not valued in dollars, but in the rights of man, and without liberty of the spirit, freedom to be who we are and the right to live honestly and with dignity, material prosperity becomes so much more difficult to attain.

The United States tell us, indeed harp on at us that they are the most free people on earth and that they are a beacon of hope for the world of the true meaning of liberty. Just 10 years ago another Republican told us such things, and preached to the world such a vision, yet that man presided over the complete shambles that is now the world economy, and also presided upon so much of the deprivation of liberty from so many people at home and abroad.

Obama is a greatly flawed President and man upon whom hopes were raised which were never realistic. It has fallen to him to carry the mantle improving the economic health and prosperity of the US and to a great degree the economy of the world. It is his role to preserve and further the interests of freedom in the United States and abroad and in both, such are the obstacles which are placed in his way by the heritage of others, that he is struggling to pave the way for either freedom of the spirit or freedom from economic hardship.

It is for Americans to decide whether to continue with his prescription for recovery, and whether his view of freedom is one which should be continued. We of other countries stand back and watch in morbid fascination as America analyses its navel for the next 18 months, wondering whether the Obama flawed compassion and economic clumsiness will be replaced by the likes of Bachmann and her social prejudice and economic ignorance or some other man or woman who will carry on 'the American Way' but who will undo all of the progress such as it is, of the short Obama Presidency.

Whichever scenario plays out, and whoever becomes President, I very much doubt freedom will be very much to the fore except in words, yet of all the most likely options, the Obama way is surely the least harmful not just to gay, bisexual or transgendered people, but to all groups who are considered minorities, from the poor, the sick and underprivileged to the often unpopular immigrant and the ordinary often hard pressed employee throughout the American workforce.

The price of liberty does not come cheap. It costs. From the shores of my little group of islandsand continental Europe it appears American liberty for American people means liberty for the few; the powerful and wealthy, predominantly white and straight, who use and abuse American and other nation's economies for their own economic well being, supported by Government, and often subsidised by them, and having the law tailored for their needs against the needs of the overwhelming majority of American people, and economic strategy devised for their benefit more than for any other purpose.

The election of Bachmann or one like her will only harden that view around the world for it is likely that she will be but a tool of prejudice and powerful wealthy interest groups. There are different kinds of liberty, alternate views of what freedom is and what it means. There are also different views of economic prosperity and what it is and what it means. Americans have to decide which view they wish to see of both, but without true and enduring liberty, any prosperity is likely to be a very fleeting thing indeed, and stilted not to the health of the people of the United States as a whole, but of a few who have no interest in liberty in the least, except what liberty can do for them.

[12voltman59]

A collection of Michelle Bachmann's take on reality: http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/151439/psycho_talk:_the_32_craziest_things_gop_presidenti al_contender_michele_bachmann_has_said?page=1

[void()]

"The price of liberty does not come cheap. It costs. From the shores of my little group of islandsand continental Europe it appears American liberty for American people means liberty for the few; the powerful and wealthy, predominantly white and straight, who use and abuse American and other nation's economies for their own economic well being, supported by Government, and often subsidised by them, and having the law tailored for their needs against the needs of the overwhelming majority of American people, and economic strategy devised for their benefit more than for any other purpose."

Admittedly, I am not the brightest crayon in the box. If what I perceive from reading this is incorrect, grant me knowing it is incorrect. I will gladly admit error if it is the case. What I read is you, the writer, stopping just shy of calling Americans Nazis.

If you are inferring Americans are Nazis, yes I do hold a bit of umbrage at such a remark. But I do not fail to comprehend how one could formulate such a view. This lessens the umbrage greatly. It also gives pause for consideration, perhaps even grave consideration.

No one is ever truly the mask you see and it seems we all have masks. Well, most folks do. Hopefully, we may discuss the Godwin rule civilly. Barring that, I shall call you an addle-patted and droll cumbersome wench of a lark with no hope for aspiring to being a zebra, doff my hat and bid good day. :)

By the way, jolly good show if you are saying that. Jolly lolly either way for this site is sore for humor.

[JP1986UM]

A collection of Michelle Bachmann's take on reality: http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/151439/psycho_talk:_the_32_craziest_things_gop_presidenti al_contender_michele_bachmann_has_said?page=1

Impressive list of hyperbole mixed with a lack of serious reflection on what to say from HER perspective.

It doesn't make her a liar unless you want to reflect a bit on the crazy things Al Gore has said (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1589), or just about any democrat really. Let's take Nancy Pelosi:

Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package 500 million Americans lose their jobs.

America must be a light to the world, not just a missile.

Being the first woman speaker and breaking the marble ceiling is pretty important. Now it's time to move on.

But wait there's more stupidity from the stupidest woman on the planet!! Here we are:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is fond of quoting a particular passage of Scripture. The quote, however, does not appear in the Bible and is “fictional,” according to biblical scholars.In her April 22 Earth Day news release, Pelosi said, “The Bible tells us in the Old Testament, ‘To minister to the needs of God’s creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.’ On this Earth Day, and every day, let us pledge to our children, and our children’s children, that they will have clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and the opportunity to experience the wonders of nature.”

Cybercast News Service repeatedly queried the speaker’s office for two days to determine where the alleged Bible quote is found. Thus far, no one has responded. …

Claude Mariottini, a professor of Old Testament at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, told Cybercast News Service the passage not only doesn’t exist – it’s “fictional.” “It is not in the Bible,” Mariottini said. “There is nothing that even approximates that.”
---
“America will be far safer if we reduce the chances of a terrorist attack in one of our cities than if we diminish the civil liberties of our own people.”

“I will not be making appointments to a committee that is not bipartisan.”

let's not leave out Hillary though:
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
-Hillary Clinton

Oooo, almost forgot this one from Al:
"Speaking from my own religious tradition in this Christmas season, 2,000 years ago a homeless woman gave birth to a homeless child in a manger because the inn was full."
-- algore, 12/22/1997 during a press conference on "homelessness"
(Mary and Joseph weren't homeless, al; they were traveling to Bethlehem due to a mandate from the government for the purposes of increasing tax roles. Seriously, he was 800 votes from being President? Only the current one would have been stupider.)

and I leave you with this joke, then its your turn, I am sure you can find plenty on whatever RNC woman you choose, go ahead, I won't be supporting any of them:

A man washed up on a desert island after a shipwreck. The only other survivors were a sheep and a sheepdog.

The three of them got into the habit of going down to the beach every evening to watch the sunset.

One particular evening, the sky was a fiery red with beautiful cirrus clouds and the breeze was warm and gentle. It was a perfect night for romance. As they sat there, the sheep started looking better and better to the lonely man. Soon, he leaned over and put his arm around the sheep.

But the sheepdog, ever protective of the sheep, growled fiercely until the man took his arm from around the sheep.

A few weeks passed by and, lo and behold, there was another shipwreck. The only survivor was Nancy Pelosi.

That evening, the man took Nancy to the evening beach ritual. It was another beautiful tropical evening – perfect for romance. Before long the man started to get “those feelings” again.

He fought the urges as long as he could but he finally gave in, moved closer to Nancy and told her he hadn’t had sex for months.

Nancy batted her long, lovely eyelashes and asked if there was anything she could do to help.

“Yes,” he said, “Take the dog for a walk.”

[niftyshellshock]

The governments, politicians and people of the United States preach to us about the inestimable value of the word 'freedom'. They continually tell us that without freedom all else is secondary for without freedom the human spirit cannot be properly nourished, nor can it be truly prosperous. The United States and its government spend billions of dollars trying to impose 'freedom' upon other nations and 'liberating' people from tyranny.

It is true that the good health of the economy is a vastly important enterprise, but true freedom and prosperity are not valued in dollars, but in the rights of man, and without liberty of the spirit, freedom to be who we are and the right to live honestly and with dignity, material prosperity becomes so much more difficult to attain.

The United States tell us, indeed harp on at us that they are the most free people on earth and that they are a beacon of hope for the world of the true meaning of liberty. Just 10 years ago another Republican told us such things, and preached to the world such a vision, yet that man presided over the complete shambles that is now the world economy, and also presided upon so much of the deprivation of liberty from so many people at home and abroad.

I've spent some time in Europe, and I'll take living in America seven days out of the week over living in Europe. Europeans claim to be the most civilized, more free...but really? Switzerland won't let you build a minaret, France has banned the use of burqas and niqab, Ireland has pretty much outlawed blasphemy, England has cameras on every street corner. I'll keep my American freedom.

Obama is a greatly flawed President and man upon whom hopes were raised which were never realistic. It has fallen to him to carry the mantle improving the economic health and prosperity of the US and to a great degree the economy of the world. It is his role to preserve and further the interests of freedom in the United States and abroad and in both, such are the obstacles which are placed in his way by the heritage of others, that he is struggling to pave the way for either freedom of the spirit or freedom from economic hardship.

It is for Americans to decide whether to continue with his prescription for recovery, and whether his view of freedom is one which should be continued. We of other countries stand back and watch in morbid fascination as America analyses its navel for the next 18 months, wondering whether the Obama flawed compassion and economic clumsiness will be replaced by the likes of Bachmann and her social prejudice and economic ignorance or some other man or woman who will carry on 'the American Way' but who will undo all of the progress such as it is, of the short Obama Presidency.

Whichever scenario plays out, and whoever becomes President, I very much doubt freedom will be very much to the fore except in words, yet of all the most likely options, the Obama way is surely the least harmful not just to gay, bisexual or transgendered people, but to all groups who are considered minorities, from the poor, the sick and underprivileged to the often unpopular immigrant and the ordinary often hard pressed employee throughout the American workforce.

The price of liberty does not come cheap. It costs. From the shores of my little group of islandsand continental Europe it appears American liberty for American people means liberty for the few; the powerful and wealthy, predominantly white and straight, who use and abuse American and other nation's economies for their own economic well being, supported by Government, and often subsidised by them, and having the law tailored for their needs against the needs of the overwhelming majority of American people, and economic strategy devised for their benefit more than for any other purpose.

It's a common perception, and it has merits, but you have to understand that every single individual is free in the United States. The United States Constitution makes us all free, from the poorest to the richest. Of the U.S.' 35 most populous cities, minorities are mayors and city commissioners. Hell, Houston, close to the heart of Texas, and a city not even half as liberal as Austin, has a gay woman as a mayor.
As far as people making it big, anyone can make it big in America. It just takes a lot of individual effort. As far as 'tailoring' the law, we have one Supreme law of the land, and that is the Constitution. Any law that flies against the U.S. constitution will be null and void. What happens is sometimes, rich people can afford better lawyers, who don't tailor the law, but find ways to interpret it cleverly. I find nothing wrong with that.

The election of Bachmann or one like her will only harden that view around the world for it is likely that she will be but a tool of prejudice and powerful wealthy interest groups. There are different kinds of liberty, alternate views of what freedom is and what it means. There are also different views of economic prosperity and what it is and what it means. Americans have to decide which view they wish to see of both, but without true and enduring liberty, any prosperity is likely to be a very fleeting thing indeed, and stilted not to the health of the people of the United States as a whole, but of a few who have no interest in liberty in the least, except what liberty can do for them.

In the end, it comes down to JFK's quote, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Far-left liberals and far-right Tea Partiers have one thing in common, they like to talk big and bitch about the government, but when push comes to shove, they return to their macbooks and beer-drinking. Every time someone bitches about the way things are, about the status quo, I ask them, "What have you done?" if the answer is "Nothing." I stop listening to anything else they might have to say about the way things are run. As for me, a bisexual immigrant, what am I doing? I'm getting an education so that I can best serve the needs of my community. This is my country now, and you'll forgive my assertion, but I've grounds to believe we are the envy of the world. If we weren't, why are so many people dying to come here?

[Katja]

"The price of liberty does not come cheap. It costs. From the shores of my little group of islandsand continental Europe it appears American liberty for American people means liberty for the few; the powerful and wealthy, predominantly white and straight, who use and abuse American and other nation's economies for their own economic well being, supported by Government, and often subsidised by them, and having the law tailored for their needs against the needs of the overwhelming majority of American people, and economic strategy devised for their benefit more than for any other purpose."

Admittedly, I am not the brightest crayon in the box. If what I perceive from reading this is incorrect, grant me knowing it is incorrect. I will gladly admit error if it is the case. What I read is you, the writer, stopping just shy of calling Americans Nazis.

If you are inferring Americans are Nazis, yes I do hold a bit of umbrage at such a remark. But I do not fail to comprehend how one could formulate such a view. This lessens the umbrage greatly. It also gives pause for consideration, perhaps even grave consideration.

No one is ever truly the mask you see and it seems we all have masks. Well, most folks do. Hopefully, we may discuss the Godwin rule civilly. Barring that, I shall call you an addle-patted and droll cumbersome wench of a lark with no hope for aspiring to being a zebra, doff my hat and bid good day. :)

By the way, jolly good show if you are saying that. Jolly lolly either way for this site is sore for humor.

You read that into what I said? :eek:I suggested no such thing.

It is time you put your thinking cap on and reconsidered what I did say If you believe that is what I am saying then it is you, darling, are little but a fruit dumpling on crack.;)

[void()]

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!

Why yes, I am quite fruity at times. And yes, at times I am on crack.

No worries luv, all washes clean after a few pints.

Did not really consider that was what you had said. It sounded a bit close but then I am quite sheltered, even being one of the proletarians. U.S. news and media is ever a circus farce. There are other sources but one can not remain wired up continually. Surprise, there is more beyond the inter-tubes than a void.

Good to see another view even if it brings more questions. Thank you.

[Katja]

In the end, it comes down to JFK's quote, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Far-left liberals and far-right Tea Partiers have one thing in common, they like to talk big and bitch about the government, but when push comes to shove, they return to their macbooks and beer-drinking. Every time someone bitches about the way things are, about the status quo, I ask them, "What have you done?" if the answer is "Nothing." I stop listening to anything else they might have to say about the way things are run. As for me, a bisexual immigrant, what am I doing? I'm getting an education so that I can best serve the needs of my community. This is my country now, and you'll forgive my assertion, but I've grounds to believe we are the envy of the world. If we weren't, why are so many people dying to come here?

Darling, I am not claiming my country or any other is more free than any other. I make no claim that it is more free than is your own. The only way to decide upon that is to spend a good length of time not as a visitor, but as a resident working and involving oneself in the every day life of another country. Even then our view is often coloured by memory of our own. Rather like childhood and long glorious sunny summer days for weeks on end.

I spent a year as student in Paris and I found things which quite honestly were not in my view as free as in my own, and equally there are things about France which made the United Kingdom seem extremely unfree. I am still unsure which of those two countries has most liberty.

The USA may still be the envy of the world. If so that envy is not as it once was. Since the end of the Cold war at the very least, and even before, the American reputation as the principle defender of liberty has taken a few knocks.

Many people emigrate from their homelands to the United States in search of a better life I agree, and many will find it. However, millions immigrate into many lands, my own being no exception. Every year there is a net influx into the United Kindgom of several hundred thousand people, and other countries, France and Germany for instance each takes even more than does this crammed sometimes, grudging unwelcoming little place. Your country is not the only nation on earth which is deemed to be free and paved with gold. There are many others across the globe.

An interesting point regarding your constitution is that just who determines what is constitutional? Supreme Court Justices. What is a Supreme Court Justice but a ultimately a qualified lawyer. Each appointment made 'impartially' by an 'impartial' President for what reason I wonder?

I always view with suspicion those who go on about what I or anyone else have done for their country. Kennedy and his rather glib remark has a great deal to answer for.

I work and live in mine, pay my tax, invest in a pension scheme, run a small business which employs a number of people all of whom are paid above minimum wage, and by that business's activities assist other businesses, some small, some large do the same thing. I have some stocks and shares, am independent and quite well off if hardly wealthy, and involve myself in a number of community projects for the well being of that community.

I vote, and protest on occasion against what I perceive as injustice and contribute to a number of charities and causes which I believe are important to the well being of my world. I cycle to work most days, use my car only for longer journeys, and recycle waste as much as I am able and am an organic gardener who grows much of her own fruit and vegetables as she is able, and gives away much of any surplus to those locally in need .

I am not a criminal or a racist, nor do I believe in discriminating against anyone on the basis of who they are or what they themselves believe.

I could go on, but it would become tedious for you if it has not already. I expect you wish for something glorious and grandiose. My contribution to my country is that of a good citizen.

I am not quite sure where my kind of citizen would fit in Michelle Bachmann's world. I am quite sure that it would not be in any place of merit.

[Pasadenacpl2]

Yeah...but then we'd get David "What Establishment Clause?" Dewhurst, and I don't think he's that much better.

Plus, an Aggie in the white house? IS THAT WHAT YOU REALLY WANT?

No...I want him to run and get deep enough that he has to leave the governorship, and then lose the primary to Ron Paul.

Pasa

[blknproud]

lol so much arguing. all im gonna say is personally Obama 2012.

Worst president ever was george bush lol

[niftyshellshock]

No...I want him to run and get deep enough that he has to leave the governorship, and then lose the primary to Ron Paul.

Pasa

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vWI2xvCC_1g/TZkHE40Xs9I/AAAAAAAAAEY/UmPiAdTKSTE/s1600/I%2527m+ok+with+this.jpg

[niftyshellshock]

lol so much arguing. all im gonna say is personally Obama 2012.

Worst president ever was george bush lol

Why? Iraq war aside, he was pretty moderate.
It's not like he was Polk.

[Katja]

No...I want him to run and get deep enough that he has to leave the governorship, and then lose the primary to Ron Paul.

Pasa

One should always take the greatest of care in what one wishes for. It happens in politics that a head of steam for a candidate is built up and one end's up with precisely what you didn't want.

[Hephaestion]

Look!

All of this arguing about politics and content. It's baloney. When are we going to discuss who has the sexier toes Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann?

[sammie19]

Look!

All of this arguing about politics and content. It's baloney. When are we going to discuss who has the sexier toes Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann?

Not me. Nasty is nasty and nasty excludes sexy no matter how good looking people are they remain ugly and very unsexy.:)

[Pasadenacpl2]

One should always take the greatest of care in what one wishes for. It happens in politics that a head of steam for a candidate is built up and one end's up with precisely what you didn't want.

This is true. But, of the candidates who are serious, Obama has the best chance of beating Perry. AND even if Perry wins, he can actually do far less damage as the presisldent than as governor of Texas (Texas pretty much leads the nation where education/textbooks, and many other issues are concerned).

Add to that, that in Texas the Lt. Governor actually has even MORE power than the governor, which would mean getting David Dewhurst into the less powerful office, and we have a win for everyone.

Sometimes allowing the person you don't want to win actually benefits the nation/state.

Pasa

[Katja]

This is true. But, of the candidates who are serious, Obama has the best chance of beating Perry. AND even if Perry wins, he can actually do far less damage as the presisldent than as governor of Texas (Texas pretty much leads the nation where education/textbooks, and many other issues are concerned).

Add to that, that in Texas the Lt. Governor actually has even MORE power than the governor, which would mean getting David Dewhurst into the less powerful office, and we have a win for everyone.

Sometimes allowing the person you don't want to win actually benefits the nation/state.

Pasa

Time will tell which of us is right or none, darling. Even the most carefully laid plans of mice and men gang aft agley. Sometimes for everyone.

[JP1986UM]

What I don't understand still is how people like Michelle Bachmann can run on the platforms that she is running on & still be a candidate. I believe that if a primeministorial candidate ran on any of the issues that Michelle Bachmann is running on they would be laughed out of the race & probably not even make it to the ballot. How someone can run on an anti human rights agenda is beyond me but it seems to be working across the world.

Its because the deep south is still very protestant/deeply conservative and their political issues are generally single one's. Its either economic or social. Very rarely do they mix one way or the other. Canada is still liberal compared to states like Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama. An election such as yours recently isn't really changing much. Its like Obama or Kennedy? Seriously, its no major difference.

I said it before, she has no chance of winning the nomination, so spending time even thinking about it is worthless and detracts from really great sex.

[niftyshellshock]

Its because the deep south is still very protestant/deeply conservative and their political issues are generally single one's. Its either economic or social. Very rarely do they mix one way or the other. Canada is still liberal compared to states like Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama. An election such as yours recently isn't really changing much. Its like Obama or Kennedy? Seriously, its no major difference.

I said it before, she has no chance of winning the nomination, so spending time even thinking about it is worthless and detracts from really great sex.


Common ground at last :)

[ohbimale]

The Tea Party was formed during the G W Bush adminstration in opposition to his wreckless spending by everyday citizens who felt we are TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY! These everyday USA citizens came from all walks of life, income levels and even sexual orientations. Both the big parties are affraid of the TEA PARTY, and for good reason. The very existence of the TEA PARTY means people are feed up with uncontrolled spending and taxation. Obama represents uncontrolled spending and taxation. By the way G W Bush did a good job of that too.

While I do not agree with her on some issues Michelle Bachmann would be a welcome change. However I think in the end the USA Sheeple voters will put Obama back in office, because they are lazy and the Nanny State will make it all better for them.

Example is Obama care. It was supoosed to bring down health insurance costs. Instead they have went higher, because now it is mandatory you have health insurance or the national health insurance administrator, which happens to be the IRS, will fine you! No limits on rate increases were mandated, only that you must buy it. So when this all goes into effect what is going to happen to the economy? And if Obama care is so great why hand out exemptions like candy at Halloween as well as exclude all federal employees from the start? It is just another way to exert control over the population, nothing more nothing less!

On a different note, Sarah Palin was far more qualified to be in the White House than Obama, if you go by the resume alone. What really did the McCain/Palin ticket in was their constant infighting with each other...it took their focus off the end goal. Their campaign was an example of how not to do it.

I know this will probably offend some, but I did not resort to name calling...much. The name calling needs to end, for if it does not, things are only destined to get worse for us everyday folks while the government officials and politicians laugh all the way to the bank.

[niftyshellshock]

The Tea Party was formed during the G W Bush adminstration in opposition to his wreckless spending by everyday citizens who felt we are TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY! These everyday USA citizens came from all walks of life, income levels and even sexual orientations. Both the big parties are affraid of the TEA PARTY, and for good reason. The very existence of the TEA PARTY means people are feed up with uncontrolled spending and taxation. Obama represents uncontrolled spending and taxation. By the way G W Bush did a good job of that too.

That may have been the original intent of the Tea Party, the current tea party has gone from "zomg we're taxed enough" to "zomg our president is a muslim, this is a christian theocratic nation and we should manage ourselves as such, also muslims suck"

"While I do not agree with her on some issues Michelle Bachmann would be a welcome change. However I think in the end the USA Sheeple voters will put Obama back in office, because they are lazy and the Nanny State will make it all better for them."

Micelle Bachmann would be a welcome change, if we all of a sudden forgot about our United States Constitution.

Example is Obama care. It was supoosed to bring down health insurance costs. Instead they have went higher, because now it is mandatory you have health insurance or the national health insurance administrator, which happens to be the IRS, will fine you! No limits on rate increases were mandated, only that you must buy it. So when this all goes into effect what is going to happen to the economy? And if Obama care is so great why hand out exemptions like candy at Halloween as well as exclude all federal employees from the start? It is just another way to exert control over the population, nothing more nothing less!


On a different note, Sarah Palin was far more qualified to be in the White House than Obama, if you go by the resume alone. What really did the McCain/Palin ticket in was their constant infighting with each other...it took their focus off the end goal. Their campaign was an example of how not to do it.

No, what really did the McCain-Palin ticket in was the following:
McCain was a gutless, spineless ghost of his 2000 self that would have wiped the floor with Al Gore. He picked a bonehead that wasn't vetted by anyone worth a damn to be his vice-president pick. It wasn't 'in-fighting' that did them in, it was the whooooshing sound of all the undecided voters falling over to the (D) ticket.

As far as resume alone..

1980 - 1984
Obama: B.A. in political science with a specialization in international relations from Columbia University.

Palin: Wasilla High School, captain of the state-champion basketball team. Miss Wasilla, runner-up in the Miss Alaska pageant

1985 - 1990
Obama: moved to Chicago; became a community organizer as director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization on Chicago's far South Side. During his three years as the DCP's director, its staff grew from 1 to 13 and its annual budget grew from $70,000 to $400,000, with accomplishments including helping set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants' rights organization.

Moved to Boston to attend Harvard Law School. Selected as an editor and then elected president of the Harvard Law Review, a full-time volunteer position functioning as editor-in-chief and supervising the law review's staff of 80 editors.

Palin: Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism, with a minor in political science from the University of Idaho. Brief stint as a sports reporter for local Anchorage television stations; left to join her husband in commercial fishing.

1991 - 1995
Obama: graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School; received contract and advance to write a book ("Dreams from my Father") as well as a fellowship at the University of Chicago Law School. Directed the Illinois Project Vote from April to October 1992, a voter registration drive with a staff of 10 and 700 volunteers that achieved its goal of registering 150,000 of 400,000 unregistered African Americans in the state, leading Crain's Chicago Business to name Obama to its 1993 list of "40 under Forty" powers to be. Appointed as a Lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a 12-attorney law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development. Active in several community organizations, usually as a board member.

Palin: member of the Alasaka Indepence Party which advocates "Alaska First". Elected to Wasilla city council.

1996 - 2000
Obama: promoted to Senior Lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. Elected to the Illinois Senate. Sponsored more than 800 bills. In 2000, lost a Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives to four-term incumbent Bobby Rush by a margin of two to one.

Palin: elected as mayor of Wasilla (population 5,470), defeating the incumbent by a total of 616 votes to 413. Town budget, $8 million (3 millionths of the Federal budget), approximately 100 employees. Reduced property taxes but increased sales taxes. Fired the Wasilla police chief, citing a failure to support her administration. (He then sued Palin on the grounds that he was fired because he supported the campaign of Palin's opponent, but his suit was dismissed when the judge ruled that Palin had the right under state law to fire city employees, even for political reasons.)

2001 - 2004
Obama: reelected in 2002 and became chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee.

Publicly spoke out against the invasion of Iraq BEFORE the congressional authorization in 2002, and then again before the actual invasion in 2003.

Wrote and delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

November 2004: elected to the US Senate, receiving over 3.5 million votes, more than 70% of total.

Palin: elected president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors. Unsuccessful bid for lieutenant governor, coming in second in a five-way race in the Republican primary, receiving 19,000 votes. Appointed to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, served as chairman from 2003 to 2004 and also served as Ethics Supervisor. Resigned in protest over the "lack of ethics" of fellow Republican members. Exposed the state Republican Party's chairman, Randy Ruedrich, for doing party work on public time and working closely with a company he was supposed to be regulating

2005 to present
Obama: Sworn in as the fifth-ever African-American U.S. senator. Worked with Republican Senator Lugar to author and implement a program to locate and dismantle stray Russian WMD's. Designated by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as the party's point man on ethics. Worked with Russ Feingold to pass a major ethics/lobbying reform bill. Cosponsored, with John McCain, the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act. Called for increased fuel efficiency standards (3 percent every year for 15 years). Assignments on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations, Veterans' Affairs, and Homeland Security. Chairman of the Senate's subcommittee on European Affairs. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa. Waged a tremendous battle to become the Democratic presidential nominee.

Palin: 2005: board member, Valley Hospital Association, which runs the Mat-Su Regional Medical Center in Wasilla.

Became youngest and first female Governor of Alaska, taking office in December, 2006. Auctioned off the Governor's jet on eBay. Took on fellow-Republican Senator Ted Stevens to come clean about the federal investigation into his financial dealings. Promoted oil and natural gas resource development in Alaska. Helped pass a tax increase on oil company profits. Formed a sub-cabinet group of advisers to address climate change but does not accept that it is man-made. Objected to listing polar bears as an endangered species because it might hurt oil and gas development in the bears' habitat. Was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it. However, Alaska kept the federal money. Denied her daughter was pregnant before she confirmed it. Supported abstinence-only education.Currently under a bipartisan investigation for abuse of power for dismissing Alaska's Public Safety Commissioner. Commander-in-Chief of the Alaska National Guard, but has played no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. (The entire operation is under federal control, and the governor is not briefed on situations.)

Obtained her first passport in 2007 to perform visits to the Alaska National Guard in Kuwait and Germany. Resigned as governor in 2009 to go on a book tour.

Yeah. Palin's resume is so much better than Obama's.


I know this will probably offend some, but I did not resort to name calling...much. The name calling needs to end, for if it does not, things are only destined to get worse for us everyday folks while the government officials and politicians laugh all the way to the bank.

In that last paragraph, I will agree with you. Congress, Democrat and Republican alike, is bloated, but Tea Party solutions aren't good solutions, not by a long shot.

[12voltman59]

Examples of Michelle Bachmann's hypocrisy---she rallies against those who "take" money from the evil federal government or at least those programs that dole those funds out --calling such programs to be "socialist" in nature--via programs such as Medicare--but yet her husband has benefited from receipt of such funds and a farm owned by her family (and she has a stake in as well) has received substantial amounts in farm subsidies.

http://bossip.com/407762/boliticsmichele92380/

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1209/Antisocialist_Bachmann_got_250k_in_federal_farm_su bsidies.html

It would not be so bad if she were merely critical of such programs and was consistent in being against all such programs that represent "socialism" to her--but that "hatred" she expresses about such things is central to what she is running on and is her central message.

[sammie19]

Examples of Michelle Bachmann's hypocrisy---she rallies against those who "take" money from the evil federal government or at least those programs that dole those funds out --calling such programs to be "socialist" in nature--via programs such as Medicare--but yet her husband has benefited from receipt of such funds and a farm owned by her family (and she has a stake in as well) has received substantial amounts in farm subsidies.

http://bossip.com/407762/boliticsmichele92380/

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1209/Antisocialist_Bachmann_got_250k_in_federal_farm_su bsidies.html

It would not be so bad if she were merely critical of such programs and was consistent in being against all such programs that represent "socialism" to her--but that "hatred" she expresses about such things is central to what she is running on and is her central message.

Doesnt true socialism mean that the farms would be owned and operated by and on behalf of the community? Subsidisies for a farm or any business not owned communally is not socialism. I may be naive and ignorant, but I've had that rammed down my throat for the last 5 years by Fran and have even begun to understand it.

[FredinSJ]

HoMOPHILIC, GUYS!! SHE'S A CLOSET BISEXUAL SWINGER FROM WATERLOO IOWA......... CHECK HER FAMILY TREE.... THEY HAVE MORMON SEX ORGIES IN THE TABERNACLE AT WATERLOO............... So if she teams up with the Mormon Candidates they can have bisexual orgies and entertain us.

Charge $10 admission to watch, $11 to join in..... and put the money in her campaign fund!!

If you want your family tree checked out, just run for public office!!

She can turn straw into gold if her agents/ handlers play it right. Full rights for gay marriages, next for swingers, next for polyamory Mormons, so why not do it from the Presidential Oval Office, on down the line, to us proletarians!!


Best wishes to all Lifestylers,

FredinSJ, a proletarian bi male in a bi couple
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

[open2both]

I'm a lifelong Democrat
BUT...
Obama, Pelosi, Boxer, Rangle, Wiener and the "supporting cast" are WALLOWING in the "60's" mentality... AND IT'S A 2011 WORLD! Trillion $ debts, in bed with unions, no border security, higher taxes which solve nothing...!
Repubs are no day-at-the-beach either but I'll NEVER vote for ANY Democrat candidate or cause again.

Hey Barak, where's all this TRANSPARENCY you promised/lied about????

[niftyshellshock]

I'm a lifelong Democrat
BUT...
Obama, Pelosi, Boxer, Rangle, Wiener and the "supporting cast" are WALLOWING in the "60's" mentality... AND IT'S A 2011 WORLD! Trillion $ debts, in bed with unions, no border security, higher taxes which solve nothing...!
Repubs are no day-at-the-beach either but I'll NEVER vote for ANY Democrat candidate or cause again.

Hey Barak, where's all this TRANSPARENCY you promised/lied about????

: laughs :

By the way, that's President Barack Obama to you.

[DuckiesDarling]

Right now, I'm sorry I live in a place where a Republican is registered. Political Calls all day long and you can't use the No Call list for them. I'm tempted to answer and say "Sorry, I'm a Democrat".

It's getting rough here as more and more insults are thrown in Capitol Hill. Obama told Congress his kids did their homework before it was due instead of waiting til last minute. Then lambasted them for not passing the bills they could to help us out of this mess. Congress responded that Obama should take a Valium. Sighs.........

[12voltman59]

Going back to the original point of this thread is what Michelle Bachmann feels about homosexuality--it is something that she definitely rallies against.

This has made the news in recent days about the ways that her husband---a "Christian Mental Therapist" or something of this nature----to him--anyone who is "gay" and I am sure for him he doesn't make any distinction about bisexuality or totally homosexual sex---to him---gays are "barbarians."

http://video.ca.msn.com/watch/video/bachmann-s-husband-criticized-for-extreme-views-on-homosexuality/17yn0cm2t?from=

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/06/14/michele-bachmanns-unrivaled-extremism-gay-rights-to-religion.html

[12voltman59]

I found this essay online that I think the author did a good job of encapsulating a good take on recent history and looking at the state of affairs we now face----granted--its not an end or or be all piece--just what I consider to be a well done piece of writing. I am sure for those who don't agree with the views expressed in the piece--its all hogwash and for those of us who do take this view--its a pretty good piece--the thing is--posting up in threads like this as we do---it simply depends on what's one view is and it doesn't change the minds of those on the other side of whatever position any individual piece happens to represent.

We are so polarized on such things even on a site of this nature--that it is like those on each side of the issues might as well be from different universes or something---but I guess we do have to continue to post up things that express our individual viewpoints.

http://www.alternet.org/story/151463/if_ayn_rand_and_the_free_market_fetishists_were_ri ght%2C_we%27d_be_living_in_a_golden_age_--_does_this_look_like_a_golden_age_to_you?page=1

For those who take the side I am on and find the piece as good as I do--enjoy--for those who take the other side---enjoy hating it and trying to refute the views, facts, takes on history, etc expressed in the article.

[Katja]

Right now, I'm sorry I live in a place where a Republican is registered. Political Calls all day long and you can't use the No Call list for them. I'm tempted to answer and say "Sorry, I'm a Democrat".

It's getting rough here as more and more insults are thrown in Capitol Hill. Obama told Congress his kids did their homework before it was due instead of waiting til last minute. Then lambasted them for not passing the bills they could to help us out of this mess. Congress responded that Obama should take a Valium. Sighs.........

I understand your frustration DD, but taking time is something democracy does well. It is by its very nature a slow and cumbersome process. And in its way this is a good thing. Better last minute 'homework' than something rushed and cobbled together without proper consideration. Something dictatorships do well.

Well done Congress. Similarly in this country when Parliament refuses to be rushed by Government of whatever political complexion, it is doing the job it is meant to do. Put the brakes on the more dictatorial instincts of the executive.

We may still not like the eventual outcome of that brake, but it is that brake which protects the system of democracy we enjoy.

[ChicagoNormalGuy]

"Bachmann signs pledge to ban pornography, same-sex marriage as president"

http://minnesotaindependent.com/83979/bachmann-signs-pledge-to-ban-all-pornography-as-president

Bachmann is never going to be president. But her support of this stupidity gives the pledge and its homophobic creators a level of validity that will seep deeper into the conservative movement. It won't be the exact same wording. It will be slightly more subtle. And it will be there to please the religious right.

I can live with people not having the same opinions as me. That's something that makes the world a better place. And I realize that most people don't care until something directly affects them.

This is a website that claims to be here for the sake of helping other bisexuals deal with all that life brings at them. And for members of this forum to, at best, quietly ignore, and at worst, openly support an agenda that will eventually affect us all, well, you're not helping anyone.

Is it any wonder that the "bisexual community" has no identity when so few are willing to stand up for themselves and others?

[ohbimale]

I make this post in the most humurous manner possible...

If you really want to break up a Bachmann rally get a person to go up on stage before she speaks and utter one word - ABORTION - and turn around and leave. The supporters will be fighting amongst themselves because it is such a divisive issue.

Since she is a polarizing person, it would be fitting for her.

[Bicuriousity]

Souns like nifty has been reading a little to much howard zinn! Who knows less history bachman or joe biden?


Really? More so than Polk, who invaded a


sovereign nation and stole 1/3 of its land in arguably the most unpopular war in American history?
More so than Andrew Johnson, who did his best to screw over recently-freed slaves post-Civil War?
More so than Woodrow Wilson, who not only is responsible for setting back race relations in the federal government back fifty years, but also led America into WWI, a war it didn't need (and his interference likely led to the anti-Germany truce that would blow up in '36 and onwards)?
More so than Richard Nixon, who made a mockery of the Presidential office?
More so than George W. Bush, who...well, I don't have the time to list his scandals, but let's just say that when Supreme Court justices call your election an insult to the people's faith in the judicial branch....you're not exactly on a right path.

Seriously. If you're going to call President Obama one of the worst presidents in American history, you need to brush up on your history. Seriously.

No mention of men like Grant, who surrounded himself with the most corrupt men at that period in American History.
No mention of President Taylor -- whose ineffectiveness in battle, to no one's surprise translated to inefficiency as a President.
Then there's an entire string of presidents in the last two centuries that 1) stood by quietly (and even encouraged) the spread of slavery and supported a Confederacy or 2) Turned a blind eye to U.S.-funded massacres across the world.

Yet somehow...President Obama is as bad as them.
I do not understand.

[ashleycd]

Because we don't all think the same, as evidenced here. This is the FIRST thread I've seen where where the majority of posters at least were willing to not toe the leftward line. You may not agree with it, but not being a monolithic bloc is the best way to ensure political viability. If we all are on one side of the aisle and too afraid to cross over, the side we are on can use fear (as you did) to keep us there, and can do anything to us they want.

*Taylor*

very true. those making pro-gay marriage their only voting issue, exclusively vote democratic. those making prolife abortion their only voting issue, exclusively vote republican, even if they disagree with other aspects of the party they vote for. those issues are still unresolved. why? block of voters is locked down on each side. no incentive to solve the problem, when solving the problem means you unlock a voting block. state politics are a bit different, but many times not, just different one issue voters.

[niftyshellshock]

Souns like nifty has been reading a little to much howard zinn! Who knows less history bachman or joe biden?

Neither. Zinn's a great historian, yet, last time I read him, I was a junior in high school.
Point out my inaccuracies, please.