Michelle Bachman Lies!
- Thread starter midlifebear
- Start date
JustAsking
Sexy Member
And she believes the universe was created in 7 days less than 10,000 years ago.
She is a Young Earth Creationist. I wonder if she is also a Flat Earther. I will have to check on that. But if this new millenium is all about basic research into the physics of green abundant energy, it will also be about microbiology and genetics for any number of reasons.
What we need in the White House is someone like Michelle Bachmann who will roll back The Enlightenment while the rest of the world moves on into the 21st century.
Michelle Bachmann on the effects of CO2. Someone should inform her that fire and arsenic are also naturally occuring. Why is this wingnut allowed to take up space in our legislature?
She is a Young Earth Creationist. I wonder if she is also a Flat Earther. I will have to check on that. But if this new millenium is all about basic research into the physics of green abundant energy, it will also be about microbiology and genetics for any number of reasons.
What we need in the White House is someone like Michelle Bachmann who will roll back The Enlightenment while the rest of the world moves on into the 21st century.
Michelle Bachmann on the effects of CO2. Someone should inform her that fire and arsenic are also naturally occuring. Why is this wingnut allowed to take up space in our legislature?
JustAsking
Sexy Member
B_VinylBoy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Posts
- 10,363
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 70
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Boston, MA / New York, NY
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Oh, how did I miss this one? LOL!!!
Her statement - "The Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery." That is a blatant distortion of the facts. Period. Several of the founding fathers owned slaves. Which is why our country split and fought over it a century later because none of the slave-owning founding fathers were looking to end it. Your beliefs or Bachmann's do not rewrite our nation's history just for the sake of "having an opinion". And considering her schooling, she knows it's historically inaccurate to say that. But she doesn't care because she knows people like you, who has to visualize their adversaries as "liberal", "gay", "anti-American", or in my case, "an intolerant, bitter, angry black man with no life, who's also a socialist, a leech on the government, an anti-heterosexual, and an enemy to white people", will immediately jump to action. Hook, line & sinker.
I hope you do realize that you and the rest of your blind ideologues are going to forever regret making those foolish accusations... and I have no immediate plans of dropping it either. It gets funnier every time I type it, at your expense and chagrin.
Speculator said:
Her statement - "The Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery." That is a blatant distortion of the facts. Period. Several of the founding fathers owned slaves. Which is why our country split and fought over it a century later because none of the slave-owning founding fathers were looking to end it. Your beliefs or Bachmann's do not rewrite our nation's history just for the sake of "having an opinion". And considering her schooling, she knows it's historically inaccurate to say that. But she doesn't care because she knows people like you, who has to visualize their adversaries as "liberal", "gay", "anti-American", or in my case, "an intolerant, bitter, angry black man with no life, who's also a socialist, a leech on the government, an anti-heterosexual, and an enemy to white people", will immediately jump to action. Hook, line & sinker.
I hope you do realize that you and the rest of your blind ideologues are going to forever regret making those foolish accusations... and I have no immediate plans of dropping it either. It gets funnier every time I type it, at your expense and chagrin.
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2007
- Posts
- 5,789
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 179
- Points
- 133
- Location
- Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
- Sexuality
- 60% Gay, 40% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Thanks, Mr. JustAsking. I was sent the following link in today's e-mail exchange. I understand one can by it bound in whole cloth.
See: The Ultimate Collection Of Bad Michele Bachmann Quotes: Pics, Videos, Links, News
B_VinylBoy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Posts
- 10,363
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 70
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Boston, MA / New York, NY
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
That site is an absolute laugh riot. At the same time, it's reeeeealllly scary. And I thought Bush could only be this stupid.
One of my favorites - ''If we took away the minimum wage — if conceivably it was gone — we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level.''
What a "brilliant" idea... take away the minimum wage and let employers make jobs where they pay everyone $4 an hour. Unemployment gone. Yet somehow, people still can't pay rent, credit cards or their car notes. Gee, why is that?! LOL!!! :biggrin1:
FRE
Admired Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2008
- Posts
- 3,053
- Media
- 44
- Likes
- 839
- Points
- 258
- Location
- Palm Springs, California USA
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
- FRE,
It is not unpatriotic to recognize faults with one's own country. If everyone really believed his country to be perfect, there would be no progress.
One can love one's own country, even to the point of believing that it is the best place in the world to live, and still recognize its faults. What we should be doing is working continually to make it a better place.
FRE
Admired Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2008
- Posts
- 3,053
- Media
- 44
- Likes
- 839
- Points
- 258
- Location
- Palm Springs, California USA
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
- FRE,
Good.
As a white man, I don't feel victimized. I recognize that some of my ancestors treated people of other races (indigenous American, black, Chinese, etc.) in manners which were inexcusably unjust. Although I do not believe in inherited guilt, as I see it, we all share the same country and the same world. Therefore, we should all work together to make this a better country and world for everyone. Sometimes that requires taking into consideration the effects of past injustices and continuing injustices.
FRE
Admired Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2008
- Posts
- 3,053
- Media
- 44
- Likes
- 839
- Points
- 258
- Location
- Palm Springs, California USA
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
- FRE,
I make a point of trying to understand all positions, including those with which I disagree. Accordingly, in about 1990, I read a book on scientific creationism. It didn't make much sense to me, and it makes even less sense now.
Since that book was written, there have been many fossil finds; they have filled in most of the "missing links." With what paleontologists have discovered over the last ten to twenty years, evolution is practically an inescapable fact. People who say that it is impossible to believe in both God and evolution are simply wrong; the beliefs need not be incompatible. However, it would be impossible to believe in Biblical inerrancy and evolution.
Those who live in glass houses . . . .
Nope, I spent a little extra money and got an all brick one....:biggrin1:
JustAsking
Sexy Member
I think your investigations were well worth their time.
The modern theory of evolution can be supported to an almost mathematical precision solely on the genetic evidence of still living species. Evolution has never been argued on the basis of the fossil record. However, the recent fossil finds you are referring to are quite remarkable even so, and they are also perfectly consistent with the predictions of evolution.
You are also correct about Christianity and evolution. The mainstream denominations that represent about 90% of all 2 billion or so Christians worldwide, all accept the findings of modern science as part of their doctrine. They have social statements declaring their acceptance of such things as the theory of evolution and modern theories of cosmology, on the same basis that science accepts them.
And you are also correct that fringe fundamentalist Christian groups who insist on interpreting the Bible strictly literally and consider it to be inerrant are the only ones who have trouble with the findiings and theories of modern science.
They have become a destructive force in America when it comes to science and science education.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
- Posts
- 22,256
- Media
- 213
- Likes
- 32,282
- Points
- 618
- Location
- Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Sarah Palin has joined her compatriot, Bachmann, in a stunning display of ignorance:
Palin: Sputnik Led to Collapse of Soviet Union
CBS News
"Governor," said Van Susteren. "Last night, there was a lot of discussion about the 'Sputnik moment' that the president talked about. Do you agree with him? Do you feel, is this our moment?"
Palin responded, "That was another one of those WTF moments when [Mr. Obama] so often repeated the 'Sputnik Moment' that he would aspire Americans to celebrate. He needs to remember that what happened back then with the former communist USSR and their victory in that race to space, yeah, they won, but they also incurred so much debt at the time that it led to the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union."
Sputnik caused the Soviet Union to collapse? Really? Sputnik in 1957 caused the Soviet Union to collapse 34 years later? Really? Gee Sarah, is it possible you're confusing the space race with the arms race?
CBS News
"Governor," said Van Susteren. "Last night, there was a lot of discussion about the 'Sputnik moment' that the president talked about. Do you agree with him? Do you feel, is this our moment?"
Palin responded, "That was another one of those WTF moments when [Mr. Obama] so often repeated the 'Sputnik Moment' that he would aspire Americans to celebrate. He needs to remember that what happened back then with the former communist USSR and their victory in that race to space, yeah, they won, but they also incurred so much debt at the time that it led to the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union."
Sputnik caused the Soviet Union to collapse? Really? Sputnik in 1957 caused the Soviet Union to collapse 34 years later? Really? Gee Sarah, is it possible you're confusing the space race with the arms race?
He would "aspire them"? Ugh.
You can watch the video here. The smugness with which she disparages Obama's use of the phrase "Sputnik moment," which she obviously fails completely to understand, is a classic illustration of the Dunning-Kruger effect: a stupid and ignorant person regards the divergence between her benighted understanding of events and that of an intelligent and well-informed person as evidence of the obtuseness of the latter. She reminds me of Beavis and Butthead chuckling over how "stupid" someone is.
JustAsking
Sexy Member
This demonstrates the dangerous random logic that operates in Sarah Palin's brain. It works on a kernal of truth, but twists it into some kind of surreal teaparty Disney world.
Actually, there is a connection between Sputnik and the fall of the USSR. The perceived "space gap" led to the US responding with the "space race". This later turned into what we perceived as a "missile gap", which turned into the "arms race".
The culmination of that was "star wars", which was the ultimate technology race for something that would never even exist. We not only won all of those races, but the ancillary but all important result was that we outspent them so much that they collapsed.
What Palin gets wrong is that Sputnik was not the example of the USSR winning the space race, but rather it was the beginning of the space race that we ended up winning.
Obama has it right when he described Sputnik as a kind of catalyst that created an atmosphere where the already existing capacity for technology and innovation in the US was focused and amplified like a match hitting a pile of straw.
So both Obama and Palin see Sputnik as the catalyst that started a race which the US won. The difference is that Obama thinks that is a good thing and Palin seems to think that the US winning is somehow wrong.
Palin and Bachmann both have a talent for debate that works pretty much the same way. It relies on the fact that their constituency is incredibly intellectually lazy. This gives them the ability to twist any kind of logic and make stuff up so that the argument simply sounds good to a moron. They rely on the fact that the moron will stop immediately at hearing exactly what they want to hear, and declare a rhetorical victory.
So Palin's trick is to first tell a kernal of truth, which is that Sputnik drove the US forward in a vigorous race for technological superiority that led to the fall of the USSR decades later.
The next part of the trick is to do a logical sleight of hand where the fates of the two super powers are reversed when the scenario repeats itself in the coming decade.
Palin knows that her moronic consituents don't even know how to apply the powerful analogy that Obama was invoking. She knows that they don't have the mental capacity to hold two premises in their heads at a time. The first premise (Sputnik drove America forward), is completely replaced in their minds by the second premise (Which led to the fall of the USSR).
With the first premise forgotten, she can get from "Sputnik caused the fall of the USSR" to "Therefore, our new Sputnik moment could cause the US to fall."
This kind of stuff works on a constituency that operates in a logical and informational background. In that kind of environment, words can be put together to sound logical in any combination. Bachmann's "CO2 is a naturally occuring substance", is a perfect example. She knows that the absurd leap from that to CO2 not being harmful in any way will work perfectly fine in her informationally and logically challenged constituency.
This has worked very well for science denalists. It is the reason why they call so stridently for such things as a public debate on global warming with Al Gore. They know that the debate can be easily won if the audience is operating without the benefit of logic, intelligence, and information. Such a debate can be full of Palin/Bachmann logic tricks that will not be challenged.
Actually, there is a connection between Sputnik and the fall of the USSR. The perceived "space gap" led to the US responding with the "space race". This later turned into what we perceived as a "missile gap", which turned into the "arms race".
The culmination of that was "star wars", which was the ultimate technology race for something that would never even exist. We not only won all of those races, but the ancillary but all important result was that we outspent them so much that they collapsed.
What Palin gets wrong is that Sputnik was not the example of the USSR winning the space race, but rather it was the beginning of the space race that we ended up winning.
Obama has it right when he described Sputnik as a kind of catalyst that created an atmosphere where the already existing capacity for technology and innovation in the US was focused and amplified like a match hitting a pile of straw.
So both Obama and Palin see Sputnik as the catalyst that started a race which the US won. The difference is that Obama thinks that is a good thing and Palin seems to think that the US winning is somehow wrong.
Palin and Bachmann both have a talent for debate that works pretty much the same way. It relies on the fact that their constituency is incredibly intellectually lazy. This gives them the ability to twist any kind of logic and make stuff up so that the argument simply sounds good to a moron. They rely on the fact that the moron will stop immediately at hearing exactly what they want to hear, and declare a rhetorical victory.
So Palin's trick is to first tell a kernal of truth, which is that Sputnik drove the US forward in a vigorous race for technological superiority that led to the fall of the USSR decades later.
The next part of the trick is to do a logical sleight of hand where the fates of the two super powers are reversed when the scenario repeats itself in the coming decade.
Palin knows that her moronic consituents don't even know how to apply the powerful analogy that Obama was invoking. She knows that they don't have the mental capacity to hold two premises in their heads at a time. The first premise (Sputnik drove America forward), is completely replaced in their minds by the second premise (Which led to the fall of the USSR).
With the first premise forgotten, she can get from "Sputnik caused the fall of the USSR" to "Therefore, our new Sputnik moment could cause the US to fall."
This kind of stuff works on a constituency that operates in a logical and informational background. In that kind of environment, words can be put together to sound logical in any combination. Bachmann's "CO2 is a naturally occuring substance", is a perfect example. She knows that the absurd leap from that to CO2 not being harmful in any way will work perfectly fine in her informationally and logically challenged constituency.
This has worked very well for science denalists. It is the reason why they call so stridently for such things as a public debate on global warming with Al Gore. They know that the debate can be easily won if the audience is operating without the benefit of logic, intelligence, and information. Such a debate can be full of Palin/Bachmann logic tricks that will not be challenged.
JustAsking
Sexy Member
By the way, the genius of the Star Wars program was that it was always going to be vaporware. It was the result of the recognition that the technology race to military superiority didn't actually have to be won. It only had to be waged. And that the waging of it is what would damage the enemy, not the losing of it.
Therefore, if you defined the race as the pursuit of something that was never realizable, it could be waged as long as possible without the enemy ever winning it. They would simply be forever distracted by the resulting paranoia that drives such races, and then ultimately go broke trying to achieve it.
Pure genius. I am not sure who thought it up, but I will always be curious as to how much Reagan understood it to be more than a tactic than an acheivable goal.
Therefore, if you defined the race as the pursuit of something that was never realizable, it could be waged as long as possible without the enemy ever winning it. They would simply be forever distracted by the resulting paranoia that drives such races, and then ultimately go broke trying to achieve it.
Pure genius. I am not sure who thought it up, but I will always be curious as to how much Reagan understood it to be more than a tactic than an acheivable goal.
Last edited:
Speculator
1st Like
Have a look again at the thread's title: "Michelle Bachmann Lies!"
Not, Michelle Bachmann gets her facts wrong, or Michelle Bachmann exaggerates, or even Michelle Bachmann attempts to enthuse her audience, but apparently she lies. How do you know this?
It's just another case of the left believing their own propaganda and blowing every little thing out of proportion. Do you always classify a mistake as a lie? Or do you only do this when right wing politicians are involved? If you ask me it sounds a bit discriminatory.
There's no evidence supporting the theory that Bachmann has attempted to deliberately mislead the public, this is just another disingenuous chararcter assassination because liberals found out they lost the argument (and the public's confidence) after the midterms.
Keep on trucking VB, only the deluded will take your weasel words seriously.
Last edited:
