Michele Bachmann On Board with Tax Holiyear

[DMX7]

Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann one-upped the competition when instead of sticking with the routine "no new taxes" mantra being recited, she suggested "no taxes."

Well, not forever.

Bachmann indicated that she would support a one year moratorium on federal income taxes.

"Put a moratorium on the entire income tax for one year for every citizen in this country and watch this country take off", Gorman said.

Bachmann called the notion "awesome" and went on to say that if taxpayers could keep their own money, it would been great for the economy.

http://news.yahoo.com/michele-bachmann-board-tax-holiday-132611197.html

More like watch this country implode.

[boutons_deux]

"watch this country take off"

Where's The Evidence?

10 years after Repug 2001 tax cuts, and more cuts in 2004, Human-Americans are MUCH worse off.

[Drachen]

Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann one-upped the competition when instead of sticking with the routine "no new taxes" mantra being recited, she suggested "no taxes."

Well, not forever.

Bachmann indicated that she would support a one year moratorium on federal income taxes.

"Put a moratorium on the entire income tax for one year for every citizen in this country and watch this country take off", Bachman said.

http://news.yahoo.com/michele-bachmann-board-tax-holiday-132611197.html

More like watch this country implode.


LMFAO! What is she thinking? Companies need stability, not volatility in order to create and execute their strategic plans. That is why it would be better if all of the hard decisions are made in one fell swoop, then don't touch it or talk about it.

[boutons_deux]

"Companies need stability"

This kind of "instability" would certainly be welcome, supportable to mgmt (bonuses) and investors (dividends).

[Drachen]

It would, do nothing to help "take off."

[RandomGuy]

At least she owned up to the John Wayne thing.

On a related note:


The Classic Middle Name (all-new!)
Arrested recently and awaiting trial for murder: Anthony Wayne Smith (former Oakland Raiders football player), Los Angeles (March); Theron Wayne Johnson, Weston, Texas (May); Michael Wayne McGray, Vancouver, British Columbia (May); Darrell Wayne Morris, Price, Utah (May). Convicted of murder: Thilbert Wayne Hager, Statesville, N.C. (October). Execution for murder stayed by U.S. Supreme Court: Daniel Wayne Cook, Phoenix (on death row since 1987) (April). Sentenced for murder: Billy Wayne Haynes, Odessa, Texas (life) (May); Jeffrey Wayne Riebe, Conway, S.C. (40 years in prison) (June). [Smith: Charlotte Observer, 3-4-2011] [Johnson: WFAA-TV (Dallas), 5-19-2011] [McGray: Times-Colonist (Victoria, B.C.)-National Post, 12-3-2010] [Morris: Salt Lake Tribune, 6-2-2011] [Hager: Charlotte Observer, 10-29-2010] [Cook: New York Daily News, 4-5-2011] [Haynes: Odessa American, 5-14-2011] [Riebe: Daily Journal (Franklin, Ind.)-AP, 6-1-2011]

[Wild Cobra]

LMFAO! What is she thinking? Companies need stability, not volatility in order to create and execute their strategic plans. That is why it would be better if all of the hard decisions are made in one fell swoop, then don't touch it or talk about it.
Sketchy what I have found so far, but it seems to be a 1 year moratorium on payroll taxes she supports. Not income taxes. Still searching.

[Wild Cobra]

Not able to find a complete context on this.

Anyone?

Nearest I can figure is the no taxes was brought up and she compared it to the no payroll tax for a year. However, no concrete context.

[JoeChalupa]

She also thinks gays are barbarians. :lol

[Drachen]

Sketchy what I have found so far, but it seems to be a 1 year moratorium on payroll taxes she supports. Not income taxes. Still searching.

Payroll taxes? Oh so those things that support those programs which are almost insolvent? Yep, lets go ahead and cut revenue to those. We need revenue and cost cutting. It doesn't seem too hard to understand.

[Drachen]

Link (http://blogs.forbes.com/kellyphillipserb/2011/06/30/michele-bachmann-on-board-with-tax-holiday/)

Bachmann made the comments in response to a question posed by Don Gorman, a former state representative for New Hampshire and considered “the most-elected libertarian in the country.” Gorman asked Bachmann what she thought about his suggestion to:

"Put a moratorium on the entire income tax for one year for every citizen in this country and watch this country take off."

Bachmann called the notion “awesome” and went on to say that if taxpayers could keep their own money, it would been great for the economy:

"If we would have allowed every American to take that much more money home in their pockets, what would they have done? They would have paid their bills. They would have spent it. They would have grown their businesses. They would have grown the economy."

[coyotes_geek]

Bachman is the gift that just keeps on giving.

[Wild Cobra]

Payroll taxes? Oh so those things that support those programs which are almost insolvent? Yep, lets go ahead and cut revenue to those. We need revenue and cost cutting. It doesn't seem too hard to understand.
Not saying I agree with the idea. just saying I think the gist of the article is wrong.

[Oh, Gee!!]

remember when Fred Thomspon was the republican savior?

[ElNono]

Not saying I agree with the idea. just saying I think the gist of the article is wrong.

I thought you were looking for context, and it was provided to you...

[Wild Cobra]

I thought you were looking for context, and it was provided to you...
Sorry, didn't see context better than hearsay.

Do you have a transcript or video?

[ElNono]

Sorry, didn't see context better than hearsay.

Do you have a transcript or video?

Oh, I see. You think Forbes isn't a credible source.

[Wild Cobra]

Oh, I see. You think Forbes isn't a credible source.
I would rate them better than most, but all journalists still make mistakes and have personal bias that colors their articles.

If you haven't noticed, I am often a stickler for knowing I have correct context.

[Winehole23]

If by often you mean seldom, then I agree.

[ElNono]

Yeah, I can't say I noticed...

[RandomGuy]

If you haven't noticed, I am often a stickler for knowing I have correct context.

(resists the urge to fill up a page with HAHAHAHAHA)

Seriously, that was funny. Good one man. :lol

[LnGrrrR]

WC won't believe it unless he actually attended the actual rally.Remember, if a reporter reports it, but WC doesn't believe it, both credibilities cancel out.

[coyotes_geek]

It's just hearsay. As in a bunch of people, including at least one reporter, heard those actual words come out of her mouth. Hearsay. Nothing but hearsay.

But just because Bachman actually said she wants to get rid of all income taxes for a year, how can we be sure that she actually wants to get rid of all income taxes? Without context, there's no way to be sure.

"Put a moratorium on the entire income tax for one year for every citizen in this country and watch this country take off."

We need more context. Was it "opposites" day? Was Bachman forced into making this statement as a result of playing "truth or dare"? How can we be certain that the next sentence out of her mouth was "And when I say I want a moritorium on income taxes, I clearly mean payroll taxes"?

Without such additional details, clearly the only logical course of action is to assume that a direct quote saying that she wants to get rid of income taxes should in no way be interpreted as her wanting to get rid of income taxes.

[Wild Cobra]

WC won't believe it unless he actually attended the actual rally.Remember, if a reporter reports it, but WC doesn't believe it, both credibilities cancel out.
Wow...

At least I like to have something verified, unlike you guys.

[Winehole23]

Yes, you would.

[LnGrrrR]

Wow...

At least I like to have something verified, unlike you guys.

Do tell us, what do you need to "verify" something? Two articles citing the quote? Three? An article from a source you think is unbiased?

[LnGrrrR]

We need more context. Was it "opposites" day? Was Bachman forced into making this statement as a result of playing "truth or dare"? How can we be certain that the next sentence out of her mouth was "And when I say I want a moritorium on income taxes, I clearly mean payroll taxes"?

Giggling my ass off at that one. :toast


Without such additional details, clearly the only logical course of action is to assume that a direct quote saying that she wants to get rid of income taxes should in no way be interpreted as her wanting to get rid of income taxes.

Still giggling.

[Wild Cobra]

It's just hearsay. As in a bunch of people, including at least one reporter, heard those actual words come out of her mouth. Hearsay. Nothing but hearsay.

But just because Bachman actually said she wants to get rid of all income taxes for a year, how can we be sure that she actually wants to get rid of all income taxes? Without context, there's no way to be sure.

"Put a moratorium on the entire income tax for one year for every citizen in this country and watch this country take off."

We need more context. Was it "opposites" day? Was Bachman forced into making this statement as a result of playing "truth or dare"? How can we be certain that the next sentence out of her mouth was "And when I say I want a moritorium on income taxes, I clearly mean payroll taxes"?

Without such additional details, clearly the only logical course of action is to assume that a direct quote saying that she wants to get rid of income taxes should in no way be interpreted as her wanting to get rid of income taxes.
She didn't say that, that's what she responded to.

Gorman asked Bachmann to comment on his suggestion to improve the economy: “Put a moratorium on the entire income tax for one year for every citizen in this country and watch this country take off.’’

“That’s awesome,’’ Bachmann responded. “You will be happy to know that a colleague of mine from Texas, [Representative] Louie Rohmer, gave that suggestion.’’ (http://thegopnet.com/?p=227)
OK, It's awesome someone had the same suggestion as a college of hers.

[LnGrrrR]

:lmao

Only WC could spin that as Bachman implying, "I don't agree with that idea, but it's awesome you said that, because another colleague of mine had the same dumb idea."

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

Only WC could spin that as Bachman implying, "I don't agree with that idea, but it's awesome you said that, because another colleague of mine had the same dumb idea."
Who's spinning?

I didn't imply any such thing.

I want the context that says she agrees with the ides. The only quoted remarks I find is she is giving a feelgood response to someone asking what she thinks of his proposal. Notice, there is no indication if she likes the idea or not. She says it's awesome he had the same idea as a colleague. She didn't say it's an awesome idea.

A typical political non-answer of a question.

[LnGrrrR]

Who's spinning?

I didn't imply any such thing.

I want the context that says she agrees with the ides. The only quoted remarks I find is she is giving a feelgood response to someone asking what she thinks of his proposal. Notice, there is no indication if she likes the idea or not. She says it's awesome he had the same idea as a colleague. She didn't say it's an awesome idea.

A typical political non-answer of a question.


:lmao

Only WC could spin that as Bachman implying, "I don't agree with that idea, but it's awesome you said that, because another colleague of mine had the same dumb idea."

[Wild Cobra]

Wow...

You are spinning it however you can to think the worse of me.

I am open that the words could be either way. I do not see how the journalist of the Forbes article gets his interpretations from the quotes I can find.

Again, it's a non-answer.

The way I see it...

She didn't say she agreed with or disagreed with the idea.

She was making nice with someone by not taking a stand, but complementing him on having the same idea as someone else, who again... She doesn't say she agrees with or disagrees.

From what I can find, the guy she refers to had the idea of eliminating income taxes for two months, and payroll taxes for a year.

[LnGrrrR]

Wow...

You are spinning it however you can to think the worse of me.

I am open that the words could be either way. I do not see how the journalist of the Forbes article gets his interpretations from the quotes I can find.

Again, it's a non-answer.

The way I see it...

She didn't say she agreed with or disagreed with the idea.

She was making nice with someone by not taking a stand, but complementing him on having the same idea as someone else, who again... She doesn't say she agrees with or disagrees.

From what I can find, the guy she refers to had the idea of eliminating income taxes for two months, and payroll taxes for a year.


:lmao

Only WC could spin that as Bachman implying, "I don't agree with that idea, but it's awesome you said that, because another colleague of mine had the same dumb idea."

[Drachen]

apparently quotes from the venerable GOPnet are more context-y than quotes from that rag forbes.

[Winehole23]

Damn libs.

[RandomGuy]

The way I see it...

She didn't say she agreed with or disagreed with the idea.

Usually when someone says "it's awesome" they tend to agree with an idea.

Do you really believe this, or are you playing devil's advocate?

[RandomGuy]

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2011/06/libertarian-party-member-in-nh-gets.html

Libertarian Republican .net seems to find the Forbes' reporter's conclusion acceptable. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2011/06/libertarian-party-member-in-nh-gets.html

Libertarian Republican .net seems to find the Forbes' reporter's conclusion acceptable. :lol
It's quotes has less context than the ones I provided.

Why do you guys always fall for what the journalists wants to tell you?

Sorry, I need more complete context. I want better context than I found even, but at least the more complete context I found shows she said "awesome" to the same idea. Not the idea itself.

You guys can follow the spin all you want. I want something less slippery.

[RandomGuy]

“If we would have allowed every American to take that much more money home in their pockets, what would they have done? They would have paid their bills. They would have spent it. They would have grown their businesses. They would have grown the economy.

Seems to be pretty supportive of an idea to me.

That would be the proper context, it would seem. Not "it's awesome [that this guy had an idea]", but rather "[The idea is] awesome."

[coyotes_geek]

Scenario 1: Despite being very vocal throughout her campaign about supporting tax cuts, she does not think that it's a good idea to get rid of income taxes for a year. But, she thinks that it is "awesome" that someone does think that. She also thinks that more money in the hands of the taxpayers is a good thing. She sees no need to specify that her thinking more money in taxpayers hands is a good thing and it being awesome that someone wants to get rid of income taxes for a year are mutually exclusive. Upon seeing that the media has incorrectly portrayed her remarks to the public as meaning that she supports the idea of getting rid of income taxes for a year, she does nothing.

Scenario 2: She thinks getting rid of income taxes for a year is an "awesome" idea.

I'm going to go with #2.

[RandomGuy]

It's quotes has less context than the ones I provided.

Why do you guys always fall for what the journalists wants to tell you?

Sorry, I need more complete context. I want better context than I found even, but at least the more complete context I found shows she said "awesome" to the same idea. Not the idea itself.

You guys can follow the spin all you want. I want something less slippery.

You want something that doesn't make her look like a moron.

Quit being a jackass and admit that.

[Wild Cobra]

Usually when someone says "it's awesome" they tend to agree with an idea.
She said awesome immediately followed by saying her colleague had the same idea. Different context than what the other articles say.

Do you really believe this, or are you playing devil's advocate?
Yes, I believe this.

Yes, she went on to agree it would boost peoples spending and the economy. Don't know if she said the harmful impact it would have on the government deficit and debt.

We don't know if she agreed the idea was good or not. There is plenty of room to interpret this either way without complete context.

Two questions for you:

What statistical probability do you assign to "usually?"

Do statistics make facts?

[Wild Cobra]

Seems to be pretty supportive of an idea to me.

That would be the proper context, it would seem. Not "it's awesome [that this guy had an idea]", but rather "[The idea is] awesome."
She's a politician.

Could she be saying to herself just as shown as a pro, but also know it cannot be done for the cons involved?

Can you say with certainty she would actually support the idea with the cons involved?

Talk is cheap, and she didn't commit to the idea in any way I see.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm sure we will hear more about this in the coming hours or days.

[RandomGuy]

She said awesome immediately followed by saying her colleague had the same idea. Different context than what the other articles say.

Yes, I believe this.

Yes, she went on to agree it would boost peoples spending and the economy. Don't know if she said the harmful impact it would have on the government deficit and debt.

We don't know if she agreed the idea was good or not. There is plenty of room to interpret this either way without complete context.

Two questions for you:

What statistical probability do you assign to "usually?"

Do statistics make facts?

:rolleyes

(edit)

Quote was not Bachmans, it seems.

[RandomGuy]

To answer the question:

"usually" would be more than 75% of the time to me, if I had to put a number on it.

Not that it is really all that relevant.

Calling something awesome is generally understood by a majority of people to mean that you like something.

[Wild Cobra]

:rolleyes

(edit)

Quote was not Bachmans, it seems.
No shit Sherlock.

Didn't I say that earlier?

[RandomGuy]

http://bachmann.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=107414


Bachmann Supports Two-Month Tax Holiday

[Wild Cobra]

Now children...

Have we all learned how the media makes it sound like people say things they didn't?

[RandomGuy]

No shit Sherlock.

Didn't I say that earlier?

The other quote quite clearly was.

Given that she herself admitted supporting a very similar idea less than 3 years ago, it begs belief to imply that "awesome" refered to something other than the idea of the moratorium.

[RandomGuy]

Now children...

Have we all learned how the media makes it sound like people say things they didn't?

You mean like Climategate?

[Wild Cobra]

The other quote quite clearly was.

Given that she herself admitted supporting a very similar idea less than 3 years ago, it begs belief to imply that "awesome" refered to something other than the idea of the moratorium.
The article I linked has her referring to her colleague right after awesome. Not the idea. I see no other way to read it except she is saying it's awesome the guy has the same basic idea.

I hate that about broken quotes. Journalists do it frequently. It should always be seen as a red flag, and not trust how they lay out the story.

Always verify when the quotes are broken. Don't trust the path the journalist is leading you on.

[Wild Cobra]

You mean like Climategate?
Different topic.

Feel free to revive that thread if you want a response from me.

[RandomGuy]

Different topic.

Feel free to revive that thread if you want a response from me.

No, it is pretty much the same.

You believed exactly what the media said about those quotes, because it fit your theory.

[LnGrrrR]

What's that, you say? We should all just call WC an idiot until the end of time?

That's awesome. I know another poster on here who had the same idea.

[Wild Cobra]

No, it is pretty much the same.

You believed exactly what the media said about those quotes, because it fit your theory.
Things were different in many ways. If you want to know why I say they, revive that thread of start another. Not here.

[Drachen]

What's that, you say? We should all just call WC an idiot until the end of time?

That's awesome. I know another poster on here who had the same idea.

As I read this quote from LnGrrrR, it is obvious to me that he does not support calling WC an idiot until the end of time.

[LnGrrrR]

As I read this quote from LnGrrrR, it is obvious to me that he does not support calling WC an idiot until the end of time.

Although I did support calling WC an idiot for at least two months straight.

[ChumpDumper]

If you haven't noticed, I am often a stickler for knowing I have confirmed my bias.

[ElNono]

Usually when someone says "it's awesome" they tend to agree with an idea.

Maybe coyote is right... maybe it was "opposites" day... do you have a video?

[Wild Cobra]

I take it you guys now agree with me, but just aren't willing to admit it.

[ElNono]

I take it you guys now agree with me, but just aren't willing to admit it.

Do you have a transcript or a video of us agreeing with you?

[Wild Cobra]

Do you have a transcript or a video of us agreeing with you?

LOL...

You aren't disagreeing with my assessment...

[ElNono]

LOL...

You aren't disagreeing with my assessment...

There's not enough context without the transcript or the video to discern if I'm agreeing or not with you.

[Wild Cobra]

there's not enough context without the transcript or the video to discern if i'm agreeing or not with you.
lol...

[ElNono]

:lol

[RandomGuy]

I take it you guys now agree with me, but just aren't willing to admit it.

Just to be clear:

I don't agree with you.

I think this is yet another steamy turd that you have grabbed onto with both hands, believing it is gold.

Your inability to see past your own bias puts you in denial as it squishes out between your fingers.

Keep clinging to that awesome turd.

[Winehole23]

I take it you guys now agree with me, but just aren't willing to admit it.Nope. You twisted yourself up like a pretzel tho. Nice try.

[RandomGuy]

http://bachmann.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=107414


H.R. 7309 would convert the remaining $350 billion of Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's bailout funds into an income and FICA tax holiday for January and February of next year.

Just to be 100% sure, Bachmann supported a two-month income tax holiday, not just a FICA or somer minor tax holiday.

[Wild Cobra]

Nope. You twisted yourself up like a pretzel tho. Nice try.
Ahh... I'm very limber as you see.

[ChumpDumper]

Gross.

[DMX7]

Ahh... I'm very limber as you see.

Are you some kind of sick exhibitionist?

Besides... you don't need to tell us that, it's already implied because most repairman have to be.

[Wild Cobra]

I just thought it would be a funny comeback. You don't have to appreciate my sense of humor. I'm sure some got a chuckle from it.

[Wild Cobra]

Just to be 100% sure, Bachmann supported a two-month income tax holiday, not just a FICA or somer minor tax holiday.
Yes. Two month. Not one year.

Effectively a 16.67% tax break for all.

Personally, I don't agree with this. I just find it unethical for a journalist to purposely misinform his readers.

I've said this before. I think there should only be one tax rate. Remove most or all deduction. Remove all tax credits.

I say lets put half the CPA's out of business. Lets put 90% of the IRS out of business. Max taxation very simple.

[DMX7]

Yes. Two month. Not one year.

Oh please... someone suggested a one year income tax holiday and she loved the idea.

"Awesome" is not the adjective most people use to describe policy they thoroughly reject.

[Agloco]

Props to WC for completely derailing this thread. :lol

It's devolved into a debate about what she "might" have meant.

Only someone who doesn't have good command of the English language could have confused the issue like this.

:tu

[Winehole23]

WC basically masters us all by remaining oblivious. He is a rock and we are the waves.

[Winehole23]

At the end of the day, Bachmann saying she thinks a "tax holiyear" sounds like an "awesome" idea, amounts to hand waving.

A strict ascription of support is a bit of a stretch at this point, but I think Bachmann reached the target audience with her message.

[boutons_deux]

Let's play, NRA gun-fetishist style, "Shooting Bachmanns in Barrel"

Michele Bachmann Adds The First Amendment To The Long List Of Constitutional Provisions She Refuses To Obey

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) became the first presidential candidate to sign a maximalist socially conservative pledge that, among other things, calls for “all forms of pornography” to be banned. In other words, yesterday marks the day when Bachmann added the First Amendment to the long list of constitutional provisions she despises.

As the Supreme Court explained nearly 40 years ago, only the most “patently offensive” erotic expression that is utterly lacking in any “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” can be banned without violating the First Amendment.

Bachmann, however, clearly believes the entire Constitution should be read according to her most uninformed whims. Bachmann suggested Census forms are unconstitutional. She supports stripping federal judges of their power to hear marriage equality cases in order to prevent the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the law from being extended to gay people. Bachmann even invited two radical tenthers who believe that everything from Social Security to the federal highway system to the 17th Amendment to the Constitution are unconstitutional to lecture her fellow lawmakers on what the Constitution requires. (Yes, you read that right, one of Bachmann’s constitutional role models believes that part of the Constitution is unconstitutional.)

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/07/08/263680/bachmann-hates-first-amendment/

[Winehole23]

We know where her heart is. That's all that matters.

[Spurminator]

ThinkProgress continues to swing and miss the easiest fucking targets out there.

Here is the pledge she signed (http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/The-Family-Leader-Presidential-Pledge.pdf). There is a long list of absolutely abhorable "promises" on this pledge, NONE of which call for the outright banning of pornography. The part about pornography reads:

"Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy - our next generation of American children - from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence."

It is most reasonable to believe that the "pornography" they're talking about is child pornography or other non-consensual pornography, given the context of the bullet. Nothing about a ban of pornography.

Why ThinkProgress chooses to focus on this part of the pledge instead of all of the other viciously homophobic and ridiculous assertions about the government's responsibility to uphold the idea of marriage as a permanent heterosexual institution, I have no idea. I would think you'd have to work hard to pick one part out of the pledge to harp about and be wrong. It takes a degree of willful ignorance to pull that part out as the story here.

[Winehole23]

Demolished TP. Nice critique. :tu

[coyotes_geek]

lol thinkprogress. lol boutons.

[boutons_deux]

the IA bubbas can't write for shit

"protection of women ... from all forms of pornography and prostitution"

sure sounds like some bubba lawyering could sue for that as banning (all) pornography.

lol assholes here who can't read

[Spurminator]

I just posted the whole sentence. Why did you post a clipped one?

My point is you and TP chose to based the headline of the story on a possible interpretation of a single part of a pledge that is full of other things that are crystal clear and still wrong.

Also, you realize this isn't an actionable legislative document, right? This doesn't do anything.

[coyotes_geek]

Thank God boutons is here to edit out all those "unnecessary" words IA wrote in between "protection of women" and "from all forms of pornography..." to tell us what IA really means.

[boutons_deux]

I snipped the words that relate to "protecting women ... from all forms of pornography"

That could easily include stopping women from engaging in commercial porn, and well as preventing women from being exposed to porn.

How TF do the missing words change the meaning of what I clipped? They don't.

[cheguevara]

and all forms of pornography and prostitution"

fuck this guy

[cheguevara]

Thank God boutons is here to edit out all those "unnecessary" words IA wrote in between "protection of women" and "from all forms of pornography..." to tell us what IA really means.

it's called reading between the lines.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I read it to mean that women (and children too) be shielded from any form of porn, promiscuity, abortion, etc.

[Spurminator]

I snipped the words that relate to "protecting women ... from all forms of pornography"

That could easily include stopping women from engaging in commercial porn, and well as preventing women from being exposed to porn.

How TF do the missing words change the meaning of what I clipped? They don't.

It changes the context of that part of the pledge.

Even as crazy as Bachmann is there's no reason to believe she signed this pledge with the intent to ban all pornography.

Her signing this gives concerning, though unsurprising, insight into her views on homosexuals and religious involvement in policy, which is a point completely missed when you frame this story as "Michelle Bachmann promises to ban porn."

[boutons_deux]

CARL QUINTANILLA (CNBC): Does it strike you that as the unemployment rate goes up that your chances of winning office also go up?

MICHELE BACHMANN: Well, that could be. Again, I hope so.

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/newsandviews/631124

===

In line with Repugs 2010 strategy of prolonging/deepening the jobs pain and blame it on Barry, which is still their strategy for 2012.

After winning the House, what have the Repugs done about jobs? not a fucking thing. It's all about union busting, deficits (not jobs), abortion, and opposing EVERYTHING without compromise.

[z0sa]

Thank God boutons is here to edit out all those "unnecessary" words IA wrote in between "protection of women" and "from all forms of pornography..." to tell us what IA really means.

without boutons around to post and bold the important parts of every important article, we would never find nor understand them

[Wild Cobra]

At the end of the day, Bachmann saying she thinks a "tax holiyear" sounds like an "awesome" idea, amounts to hand waving.

A strict ascription of support is a bit of a stretch at this point, but I think Bachmann reached the target audience with her message.
That's my point. I don't think she thinks a year is a good idea, but I said she gave a political answer. She was playing to the audience. I am also serious that the quotes are intended as her meaning it is awesome he had the same idea as a colleague. Not that the idea was awesome. This was, it remains an honest response.

People, look again at the exchange in full context.

[Wild Cobra]

ThinkProgress continues to swing and miss the easiest fucking targets out there.

Here is the pledge she signed (http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/The-Family-Leader-Presidential-Pledge.pdf). There is a long list of absolutely abhorable "promises" on this pledge, NONE of which call for the outright banning of pornography. The part about pornography reads:

"Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy - our next generation of American children - from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence."

It is most reasonable to believe that the "pornography" they're talking about is child pornography or other non-consensual pornography, given the context of the bullet. Nothing about a ban of pornography.

Why ThinkProgress chooses to focus on this part of the pledge instead of all of the other viciously homophobic and ridiculous assertions about the government's responsibility to uphold the idea of marriage as a permanent heterosexual institution, I have no idea. I would think you'd have to work hard to pick one part out of the pledge to harp about and be wrong. It takes a degree of willful ignorance to pull that part out as the story here.
Hey, it's their job to lie for the left.

It can be argued that the courts have given far more latitude to the first amendment than was intended regarding speech, and less regarding religion. I say the first amendment was intended to protect political speech, and not ever allow it to be illegal. Now, here we are, enforcing our ideals on other nations, like Libya.

Give me a break. The rulings regarding pornography vs. religion... are they reasonable?

[Winehole23]

Have you considered backing Michelle Bachmann, WC?

[Wild Cobra]

Have you considered backing Michelle Bachmann, WC?
I'll back here before Obama. If she makes the republican nomination, I will back her.

[Winehole23]

I'll back here before Obama. If she makes the republican nomination, I will back her.Who do you like now? Mitt Romney?

[Wild Cobra]

Who do you like now? Mitt Romney?
Right now, I prefer Cain.

[DMX7]

CARL QUINTANILLA (CNBC): Does it strike you that as the unemployment rate goes up that your chances of winning office also go up?

MICHELE BACHMANN: Well, that could be. Again, I hope so.

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/newsandviews/631124



Pretty much what we already knew.

[boutons_deux]

Right now, I prefer Cain.

Cain? Did somebody say Cain? :lol

Cain Rewrites History: I Said I Would Not Be Comfortable With ‘A Terrorist In My Cabinet’

The defining moment of former pizza executive Herman Cain’s upstart presidential bid came in March when he told ThinkProgress that he would not be comfortable appointing Muslims in his administration. The exact question I asked Cain was: “Would you be comfortable appointing a Muslim, either in your cabinet or as a federal judge?” To which, he responded, “No, I will not.” (Imposing a religious test is patently unconstitutional.)

On Monday, ThinkProgress attended Cain’s Iowa headquarters opening. During an interview with the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO, BBC’s Matthew Wells brought up the subject of Cain’s refusal to appoint Muslims. Cain offered up a revisionist history of his exchange with ThinkProgress, saying, “That wasn’t a statement I made. Let’s get it right. I was asked if I would be comfortable, and my response was I would not be comfortable with a terrorist in my cabinet”:

WELLS: You said you wouldn’t have a Muslim in your cabinet two weeks ago. Is that still your position?

CAIN: That wasn’t a statement I made. Let’s get it right. I was asked if I would be comfortable, and my response was I would not be comfortable with a terrorist in my cabinet. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but a lot of the terrorists are Muslims, so I just have to be real careful about who I put in my cabinet.

Watch it: (see link)


This is hardly the first time Cain has spun the matter. Here is a complete timeline of Cain’s evolving position on appointing Muslims in his administration:

– March 26: Herman Cain told ThinkProgress he would not be comfortable appointing Muslims either in his cabinet or as a federal judge.

– March 28: Cain spokeswoman Ellen Carmichael walked back the candidate’s words, saying “Mr. Cain would consider any person for a position based on merit, as anybody else would, as is the law.” Cain himself later disavowed his pledge on Fox News.

– April 1: Cain told the Orlando Sun Sentinel that he would only be willing to appoint a Muslim who disavowed Sharia law, but “he’s unaware of any Muslim who’d be willing to make such a disavowal.”

– May 24: After being questioned on Glenn Beck’s radio show, Cain tried to argue that he would appoint Muslims in spite of his discomfort, saying, “I immediately said – without thinking – ‘No, I would not be comfortable.’ I did not say that I would not have them in my cabinet.”

– June 8: Appearing on Glenn Beck’s TV show, Cain repeated that he would not be comfortable with Muslim appointees but he “didn’t say I wouldn’t appoint one.” However, Cain went further, saying he would require a special loyalty oath for Muslim appointees, but would not require Catholics or Mormons to take it.

– June 13: Cain told ThinkProgress that he would not ask job applicants their religion. He did not elaborate on how he planned to administer a special loyalty oath to Muslim appointees without asking their religion.

– July 11: In an interview with the BBC, Cain tried to revise the original Muslim appointee question-and-answer, saying, “My response was I would not be comfortable with a terrorist in my cabinet.” For reference, the exact question (to which he responded “no”) was “Would you be comfortable appointing a Muslim, either in your cabinet or as a federal judge?”

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/07/14/267549/cain-revisionist-memory-muslim-appointees/

[boutons_deux]

Palin Decides She Doesn’t Like McConnell Plan, Immediately Invents A Reason For Why It Is Unconstitutional

We will not hand over more power, which I think is unconstitutional, to President Obama to further manipulate our economy. You know, Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution spells out that Congress has the power of the purse strings, so this plan of McConnell’s I think makes no sense because it does cede power to our president and takes away that authority that is inherent in Congress to control the economic decisions that have to be made when it comes to debt.

So it’s pretty obvious that Palin’s kneejerk attack on the McConnell plan is wholly without merit. First of all, the debt ceiling fight has absolutely nothing to do with whether Congress retains the “power of the purse strings.” Congress exercises this power by passing appropriation bills that authorize the executive branch to spend money, and President Obama is still forbidden from spending money in excess of a congressional appropriation regardless of whether or not we have a debt ceiling.

Similarly, there is absolutely nothing radical about Congress delegating authority to the executive branch. The power to delegate authority is one of Congress’ most well established powers, and it is the reason why federal agencies are allowed to both write regulations and administer funds. Without this power, a functioning federal government cannot exist.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/07/14/269126/no-mcconnell-is-not-unconstitutional/

===========

Holy shit, the Repug gang chasing the nomination are a bunch ignorant fools, so well prepared to run The Greatest Country, God-Chosen Of Course, In The Universe.

[ElNono]

I think the McConnell/Reid plan is an absolute disgrace. You either increase the debt limit or not and own up to the consequences from your decision. It's called being responsible for your actions and doing your job.

This whole shifting your responsibility to the executive reeks of being a pussy and not wanting to make the hard decisions you were elected to do.

[boutons_deux]

"shifting your responsibility to the executive reeks of being a ..."

... a LIAR. Repugs can't help it, LYING is in their genes.

[Winehole23]

Both parties, cringing from their own responsibility, propose to strengthen the hand of the president to raise the cap all by himself. It's a horrible idea and a horrible precedent.

[Winehole23]

Men who are afraid to put their names on the record for or against shouldn't be in politics. What a bunch of fucking cowards if this McConnell/Reid bs passes.

[Winehole23]

Giving power away to the president because they're afraid of the political rap? I hope they're ashamed.

[Winehole23]

I am. :depressed

[boutons_deux]

Both parties, cringing from their own responsibility, propose to strengthen the hand of the president to raise the cap all by himself. It's a horrible idea and a horrible precedent.

14th amendment

the cap is extra-Constitutional, a charade going into WWI, a signal that spending would be responsible and controlled.

Repugs raised it 7 TIMES under dubya, no panic, no argument, they shifted many $100Bs into the corps and super-wealthy with tax, tax expenditurs, bullshit wars, bloated defense spending, so THEIR deficit was never a problem except when they bequeath it to Barry.

And their ignorant bubba, "Christian" base falls for their LIES every time.

[RandomGuy]

Her campaign did not respond to a request to clarify her stance on the income tax.


Still no specific comment that I could find from her campaign clarifying.

[boutons_deux]

Bachmann Preemptively Ditches Her Church To Avoid Association With Its Radical Views


GOP presidential contender Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and her husband Marcus preemptively left their church of more than ten years just weeks before she announced her candidacy to avoid association with its extremist views. Salem Lutheran Church in Stillwater, Minnesota, has faced criticism this week for its anti-Catholic views, including preaching that the Pope is the Antichrist.

Bachmann has long been a favorite of religious conservatives for her outspoken views on her faith, but her decision to sever ties with her church for the sake of her presidential campaign is surprising many:

According to CNN, the church that Michele Bachmann and her husband Marcus had attended for more than a decade, Salem Lutheran in Stillwater, Minn., granted the couple’s request to be released from their membership last month, a week after Bachmann told a national audience that she would run for the Republican presidential nomination.

The Bachmanns had approached their pastor and verbally made the request “a few weeks before the church council granted the request,” said Joel Hochmuth, a spokesman for the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the governing body for the church.

Bachmann had apparently been distancing herself from the church for some time. Hochmuth said the couple had not been worshiping with the congregation in more than two years.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/07/16/270896/bachmann-preemptively-ditches-her-church-to-avoid-association-with-its-radical-views/

====

A difference from Barry-Wright is that Bachmann and her hubby actually live, promote, and agitate for their weird "Christian" hate cult.

[boutons_deux]

Bachmann Predicted The World Would End In 2006: ‘We Are In The Last Days’

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/bachmanncrazy.jpg

BACHMANN: Lord, the day is at hand. We are in the last days. You are a Jehovah God. We know that the times are in your hands. And we give them to you…The day is at hand, Lord, when your return will come nigh. Nothing is more important than bringing sheep into the fold. Than bringing new life into the kingdom…You have weeded that garden. The harvest is at hand.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/07/18/264811/bachmann-predicted-world-end-2006/

[Wild Cobra]

Somebody records a prayer, which sounds perfectly normal, and you freak out about it?

Ever been in a church?

[boutons_deux]

When the wannabe Prez believes in and preaches End Times bullshit, and blatantly, repeatedly mixes her freaky cult/hate ideas with her public policies, then I pay attention.

[RandomGuy]

Somebody records a prayer, which sounds perfectly normal, and you freak out about it?

Ever been in a church?

How many normal prayers include the explict phrase "We are in the last days" and "the time of harvest is at hand"?

Given how you demanded that Obama disown the crazy shit *his* pastor was caught on tape saying, will you do so now for Bachmann's batshit crazy church as well?

Or will you give this person a ride because you like her?

[Wild Cobra]

Tell me. Do any of them ever say how many days there are in the last days?

[ChumpDumper]

Tell me. Do they mean centuries?

[Wild Cobra]

Tell me. Do they mean centuries?

Nobody really knows now do we. Could be tomorrow, could be several hundred thousand days or more. Point is, this is normal biblical speak. Those who have ever attend church on a regular basis might know this, but that also depends on the church.

I just think it's laughable to find this laughable, especially since it was a prayer. Not a political stop.

[ChumpDumper]

Nobody really knows now do we. Could be tomorrow, could be several hundred thousand days or more. Point is, this is normal biblical speak. Those who have ever attend church on a regular basis might know this, but that also depends on the church.It's typical evangelical hubris to think one lives in the end times. I don't know why many are so keen to be part of such a shitty happening.


I just think it's laughable to find this laughable, especially since it was a prayer. Not a political stop.It's laughable to think it isn't a political stop.

[ElNono]

If nobody knows, how could you rationally say "We're in the last days"?

[DMX7]

Rational doesn't belong in any sentence with Michele Bachmann (except this sentence).

[boutons_deux]

Bachmann Wanted To Eliminate Mortgage Lending Programs After Receiving The Maximum Loan From Them

A “fierce critic” of the mortgage-lending programs and their role in the financial crisis in 2008, Bachmann has repeatedly called to abolish the GSEs, wanting them to “wind down and file for bankruptcy.”

Just a few weeks before Bachmann called for dismantling the programs during a House Financial Services Committee hearing, she and her husband signed for a $417,000 home loan to help finance their move to a 5,200-square-foot golf course home, public records show. Experts who examined the loan documents for The Washington Post say they are confident that the loan was backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. [...]

The experts said the Bachmanns bought a more expensive home using typical strategies during a time of easier credit. With their existing home still on the market, they assumed liability on the same day for the $417,000 mortgage and a $249,999 secured line of credit backed by the residence, records show.

The $417,000 mortgage was the cap of what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would loan at the time in her region.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/26/279676/bachmann-benefited-mortgage-lending-program/

============

Don't Do As I Do, Do As I Say.

[boutons_deux]

9 Kids in 2 Years Killed Themselves In Michele Bachmann's District -- Did Bachmann's Anti-Gay Allies Contribute to a Mental Health Crisis?

a total of nine teenagers have committed suicide in a Minnesota school district represented by Rep. Michele Bachmann—the latest in May—and many more students have attempted to take their lives. State public health officials have labeled the area a "suicide contagion area" because of the unusually high death rate.

Some of the victims were gay, or perceived to be by their classmates, and many were reportedly bullied. And the anti-gay activists who are some of the congresswoman's closest allies stand accused of blocking an effective response to the crisis and fostering a climate of intolerance that allowed bullying to flourish. Bachmann, meanwhile, has been uncharacteristically silent on the tragic deaths that have roiled her district—including the high school that she attended.

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/151783

=============

That's an ex-gay therapy that unlicensed therapist (if he were trained and educated, he'd be an "elite") Marcus Bachmann wouldn't approve of, because he couldn't get Fed subsidies for de-gaying gays.

Sounds like Bachmann's district that keeps re-electing her is a shithole of vicious assholes.

[Spurminator]

9 Kids in 2 Years Killed Themselves In Michele Bachmann's District -- Did Bachmann's Anti-Gay Allies Contribute to a Mental Health Crisis?

a total of nine teenagers have committed suicide in a Minnesota school district represented by Rep. Michele Bachmann—the latest in May—and many more students have attempted to take their lives. State public health officials have labeled the area a "suicide contagion area" because of the unusually high death rate.

Some of the victims were gay, or perceived to be by their classmates, and many were reportedly bullied. And the anti-gay activists who are some of the congresswoman's closest allies stand accused of blocking an effective response to the crisis and fostering a climate of intolerance that allowed bullying to flourish. Bachmann, meanwhile, has been uncharacteristically silent on the tragic deaths that have roiled her district—including the high school that she attended.

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/151783

=============

That's an ex-gay therapy that unlicensed therapist (if he were trained and educated, he'd be an "elite") Marcus Bachmann wouldn't approve of, because he couldn't get Fed subsidies for de-gaying gays.

Sounds like Bachmann's district that keeps re-electing her is a shithole of vicious assholes.

This is fucking stupid.

I mean you have to be really fucking stupid to find something to criticize about batshit crazy Michelle Bachmann, and be wrong.

And there you go. You've done it.

Fucking stupid.

[boutons_deux]

wrong? how? Her batshit crazy, gay-hating district keeps re-electing batshit-crazy, gay-hating Bachmann?

[Wild Cobra]

wrong? how? Her batshit crazy, gay-hating district keeps re-electing batshit-crazy, gay-hating Bachmann?

I grow tired of your relentless attacks on the repugs over really stupid shit. You are proving to be more bat shit crazy than the one you say is.

If I disagree with a law, does that mean I shouldn't take advantage of it?

How does the 9 kids compare to other districts across the USA?

Really now. These are really weak items to be attacked over. You should give it a rest, perhaps stop reading that stupid material. It's lowering your IQ.

[boutons_deux]

She and her husband are Government-Is-The-Problem fringe cultists.

But it's Govt-Is-The-Solution when we suck at its taxpayer tits.

How does 9 suicides, say per capita, compare with other districts?

"do your own research", Bachmann lover

[Wild Cobra]

How does 9 suicides, say per capita, compare with other districts?

"do your own research", Bachmann lover
My point is that if you don't already know the answer, it is pretty lame to post it.

Do you know the answer or not?

[Wild Cobra]

How does 9 suicides, say per capita, compare with other districts?

"do your own research", Bachmann lover
OK, about 4000 teen suicides annual across the USA. 435 congressional districts. That is 9.195 suicides per district average annually. Th 9 deaths in Bachmann's district was for a two year period. Not one.

The material you chronically post caters to those who want to believe such negativity, and are too lazy to verify. You are their a prime example of their targeted reader. Must be nice to liver in ignorance.

[Spurminator]

The United States teen suicide rate is 7.32 per 100K teens, per year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_suicide_in_the_United_States

Michelle Bachmann's district has a teen population of 101,815.
Link (http://fastfacts.census.gov/servlet/CWSQTable?geo_id=50000US2706&ds_name=DEC_2000_110H&qr_name=DEC_2000_110H_DP1&back=%2Fservlet%2FCWSFacts%3F_event%3DChangeGeoCon text%26geo_id%3D50000US2706%26_geoContext%3D01000U S%257C04000US27%257C50000US2705%26_street%3D%26_co unty%3D%26_cd%3D50000US2706%26_cityTown%3D%26_stat e%3D04000US27%26_zip%3D%26_lang%3Den%26_sse%3Don%2 6ActiveGeoDiv%3D%26_useEV%3D%26pctxt%3Dfph%26pgsl% 3D500%26_content%3D%26_keyword%3D%26_industry%3D)

So 9 suicides over two years calculates to 4.41 teen suicides per 100K teens per year in Bachmann's district.

Let's review:

U.S. Teen Suicide Rate = 7.32 per 100K
Bachmann's District Teen Suicide Rate = 4.41 per 100K


You're welcome.

[LnGrrrR]

OK, about 4000 teen suicides annual across the USA. 435 congressional districts. That is 9.195 suisides per district average annually. Th 9 deaths in Bachmann's district was for a two year period. Not one.

Uhm... wouldn't it make more sense to take the avg population of each district into account as well?

Also, they said SCHOOL district... is that separate from voting district? I assume it would be.

[Spurminator]

The United States teen suicide rate is 7.32 per 100K teens, per year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_suicide_in_the_United_States

Michelle Bachmann's district has a teen population of 101,815.
Link (http://fastfacts.census.gov/servlet/CWSQTable?geo_id=50000US2706&ds_name=DEC_2000_110H&qr_name=DEC_2000_110H_DP1&back=%2Fservlet%2FCWSFacts%3F_event%3DChangeGeoCon text%26geo_id%3D50000US2706%26_geoContext%3D01000U S%257C04000US27%257C50000US2705%26_street%3D%26_co unty%3D%26_cd%3D50000US2706%26_cityTown%3D%26_stat e%3D04000US27%26_zip%3D%26_lang%3Den%26_sse%3Don%2 6ActiveGeoDiv%3D%26_useEV%3D%26pctxt%3Dfph%26pgsl% 3D500%26_content%3D%26_keyword%3D%26_industry%3D)

So 9 suicides over two years calculates to 4.41 teen suicides per 100K teens per year in Bachmann's district.

Let's review:

U.S. Teen Suicide Rate = 7.32 per 100K
Bachmann's District Teen Suicide Rate = 4.41 per 100K


You're welcome.

And fuck you for making me defend Michelle Bachmann.

[Wild Cobra]

U.S. Teen Suicide Rate = 7.32 per 100K
Bachmann's District Suicide Rate = 4.41 per 100K

That's pretty close to my simpler approach.

Boutons... What do you have to say for your lame links?

[Wild Cobra]

Uhm... wouldn't it make more sense to take the avg population of each district into account as well?

Also, they said SCHOOL district... is that separate from voting district? I assume it would be.
Sure, but the population doesn't vary past a 2:1 margin. I didn't take any more time than necessary to show Boutons he was wrong.

[LnGrrrR]

Sure, but the population doesn't vary past a 2:1 margin. I didn't take any more time than necessary to show Boutons he was wrong.

Oh, ok then. Disregard.