Bachmann cranks the hyperbole knob to 11

TragicMonkey said:
That would be nice, but every attempt to even get close to universal health care is blown out of the water. And the current system gets cut after cut.
Click to expand...

There is an ebb and a flow to these things. The Ryan Medicare cuts are INSANELY unpopular even among Republicans. My guess is that very little changes under this Tea Party-induced insanity (which isn't good, we do need serious reforms--but the status quo is better than the Republican proposals), and after a few years the AHCA will be expanded.

Of course, our country could also continue its decent into madness, I'm just more condifent that the former will occur.

TragicMonkey said:
However, a badly funded healthcare system with horrible problems does not equal, even in analogy, the frickin' Holocaust. That's like hearing someone with a canker sore complain to the Stage IV cancer victim about their health problems.
Click to expand...

Perhaps Bachman was saying that the Holocaust wasn't actually a big deal...

Now THAT'S how you smear a politician.
 
mhaze said:
Your delusions as to prospects of positive outcomes nonwithstanding, they presuppose action toward a serious problem. So, thus, you agree with me when I said....

I'm not even sure this is a "democratic or republican" issue but more of a 30 years problem in the making, but to be mocking those who bring up it's seriousness....
Click to expand...

Bachman is doing the exact opposite of that. She is turning the debate into a circus.

The problem is serious, but the solutions are clear. We could fix it tomorrow if we wanted to. There are endless models throughout the world that would guide us, there's just no political will, mostly because we live in a country full of dumbasses.

Bachman and Ryan and the other folks suggesting insane solutions to the growth of health care costs are turning the entire debate into a farce. It's as though they're engaged in a competition to see who can upchuck the dumbest ideas. They're using the tried and true method of deficit hysteria to push through their real agenda: more tax cuts for the wealthy.
 
I'm not trying to draw any analogies, but let me espouse upon the ways that Michelle Bachmann reminds me of the Rape of Nanking...
 
Nursedan said:
It appeared to me after watching the video clip that she was answering a question, which was why she chose her words so poorly. Can't embed a video here at work but I'm sure it's on Youtube.
Click to expand...

Regardless, those are the words she chose.

That increasing taxes today is similar to the increase in things taken away during the holocaust.

I just don't see how anyone can read/hear that any other way. That's exactly what she said. If it's in response to a question, then it just goes to show how utterly whacky she is in that this is her response, not a canned speech that's been edited/written for her by someone else. Thus, the fact that it's an on the spot response is even scarier/worse than if it were in a speech.
 
mhaze said:
I'm just curious what Joe thinks about that.
Click to expand...

See above. I already responded to NurseDan's claim that the OP is false.

So are you seriously trying to claim that Bachmann meant the asking about what you were doing when was exactly the same as if she had said it's "similar" to how we used to ask, "What were you doing when JFK was shot?"

She even hinted at the exculpation of her parents when she may have asked them that question. (I.e. they were among those who didn't know about it until afterwards.)

Hazey, it's possible to have a debate where you disagree with your opponent but still recognize that your opponent has a legitimate position--just one you happen to disagree with. What Bachmann is doing is essentially Godwinning the debate. It's inflammatory and divisive and does nothing to resolve any problem.

It's worse than merely saying, "I'm right, and you're wrong."
 
TragicMonkey said:
Is she saying that the Holocaust is eclipsed by government program failings?
Click to expand...

Yes. Though she is also simultaneously saying that is it similar (or equally as bad as) the Holocaust. But she also claims that she's not making an analogy, just saying that two things are similar.
 
mhaze said:
Such a statement includes the speaker, if he lives in said country, but that being so, his statement could well be in error.
Click to expand...

Ah, sloppiness with degree of language. I hope you aren't planning on taking the LSAT.

"Full of" =/= "all"

But that was a charming, if not impressive, attempt at forum judo. You're one broken board from getting your parents to buy you a frozen yogurt, any topping you want!
 
Last edited:
It appears that Nursedan doesn't understand the concept of an implicit comparison.
 
Nursedan said:
I'm not seeing it. Really, I'm not. The questioning is what she is comparing. Not the holocaust itself. She states this clearly. You think a presidential hopeful would outright compare taxes to the holocaust?
Click to expand...

She claimed these two things are "similar":

My generation asking members of our parents' generation where they were and what they were doing during the Holocaust.

and

Future generations asking us where we were and what we were doing while the national debt was increasing due, in her opinion, to excessive spending and nothing else.

So the things that are being called similar are the Holocaust and the current federal budget process.

Yes, this is outrageous, inflammatory, divisive, and worthy of mockery.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Yes. Though she is also simultaneously saying that is it similar (or equally as bad as) the Holocaust. But she also claims that she's not making an analogy, just saying that two things are similar.
Click to expand...

Perhaps she did mean to use the word "eclipse", because if you stare at one you go blind.
 
thaiboxerken said:
It appears that Nursedan doesn't understand the concept of an implicit comparison.
Click to expand...

It wasn't even implicit. She explicitly used the word "similar". She said the two things she was comparing were "a similar death and a similar taking away".

Seriously--she says that current budgetary policy will result in the deaths of tens of millions! And then future children will ask us, basically, why we didn't do something to stop this horror, just as we (or at least people my age) asked this question of people who were adults during the Holocaust.
 
Nursedan said:
You think a presidential hopeful would outright compare taxes to the holocaust?
Click to expand...
And that would be an argument from incredulity.

Just because you find it hard to believe someone who thinks she has an actual chance at the GOP nomination could say something this outrageous doesn't mean someone who thinks she has an actual chance at the GOP nomination could indeed say something so outrageous.

To answer your question: yes. And that's why we've been using words like "hyperbole" and "overdrive" and "inflammatory" and "outrageous" and so on.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
And that would be an argument from incredulity.

Just because you find it hard to believe someone who thinks she has an actual chance at the GOP nomination could say something this outrageous doesn't mean someone who thinks she has an actual chance at the GOP nomination could indeed say something so outrageous.

To answer your question: yes. And that's why we've been using words like "hyperbole" and "overdrive" and "inflammatory" and "outrageous" and so on.
Click to expand...
And if you actually had a full transcript, instead of just a few quotes in an AP story, your arguments MIGHT have some credibility.

But as it stands now, they don't. Then again, only in the absence of a full transcript, can you make ridiculous accusations that can't be proven false.

Well, that is revealing.
 
mhaze said:
And if you actually had a full transcript, instead of just a few quotes in an AP story, your arguments MIGHT have some credibility.

But as it stands now, they don't. Then again, only in the absence of a full transcript, can you make ridiculous accusations that can't be proven false.

Well, that is revealing.
Click to expand...
Please explain how a broader context could change the fact that she was comparing federal budget issues with the Holocaust?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom