• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Michelle Bachmann could be our next president.

How many times must this woman lie before it becomes considered pathological?
 
Elypsis44 said:
Doesn't her Bible mention something about women leading prayer?

1 Timothy 2:11–12
11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.

The one saying a prayer is leading those who are listening. It is a position of authority. Since she's so Christian, perhaps she should sit down and shut up?

Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

They don't know what the bible says. They only know what the preacher-boys say the bible says. And they can't remember half of that, needing a refresher course every Sunday. And they also feel free to snatch snippets of biblical prose out of context and imbue them with whatever meaning suits their ideological biases, irrespective of obvious contextual meaning.

If I ever believed I would burn in hell for doing A, B, or C, I'm pretty sure I would be able to remember, and be careful not to do A, B, or C. No matter how tempting A, B, or C might be. Because burning forever is not something to play Russian roulette with. You pull that trigger one time too many, and it's not like everything goes blank. It's like everything starts burning really bad, and keeps burning really bad forever.

I don't understand what would possess a Christer to want to snatch the rent money out of an old disabled vet's hand, as Bachman recently proposed. If I were her, I don't think I would do that. Didn't preacher-boy teach her any better than that? Screw it. If we go bankrupt, we all go bankrupt together. At least that way you don't burn in hell forever for being a money-grubbing politiker bitch that cuts off old disabled vets at the knees.

I think maybe Michelle should go back to the farm and think things over.
 
Toontown said:
They don't know what the bible says. They only know what the preacher-boys say the bible says. And they can't remember half of that, needing a refresher course every Sunday. And they also feel free to snatch snippets of biblical prose out of context and imbue them with whatever meaning suits their ideological biases, irrespective of obvious contextual meaning.

If I ever believed I would burn in hell for doing A, B, or C, I'm pretty sure I would be able to remember, and be careful not to do A, B, or C. No matter how tempting A, B, or C might be. Because burning forever is not something to play Russian roulette with. You pull that trigger one time too many, and it's not like everything goes blank. It's like everything starts burning really bad, and keeps burning really bad forever.

I don't understand what would possess a Christer to want to snatch the rent money out of an old disabled vet's hand, as Bachman recently proposed. If I were her, I don't think I would do that. Didn't preacher-boy teach her any better than that? Screw it. If we go bankrupt, we all go bankrupt together. At least that way you don't burn in hell forever for being a money-grubbing politiker bitch that cuts off old disabled vets at the knees.

I think maybe Michelle should go back to the farm and think things over.
Click to expand...

No really, she is all over the news. The only way to beat her is to find out she really isn't a christian at all. Maybe she got involved with Wicca at some point?

I do remember asking some republican if they would stop and help someone dying in the street, they said no, thats their problem. I wonder if anybody but the hard core republicans are going to like living in a country much like Somalia, except bigger, and with a lot more guns.
 
Last edited:
JudeBrando said:
And what would that be?
Click to expand...

Very good question. But since it's your position, it's appropriate that you attempt to express it, and not up to us to play some silly guessing game.

You're obviously attempting to dis the Democratic party somehow. But asking why they don't nominate women candidates based on their physical attractiveness is an equally obviously failed attempt.
 
Trying to get Jude to be honest and upfront about his position is only worth it if you're up for a very long game of pin the tail on the red herring. Every other post is, "Just asking questions."
 
Aside from the misogynist viewpoint that physical attractiveness is equivalent to political ability, it's demonstrably incorrect view to have that all Democrat women are ugly while all Republican women are not. So not only do you get the "objectifying women for political gain" point, you also get the "incredibly wrong about everything" point. Here's two links of prominent elected Democrats to get you started.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristen_Gillibrand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords
 
A Laughing Baby said:
Aside from the misogynist viewpoint that physical attractiveness is equivalent to political ability, it's demonstrably incorrect view to have that all Democrat women are ugly while all Republican women are not. So not only do you get the "objectifying women for political gain" point, you also get the "incredibly wrong about everything" point. Here's two links of prominent elected Democrats to get you started.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristen_Gillibrand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords
Click to expand...


Missed one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Mikulski

[smiley ducking brick]
 
hgc said:
Missed one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Mikulski

[smiley ducking brick]
Click to expand...

In the interest of snarky replies, I was going to look for an unattractive female Republican to link to you, but then I remembered that there are only 17 Republican females in the House, and only 4 in the Senate. I didn't feel like scrolling down that much to find roughly 4% of the population. I guess that's a telling number in and of itself.
 
JudeBrando said:
You tell me, wiseguy.
Click to expand...

I know I'm wasting time here, because JudeBrando has never replied to a question I have asked him, but here goes anyway.

JB- Michele Bachmann should not be running for president in light of the Scriptures she claims to hold so dear:

1 Timothy 2:11–12
11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.

But she has said God as told her to run. So, is she going against Scripture or is God giving her a waiver?

Square up that circle please.
 
Last edited:
I forgot that the Republicans think the attractiveness of their female candidates matter for some reason.
 
leftysergeant said:
I get the impression that if she were less sexually attractive, she would get about 10% of the vote in her home district.

People can overlook all manner of nuttiness in an attractive woman. Ugly and wack, they get ignored. The rightwingers see a pretty face saying things which fit their aggenda and vote for her. They don't notice that she kind of wanders off the edges of reality half the time.
Click to expand...
This is quite sexist of you, lefty. I'm disappointed.

I don't doubt her looks add a tad to some voters, but it is her right wing message, her slick talking and her image that is the thing which makes her a viable candidate in the primary.

Same with Palin, these two women are slick speech givers. They are good at repeating slogans and maintaining a facade of actually knowing what the country needs. Underneath the facade you have nothing. But an awful lot of voters base their decision on image and fantasy, not on evidence and critical thinking.
 
MNBrant said:
She's not my pick for the republicans, I would probably go for Ron Paul given the choice. He's a genius. I like Michelle though for her pluckiness. She is playing to the evangelical vote and doesn't give a damn about anybody else. That's why she will be around for 20 years in her conservative district. Possibly she could run for president on that alone.
Click to expand...
Oh come on. Paul is a blinded fanatic, not a genius. He cannot answer questions about his Libertarian ideas when asked about the natural consequences of his ideas. He simply brushes the challenges off denying the facts.
 
Tricky said:
I think it's one reason that McCain was able to rebound in 2008 to win the nomination. Huckabee looked to be making big inroads and moderate Republicans were horrified by his overt holy-rollerism.
Click to expand...
This is a valid thing to consider. But did Huckabee echo the Tea Party rhetoric in quite the same way Bachman does? It seems to me Bachman's right wing sloganeering dominates her facade while religion dominated Huck's.

I mean, think GW Bush.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom