Michelle Bachmann could be our next president.

[leftysergeant]

I'd rather not stretch it that far. Obama based his campaign on a motto of Hope and Change, and came out to most of his base a "rock star" with his charisma. In practice his qualifications have had extremely mixed results, and he's facing a nightmare of a setup between a huge national debt, and high unemployment with a still-crimped economic outlook.

And people who think like Bachmann created that mess and all she has to offer is more of the same on steroids and LSD.

Obama didn't have to overcome a bat crap crazy problem like she does.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

And people who think like Bachmann created that mess and all she has to offer is more of the same on steroids and LSD.

Obama didn't have to overcome a bat crap crazy problem like she does.

I'm not concerned with whether Obama started it or not; I'm concerned with what effort he's put into addressing it. He didn't do enough, early enough to address some of the issues that will haunt him the worst. He had ample opportunity to try and address them before they got as serious as they now are. Any effort to do so now is already being stagnated by ultra partisanship in congress overall which is set to be one of the least productive in years.

As far as Bachman is concerned, going by first impressions I think she's better than McCain ever was at pursuing her policies, but her Joe Bidenesque gaffes aren't going to help her, especially if she intends to run on a similar platform Obama used when he ran for POTUS. Simple gaffes can trainwreck candidates no matter how good they "could be" in practice. As it is, following Obama's hope & change campaign of '08 and the set-in of reality, I'm not even sure what I should be impressed with in this upcoming election cycle...

 

[thaiboxerken]

Of course Obama didn't do enough, the GOP has done their best to stop Obama from getting anything done.

 

[Tricky]

That leaves out an unpatriotic bimbo like Bachmann.

While it should be apparent from the posts I've made here, I have a very low opinion of Michelle Bachmann. However, I strongly object to the use of bigoted labels like "bimbo" to describe female politicians. I find it extremely sexist and small-minded. I find it no less offensive than I would if someone described Obama or Herman Cain as an "unpatriotic n-word".

Politicians should be judged by their integrity, intelligence, and their political positions, not by their sex. You want to say she's "stupid"? That's fine. That label could be applied to either sex. "Bimbo" is a sexist term used by bigots.

 

[TheNooch]

As far as Bachman is concerned, going by first impressions I think she's better than McCain ever was at pursuing her policies, but her Joe Bidenesque gaffes aren't going to help her, especially if she intends to run on a similar platform Obama used when he ran for POTUS. Simple gaffes can trainwreck candidates no matter how good they "could be" in practice. As it is, following Obama's hope & change campaign of '08 and the set-in of reality, I'm not even sure what I should be impressed with in this upcoming election cycle...

I don't think gaffe applies to Bachman. She really is that stupid. A gaffe is something when called out on, you don't double down on the stupid, you usually just admit you made an error and smile.

I'm sure if you asked Obama about his "57 states" comment he would laugh...out loud.

But Bachman/Palin doesn't do that, she has "faith' that her idiots will understand her, and then try and re-write history through the power of Wikipedia.

 

[leftysergeant]

"Bimbo" is a sexist term used by bigots.

Actually, it seemed appropriate for a worthless half-wit who is prostituting her relligion, a servant of the Harlot of Revelations.

She is a moral degenerate she is pulling her church down into the cess pool with her.

 

[Bri]

This was an interesting post. You opened by saying you weren't going to double down, then proceeded in the rest of the post to ... double down.

Nova Land said that I called Obama's statement a lie. How is admitting that he was right doubling down? Admitting that I was wrong is the opposite of doubling down.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

You keep insisting I haven't been talking about this when I most definitely have been.

I didn't insist that you haven't been talking about this. I said that it wasn't the topic of discussion. The topic of discussion concerned Obama's statement about his health care plan, not whether in theory preventive care could reduce health care costs.

Neither Obama's statement nor his health care plan were limited to the 19% or so of preventive procedures that actually save money.

But he was talking more broadly about saving money on health care by spending more on preventative care.

And that's exactly the problem with his statement. Spending more on preventative care won't generally save money unless it is limited to a relatively small number of preventive procedures that actually save money.

It may be that in the near future the screening tests do cost less than the cost of the cancer they prevent.

But they don't currently, and they didn't when Obama made the statement that they do.

If you are arguing that the concept of preventive care itself does not save money, then you are wrong.

I'm not arguing that. As I said, the concept of preventive care has the potential to save money. And certain preventive procedures actually do save money today. But the vast majority of preventive procedures don't currently save money.

And I have explained why the one study being cited here is being misinterpreted and does not support your claim.

Since you have so far misrepresented my claim multiple times (most recently above), I'm not convinced that you know what it is. The studies (plural) as well as the CBO's analysis do indeed support my claim.

-Bri

 

[Grizzly Bear]

But Bachman/Palin doesn't do that, she has "faith' that her idiots will understand her, and then try and re-write history through the power of Wikipedia.

Fact of the matter is politicians make these statements all the time. It's just the simple ones that get sensationalized by the media and are usually the campaign killers. Factchecks usually weed out a bunch of the rest via the speeches and debates that happen regularly during the election cycles. Politico did a gig on this stuff some time ago for the top 2008 election gaffes and there are infinitely more out there. Probably better in some cases to leave them be, since the media latches onto them and they can boil over, unless of course they're spitting them out like machine gun fire.

Of course Obama didn't do enough, the GOP has done their best to stop Obama from getting anything done.

With a $14 trillion+ national debt he's facing a major problem. While I have little doubt the GOP hasn't learned it's lesson from 2008, Obama's presidency had 2 years of a near-super majority that he made good use of on something else. I won't shed a tear when he's hammered on the economy.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I didn't insist that you haven't been talking about this. I said that it wasn't the topic of discussion. The topic of discussion concerned Obama's statement about his health care plan, not whether in theory preventive care could reduce health care costs.

Neither Obama's statement nor his health care plan were limited to the 19% or so of preventive procedures that actually save money.

You said Obama lied. You cited Politfact's analysis.

You deny you said Obama lied despite the fact I'm not the only one here calling you on your weasel words.

I have specifically addressed why Politifact's analysis of Obama's claim was flawed. And you claim that isn't what I was talking about?

Perhaps you should read my posts before claiming to know what I posted because you are making zero sense here.

And that's exactly the problem with his statement. Spending more on preventative care won't generally save money unless it is limited to a relatively small number of preventive procedures that actually save money.

You are wrong.

But they don't currently, and they didn't when Obama made the statement that they do.

Wrong again.

I'm not arguing that. As I said, the concept of preventive care has the potential to save money. And certain preventive procedures actually do save money today. But the vast majority of preventive procedures don't currently save money.

Wrong again. Where is your evidence of "vast majority"? The one study cited I've addressed. The conclusions are being misinterpreted and I explained why.

Since you have so far misrepresented my claim multiple times (most recently above), I'm not convinced that you know what it is. The studies (plural) as well as the CBO's analysis do indeed support my claim.

-Bri

I've addressed this as well. You are welcome to rely on the sources you find authoritative. If you were more knowledgeable about the subject we could debate the issues. But you aren't and when I addressed why the CBO and the one cited study was wrong, you were unable to discuss the issues.

You simply repeated yourself here. I believe that ends the discussion when all one is doing is repeating what was already said.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Fact of the matter is politicians make these statements all the time. It's just the simple ones that get sensationalized by the media and are usually the campaign killers. Factchecks usually weed out a bunch of the rest via the speeches and debates that happen regularly during the election cycles. Politico did a gig on this stuff some time ago for the top 2008 election gaffes and there are infinitely more out there. Probably better in some cases to leave them be, since the media latches onto them and they can boil over, unless of course they're spitting them out like machine gun fire.

Are you saying Bachmann's statements haven't been more 'out there' than is usual for politicians?

 

[leftysergeant]

Fact of the matter is politicians make these statements all the time. It's just the simple ones that get sensationalized by the media and are usually the campaign killers.

What tofu-for-brains Bachmann does cannot be considered a gaffe. These a policies that the blithering imbecvile really means, like that garbage about cutting veterans' benefits.

Will the press seize on that and try to kill her campaign? They damned well better. That is what they are there for, i.e., to see that jackasses unfit to command never become Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces.

Politico did a gig on this stuff some time ago for the top 2008 election gaffes and there are infinitely more out there. Probably better in some cases to leave them be, since the media latches onto them and they can boil over, unless of course they're spitting them out like machine gun fire.

Out of Bachman's mouth comes only a steady stream of plant nutrients which, if properly distributed, could grow grass on a bowling ball. To ignore that sludge tsunami is to imperil democracy and the security of our nation.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

What tofu-for-brains Bachmann does cannot be considered a gaffe. These a policies that the blithering imbecvile really means, like that garbage about cutting veterans' benefits. Will the press seize on that and try to kill her campaign?

She faced a lot of backlash over that proposal and wound up backing away from it soon afterwards:

“One point on my discussion list was a $4.5 billion proposal that would affect payments made to our veterans,” Bachmann said in a statement. “That has received a lot of attention and I have decided that it should be removed from consideration. The problem of government spending must be solved, but not on the backs of our nation’s war heroes. I have always been a proud supporter of the United States military and I continue to stand with our veterans. In the months ahead I look forward to working with our Veterans Service Organizations to ensure that we fulfill our commitments to those who sacrificed so much in their brave service for our country.”

Source

If she's learned anything from that, she won't be pursuing it further for some obvious reasons. She has enough hurdles to get through just to be considered for nomination as the official candidate.

Out of Bachman's mouth comes only a steady stream of plant nutrients which, if properly distributed, could grow grass on a bowling ball. To ignore that sludge tsunami is to imperil democracy and the security of our nation.

Her advertized policy record clearly won't win over any democrats, but your last sentence does nothing but break the fourth wall.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

Michelle Bachmann is now in the news talking about her miscarriage. That kind of talk is not very MILF like at all. I wonder if she is going to try for a low key campaign and try to glide by on her reputation.

 

[Bri]

You deny you said Obama lied despite the fact I'm not the only one here calling you on your weasel words.

No I didn't. I admitted it, now for the third time. I said that Obama "lies plenty" (with a link to PolitiFact's Obama page) in response to a statement by Magyar who said "please DO point out where the lies are in this because unless I put on my rush limbaugh/ Ann Culter coloured glasses I sure don't see it!"

I have specifically addressed why Politifact's analysis of Obama's claim was flawed. And you claim that isn't what I was talking about?

You have continued to address two different arguments, claiming that they both pertain to PolitiFact's rating of Obama's statement about his health care plan when in fact only one of them does. The straw man argument that preventive care can save money I agree with and have always agreed with. I also agree with PolitiFact's argument that Obama's statement was false. They are not mutually exclusive even though you like to pretend that they are. You continue to address the argument that I already agree with, and pretend that you've somehow addressed the one that PolitiFact actually made.

Where is your evidence of "vast majority"? The one study cited I've addressed. The conclusions are being misinterpreted and I explained why.

As you know, I cited more than one study. The study you're referring to was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The other study was conducted by researchers from the American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society. Let's recap the conclusions that you feel are being misinterpreted by everyone except you.

The findings from the study from the New England Journal of Medicine are pretty clear:

Our findings suggest that the broad generalizations made by many presidential candidates can be misleading. These statements convey the message that substantial resources can be saved through prevention. Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not.​

If you want to argue that it doesn't say what it clearly says -- what PolitiFact, the CBO, and many other sources who cite the article also believe it says -- be my guest. Apparently, everyone misinterprets the study's conclusions but you. Including the study's authors, in an interview to Newsweek:

But only 19 percent of the preventive interventions you looked at ended up saving money. Some cost a lot more.
NEUMANN: One example is prostate-cancer screening. It seems to be inefficient.

You have to spend a lot to catch the few cases that threaten people's health.
NEUMANN: And you might intervene medically when it wasn't necessary. So you get better health at very high costs, or you possibly get even worse health.​

And here is the conclusion of a study on cardiovascular disease by researchers from the American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society:

Aggressive application of nationally recommended prevention activities could prevent a high proportion of the CAD events and strokes that are otherwise expected to occur in adults in the United States today. However, as they are currently delivered, most of the prevention activities will substantially increase costs. If preventive strategies are to achieve their full potential, ways must be found to reduce the costs and deliver prevention activities more efficiently.​

But I suppose everyone but you is misreading that conclusion also, right?

So, let's look at the one authority on the subject that you presumably agree with -- yourself.

Once again...Obama's statement specifically mentioned colonoscopies and mammograms as examples of the preventive care that would be greatly increased under his plan, reducing the monetary costs by catching cancer sooner that would otherwise cost more to treat without those procedures. Your own analysis supports the fact that increasing colonoscopies and mammograms would not save money compared to treating the cancer they would prevent:

I specifically addressed those examples. Basic colorectal cancer screening (fecal occult blood test) saves more money than it costs. Colonoscopies don't. Mammogram cost is equal to 30-100% of the saved cancer treatment costs. In both cases medical researchers are looking to better target who to screen and how often to optimize the cost saving. Also, we are getting better at not finding so many false positives. That will save money by reducing the cost of unnecessary follow-up, (a cost which is taken into account in the analyses). It may be that in the near future the screening tests do cost less than the cost of the cancer they prevent.​

So colonoscopies and mammograms don't save money, but they might save money at some point in the "near future." But of course, Obama wasn't talking about the future when he made the statement. He was talking about his (at the time) current health care plan. So while your analysis supports your straw man argument (which nobody has disagreed with) they also support PolitiFact's ruling.

I've addressed this as well. You are welcome to rely on the sources you find authoritative. If you were more knowledgeable about the subject we could debate the issues. But you aren't and when I addressed why the CBO and the one cited study was wrong, you were unable to discuss the issues.

Oh, right. Everyone else but you misinterprets all of the evidence that disagrees with you, and anyone who disagrees with your reasons why all of the evidence is misinterpreted isn't knowledgeable enough about the subject to debate it with you.

Except that your own statements support PolitiFact's rating.

-Bri

 

[bikerdruid]

Her advertized policy record clearly won't win over any democrats.....

nor should it win over any 'thinking, moral person'.
one example....she obviously favours insane bonuses for executives, as she is clearly against giving shareholders/stockholders any say in the matter.
she is in favour of hate crinmes towards queers, she is agaisnt women having control over their bodies, and in favour of christian influence on government.

the woman is as big a moron as palin....and that's quite an accomplishment.
again, it seems that the american right has very low expectations of its leaders.

 

[Nova Land]

You deny you said Obama lied despite the fact I'm not the only one here calling you on your weasel words.

No I didn't. I admitted it, now for the third time. I said that Obama "lies plenty" (with a link to PolitiFact's Obama page)...

One more time.

AlBell claimed that Obama lies frequently. But instead of posting a clear statement of that claim, AlBell made an oblique claim (referring to Obama as "liar-in-chief"); and instead of posting clear examples to support that claim, AlBell simply posted a naked link.

Magyar and I requested AlBell to make the claim clear and, if the claim were what it sounded like (that Obama lies frequently) to provide examples.

AlBell never took up that request. But you did. You appeared to state the claim clearly when you said that Obama "lies plenty".

Like AlBell, you refused to provide the evidence clearly. First you simply posted a link. Then you posted a long list of statements culled from the link, without any attempt to explain what was dishonest about the statements.

When AlBell pulled the naked link stunt, I pointed out that when people have a valid point supported by good evidence they tend to be happy to provide the evidence -- and when they don't have good evidence, they tend to pull stunts such as the one AlBell (and subsequently you) did.

And I was correct. What you were initially claiming to be a list of Obama's lies you now admit was not a list of his lies. It was a list of Obama statements with which PolitiFact disagreed. (Believing somebody is wrong about an issue is not the same as believing someone is a liar.)

Buried within that list may be examples of lies. And if there are, and if you care to dig them out, AlBell's and your claim that Obama lies frequently can be examined to see if it has merit. But the fact that you didn't care to present those examples clearly, even when asked several times to do so, does not speak well for you or the claim.

So, to recap:

1. You made a claim that Obama "lies plenty".
2. You posted a link, implying it was to a list of Obama's lies. It wasn't.
3. You posted a list of statements by Obama, implying it was a list of Obama's lies. It wasn't.
4. You were asked which of the statements on the list were examples of significant lies that Obama had made. You dodged the question.
5. Skeptic Ginger and others took one of the items from the list and demonstrated it was not a lie.
6. You agreed it was not a lie, but (briefly) claimed you had never said it was.
7. Having been shown the record of what you said, you now agree that you claimed Obama lies plenty. And you agree that this statement was part of a list you provided as examples of Obama's plentiful lies. But you also say you didn't intend to call this particular statement an example of a lie, and that if your words are parsed carefully enough you didn't.
8. You seem to be saying that providing a laundry list of Obama statements with which PolitiFact takes issue and passing it off as a list of Obama's numerous lies isn't actually a misstatement or lie on your part.

Sorry, but I call Pants-On-Fire on that last bit. If you claim to be providing a long list of Obama's lies in order to support your statement that Obama "lies plenty", then the items on that list need to be examples of statements you believe to be lies. Padding the list with statements you now admit are not lies -- and which you appear to be saying you knew at the time were not lies -- is dishonest.

You had numerous opportunities to clarify the situation. You failed to do so. And, as SezMe pointed out, rather than genuinely admit your error you keep on trying to defend it.

I said that Obama "lies plenty" (with a link to PolitiFact's Obama page) in response to a statement by Magyar who said "please DO point out where the lies are in this because unless I put on my rush limbaugh/ Ann Coulter coloured glasses I sure don't see it!"

And in doing so proved Magyar was right.

You said the reason AlBell didn't provide examples of lies Obama has told is becuase there are so many -- and as an example you provided the statement that

Preventive care "saves money."​

Now it may be possible to view the statement that preventive care saves money through Rush Limbaugh-colored glasses or Ann Coulter-colored glasses and see that as a lie. But for reasonable people, that is not an example of a lie.

Which it appears we are in agreement on now. If I am reading your recent posts correctly, you are no longer claiming that statement to be a lie. (Indeed, you seem to be saying you never intended to call it a lie.) It is, instead, exactly the kind of thing Magyar was talking about.

This long digression away from the topic of the thread began with the claim that Obama lies frequently. You appeared to defend that claim, appeared to say examples of Obama's lies are plentiful, and provided a long list which you appeared to be saying was an example of such lies. If you had said clearly at the beginning that you could not find many examples of Obama telling lies, but you did have lots examples of Obama saying things which not everyone agrees with, this digression could have been avoided and a greater percentage of this Michelle Bachmann thread would actually be about Michelle Bachmann.

 

[leftysergeant]

She faced a lot of backlash over that proposal and wound up backing away from it soon afterwards:

Source

If she's learned anything from that, she won't be pursuing it further for some obvious reasons. She has enough hurdles to get through just to be considered for nomination as the official candidate.

That the stupid twit ever proposed it shows that she has a problem engaging her brain when operating on a problem. She is unfit for command.

 

[Bri]

AlBell never took up that request. But you did. You appeared to state the claim clearly when you said that Obama "lies plenty".

As I have said now FOUR times, the phrase "lies plenty" was in an offhand response to Magyar's statement which contained the word, not to you and not in the post where I listed all of Obama's false statements. Magyar said "please DO point out where the lies are in this because unless I put on my rush limbaugh/ Ann Culter coloured glasses I sure don't see it!"

You had numerous opportunities to clarify the situation. You failed to do so. And, as SezMe pointed out, rather than genuinely admit your error you keep on trying to defend it.

I've admitted it now FOUR times! I don't know how much clearer I could be! Get over it already!

...provided a long list which you appeared to be saying was an example of such lies.

No, I never meant to imply that the statements in the long list were intentionally false, just that they were false. I don't think one can easily determine someone's intentions when they make a statement (that goes for Bachmann too, and for some reason nobody seemed to care if anyone referred to her false statements as "lies"). If that's really what you thought I meant, then I apologize.

Unfortunately, Obama undermines his credibility when he makes false statements (intentionally or otherwise), which makes it far too easy for his opponents to try to equate them with the falsehoods of Bachmann or others.

If you had said clearly at the beginning that you could not find many examples of Obama telling lies, but you did have lots examples of Obama saying things which not everyone agrees with, this digression could have been avoided and a greater percentage of this Michelle Bachmann thread would actually be about Michelle Bachmann.

Wrong. The digression was because bikerdruid (who understood what I meant) asked "are you saying that all of those statements are false?" And then when I replied yes, he asked about the specific statement in question.

As far as I can tell, you're the only one hung up on my use of the term "lies" which was from a post replying to someone else, not you.

-Bri

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Again, it seems that the american right has very low expectations of its leaders.

I think we have low expectations for our leaders in general.

nor should it win over any 'thinking, moral person'.
one example....she obviously favours insane bonuses for executives, as she is clearly against giving shareholders/stockholders any say in the matter.
she is in favour of hate crinmes towards queers, she is agaisnt women having control over their bodies, and in favour of christian influence on government.

If Bachman decides to campaign on a platform of anti-gay rights, anti-abortion, and actively trying to inject religion into government I'm unlikely to vote for her.

My original point however was that stupid gaffes which have been the main talking point against her here are inevitable during campaigns and I've learned to expect some pretty stupid ones after hearing them between Biden, Palin, Obama, and McCain during the 2008 elections. The focus on those, rather than the policies you just highlighted from my link was what I found to be absolutely ridiculous. My low opinion of the candidates and those voters posting here comes from the fact that while their criticisms may be legitimate for these candidates they are more than willing to ignore material that fits their standards of fecal claims from the candidates whom they favor. Congress has been having nothing but pissing matches since 2006.