Bachmann cranks the hyperbole knob to 11

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why should I speculate?

You are doing a pretty good job of it. But keep in mind that you could be shown in an instant to be a complete fool, should the transcript or a full video turn up.

You've got nothing but a very brief AP commentary. Not very impressive, spinmeister.

Nothing but direct quotes of what Michelle Bachmann said. Why do you claim it's speculation?

I asked you before, do you think AP made up the quotes? Do you think the story is a hoax?

As it stands, the sum total of the evidence is this story and the fact that Bachmann has said outrageous things before.

Your position that she was saying something reasonable about the federal budget and the Holocaust is not what the evidence points to. It's not a reasonable position.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

When you get to the part about the gas chambers it all makes sense...

Wait a second. . . is this about healthcare reform again?

 

[leftysergeant]

Maybe she wants to retire from Congress. Even her home district doesn't look like that easy a win right now, which is kind of embarrassing if you are trying to get nominated for POTUS.

She probably wants to go to work for the Onion. That's the only context in which any of her blather would make sense.

 

[mhaze]

Nothing but direct quotes of what Michelle Bachmann said. Why do you claim it's speculation?

I asked you before, do you think AP made up the quotes? Do you think the story is a hoax?

As it stands, the sum total of the evidence is this story and the fact that Bachmann has said outrageous things before.

Your position that she was saying something reasonable about the federal budget and the Holocaust is not what the evidence points to. It's not a reasonable position.

You don't have a position, and you don't have a story. Not until you've got a video, or a transcript. But keep going, it does your cause harm.

As for my position?

Well, it is that you've ignored the major content of that talk, ignored my comment on the poor way that someone who ridiculed her major content would appear, and you've focused on what is assumed a minor ... tiny blunder in speech in that speech.

And, you've erred in thinking anyone would care.

That is basically what my position is. It's very simple. I don't have to make things up, you see.

 

[Puppycow]

So here's the evidence on the side that she did indeed make this comparison:



So the burden of proof now shifts to the other side (the side you're defending) to show that there is something inaccurate about this AP story.

The fact that she denies making an analogy but explicitly says the two things are "similar" just shows that she's also not very good with language. (And try to parse the grammar of that "eclipse" sentence! I attribute that to being live speech rather than written text. I think she really wanted to use the verb "eclipse" because she thought it sounded cool, even though saying today's federal budgets in the U.S. "eclipse" the horrors of the Holocaust is even more outrageous than saying the two things are similar.)

Thank you. That is exactly what I'm referring to. Here's the definition(s) of analogy:

a·nal·o·gy

noun /əˈnaləjē/ 
analogies, plural

1. A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification
* - an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies
* - he interprets logical functions by analogy with machines

2. A correspondence or partial similarity
* - the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia

3. A thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects
* - works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature

4. A process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects

5. A process by which new words and inflections are created on the basis of regularities in the form of existing ones

6. The resemblance of function between organs that have a different evolutionary origin

First she says that "there is no analogy" but then argues that taxes are "similar."

 

[mhaze]

Nothing but direct quotes of what Michelle Bachmann said. Why do you claim it's speculation?

I asked you before, do you think AP made up the quotes? Do you think the story is a hoax?

As it stands, the sum total of the evidence is this story and the fact that Bachmann has said outrageous things before.

Your position that she was saying something reasonable about the federal budget and the Holocaust is not what the evidence points to. It's not a reasonable position.

I'm sure you can produce a full transcript or youtube video supporting your claims. These days, there should not be any need for you to rely on a news story for your single crutch to spin propaganda.

So, Joe, let us have a link that shows the whole talk or a substantial part of it.

That shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Puppycow]

ADL condemns statements from Bachmann and Huckabee

 

[thaiboxerken]

If Fox didn't cover it, it didn't happen...

 

[I Am The Scum]

Mhaze will not rest until he sees the long form transcript!

Though, let's be honest, this is not the first time Bachmann has said something extremely stupid.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You don't have a position, and you don't have a story.

That's a lie. You've several times acknowledged the existence of the AP story. Unless or until you have evidence that AP conspired to falsify the story and invent quotes, that, together with past evidence of Bachmann's inability to think on her feet, is enough evidence to accept that she did indeed compare federal budget issues with the Holocaust.

Not until you've got a video, or a transcript.

And this no doubt:

Mhaze will not rest until he sees the long form transcript!

______

and you've focused on what is assumed a minor ... tiny blunder in speech in that speech.

Assumed by whom? The consensus on this thread is that it's a pretty big thing to compare your opponent's position on the budget and taxes to the Holocaust.

Isn't that why you started off by trying to argue that she didn't make that comparison?

That is basically what my position is. It's very simple. I don't have to make things up, you see.

Your continued demand for a video or a transcript means you believe the news story is faked. That is, in fact, a conspiracy theory.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I never said it was not sufficient evidence.

Ah, I see. You just merely said that it was premature to believe the AP story, and that without seeing a transcript or a video it's merely speculation that Bachmann actually compared federal budget issues to the Holocaust.

What exactly do you think "sufficient evidence" means?


Remember posting the following?

You don't have a position, and you don't have a story. Not until you've got a video, or a transcript.

You should because I quoted it in my post to which you are now responding.

 

[mhaze]

Ah, I see. You just merely said that it was premature to believe the AP story, and that without seeing a transcript or a video it's merely speculation that Bachmann actually compared federal budget issues to the Holocaust.

What exactly do you think "sufficient evidence" means?
.....

BWAHAHAHAH!

I just heard on tv, O'Reilly say "we don't on this program make a story based on secondary sources". And that's really all you've got here. You don't have a transcript or a full video. Your standards are thus lower than Fox News, whom you hate.

There is not any need for you to make a big deal out of it, and no need for you to misrepresent my statements. For you, the singular AP story is sufficient evidence to condemn Bachmann. For me, it is not. But hey, keep on going, who knows you might get somewhere not nowhere.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0722-21.htm

http://brighthall.aol.com/2008/07/21/the-associated-press-gives-in/

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner...25/example-aps-bias-favor-illegal-immigration

Naw....

 

[maxpower1227]

Wow, mhaze is really digging in here in his defense of Michele Bachmann, isn't he? The woman who once JAQed off out loud about Obama maybe possibly having something to do with swine flu? That Michele Bachmann?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

There is not any need for you to make a big deal out of it, and no need for you to misrepresent my statements.

When did I do that?

For you, the singular AP story is sufficient evidence to condemn Bachmann. For me, it is not.

For at least the third time, do you think the AP conspired to invent these quotes and write a false news story?

I'm not sure why you're avoiding this question. Either you think that and you're a paranoid CTist, or you accept the AP story as true, and you're defending Bachmann dogmatically--that is, regardless of or in spite of the evidence.

Also, I've several times pointed out that this article isn't the sum total of the evidence. There is also Bachmann's history of making outrageous statements. People have linked to at least a couple of examples, and there are others.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I just heard on tv, O'Reilly say "we don't on this program make a story based on secondary sources". And that's really all you've got here. You don't have a transcript or a full video. Your standards are thus lower than Fox News, whom you hate.

What a messed up bit of "reasoning" this is. First, you're asking me to accept as a premise a claim made by Bill O'Reilly in order to conclude that Fox News has high journalistic standards.

Second, I notice you're trying hard to go off topic and bring up Fox News' journalistic standards.

Really? O'Reilly? This helps your dogged attempt at defending Bachmann?

 

[mhaze]

.....For at least the third time, do you think the AP conspired to invent these quotes and write a false news story?

I'm not sure why you're avoiding this question. Either you think that and you're a paranoid CTist....

Oh, yes that is priceless logic. Misrepresent, then accuse based on the misrepresentation, then reframe to conspiracy, then accuse again.

All because someone asked for actual transcripts or full video of the event in question.

Well, the reason you have to do that is you don't have much in the way of facts. But you won't admit that, so you have to try to go on the offense.

..........I've several times pointed out that this article isn't the sum total of the evidence. There is also Bachmann's history of making outrageous statements. People have linked to at least a couple of examples, and there are others.

Frankly I couldn't care less about this alleged "evidence". There is your history of making outrageous statements to which people have linked to at least a couple of examples, and there are others. So why should anyone believe you when you (a) use extensive arguing tactics to cover up weak understanding of facts (b) have a history of outrageous statements?

 

[Cuddles]

Stop the name calling.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Oh, yes that is priceless logic. Misrepresent, then accuse based on the misrepresentation, then reframe to conspiracy, then accuse again.

Again, where when and what did I misrepresent?

You reject the AP story as evidence that Bachmann said what she said. So do you believe AP fabricated the quotes and falsified the story? That sounds like a CT to me.

All because someone asked for actual transcripts or full video of the event in question.

Yes. That sounds just like Birther thinking. You reject perfectly valid evidence of an event.

Well, the reason you have to do that is you don't have much in the way of facts. But you won't admit that, so you have to try to go on the offense.

You're grasping at straws. What evidence do you have that the AP story is false or even misleading?

What evidence do you have that it's a secondary source? (Myself, I imagine there was a reporter at the event who transcribed the words he or she heard Bachmann speak. While it's not a complete transcript of the event, it is a transcript.)

Frankly I couldn't care less about this alleged "evidence".

Yes, it's obvious that the evidence doesn't matter to you.

There is your history of making outrageous statements to which people have linked to at least a couple of examples, and there are others.

That's a false statement, and an ad hominem argument (the topic is Bachmann's speech, not mine).

So why should anyone believe you when you (a) use extensive arguing tactics to cover up weak understanding of facts (b) have a history of outrageous statements?

I'm not asking anyone to believe me. I didn't cover the story. I don't claim to have been there when Bachmann made these outrageous statements.

So why do you believe that the AP didn't have a reporter there who accurately transcribed Bachmann's words and did not misrepresent what she said? I have see zero evidence that suggests this, so you have no reason at all to reject the AP story.

 

[mhaze]

....
Yes. That sounds just like Birther thinking. You reject perfectly valid evidence of an event.


You're grasping at straws. What evidence do you have that the AP story is false or even misleading?

What evidence do you have that it's a secondary source? (Myself, I imagine there was a reporter at the event who transcribed the words he or she heard Bachmann speak. While it's not a complete transcript of the event, it is a transcript.)



Yes, it's obvious that the evidence doesn't matter to you.


That's a false statement, and an ad hominem argument (the topic is Bachmann's speech, not mine).


I'm not asking anyone to believe me. I didn't cover the story. I don't claim to have been there when Bachmann made these outrageous statements.

So why do you believe that the AP didn't have a reporter there who accurately transcribed Bachmann's words and did not misrepresent what she said? I have see zero evidence that suggests this, so you have no reason at all to reject the AP story.

Since it seems you didn't notice the obvious, all I did was take your logic, and applied it to you. That's why I concluded that session with the .

It's very odd to be attacked as someone similar to a birther, for just asking for a transcript or video. Short or long form birth certificate are both official copies, but the AP source is not.

Thus, you misrepresent yet again.

I've associated with some of these people directly (AP, Reuters, etc), and know people who are court reporters. They understand the difference between their professions, a giant difference. But not to you.

Not only that, but you ridicule the very idea of someone wanting a transcript or video. I can't think of anyone at AP or Reuters doing anything but laughing at you for that, Joe.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Since it seems you didn't notice the obvious, all I did was take your logic, and applied it to you.

Actually you didn't. My logic was the refutation of your claim that there isn't enough evidence to believe that Bachmann compared the federal budget to the Holocaust. Specifically, it refuted your claim that the AP story was all of the evidence.

I made no such claim with regard to anything I said. So you couldn't possibly have been using my logic.

And on top of that, as I pointed out, it is false that there are examples of me saying something outrageous and that others on this thread have commented on them and provided links.

It's very odd to be attacked as someone similar to a birther, for just asking for a transcript or video. Short or long form birth certificate are both official copies, but the AP source is not.

There is no such thing as an "official copy" of what Bachmann said in front of the public, including the media. To spell out the analogy to Birther thinking: just as Birthers wouldn't accept perfectly legitimate evidence of something so to are you refusing to accept perfectly legitimate evidence of something. Just as they demanded more and unnecessary evidence of Obama's place of birth, so too are you demanding more and unnecessary evidence that Bachmann said what the AP article says she did.

Thus, you misrepresent yet again.

I keep asking you to show where I have misrepresented anything, and you continue to fail to show it.

I've associated with some of these people directly (AP, Reuters, etc), and know people who are court reporters. Giant difference. But not to you.

Bachmann's statements were in front of an audience of conservatives and the media; they were not in court. A court transcript is unnecessary, not possible (since it wasn't court) and irrelevant.


So for about the 4th or 5th time, I ask you, do you think the AP reporter falsified the Bachmann quotes and misrepresented what happened?

If no, then why do you want something more as evidence that she made those statements?

If yes, then what is your evidence for the claim that the AP reporter misquoted Bachmann and misrepresented what she said?

I predict you will continue to evade this simple question because either way your position is untenable.