• 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 Bachman...Moron?

eeyore1954 said:
If I had to choose one it would be dishonest if I believed she meant all of them. There were certainly many of them that were very much against slavery and did fight against it.
Click to expand...
What about the whole "color didn't matter" thing? Moronic or dishonest?

While I tend to agree with you that she's mainly being dishonest, as lies go, these are extremely clumsy and . . . well moronic.

I don't think the claim that she is moronic necessarily means that she believes what she's saying.

I think it means that her falsehoods are so egregious that not even most school children would believe them.

And I realize nearly all politicians tell lies at least from time to time. I think it's fair to call these particular lies "moronic".

ETA: I guess this is a long-winded way of saying that the fact that she is being dishonest doesn't rule out her being moronic.
 
Last edited:
eeyore1954 said:
I am against the general misuse of the words moronic, idiotic etc as pejoratives to describe people who obviously have at least average intelligence.

If I had to choose one it would be dishonest if I believed she meant all of them. There were certainly many of them that were very much against slavery and did fight against it.
Click to expand...

It might be possible to agree with you if there were only two or three instances of this over the period she has been making public pronouncements/speeches/interviews - or if she was making extemporaneous speeches having no prep/prep time. That, however, is not the case. Many of her "mis-statements/perceptions" have been in situations where she had been prepared by her handlers chosen preparers, yet she still made moron level errors and did not think and try to correct them. I really do believe there are toys in the attic, not grown up stuff. And, I am really sure the evidence is on my side on this.
 
dc1971 said:
I gotta ask... Who the heck voted for her??
Click to expand...

I suspect as someone already said voters who are party loyal and would vote for whoever the GOP nominated.

I also suspect a portion of her votes came from extremely misinformed people with very squirrelly ideas about U.S. history, and government (and creationism and so on too). She seems happy to do her best to keep them misinformed.
 
eeyore1954 said:
There were certainly many of them that were very much against slavery and did fight against it.
Click to expand...
But none - or at least very few - of the founding fathers fought against slavery "until it was gone." I imagine most or all of them were dead at the time the Emancipation Proclamation was issued.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I suspect as someone already said voters who are party loyal and would vote for whoever the GOP nominated.

I also suspect a portion of her votes came from extremely misinformed people with very squirrelly ideas about U.S. history, and government (and creationism and so on too). She seems happy to do her best to keep them misinformed.
Click to expand...

This too is what I think goes on, Joe. We need to stop letting the politicians off the hook by calling them dumb, moronic, etc...They're not. They generally know what they're doing and who they need to keep on their side to stay in power.

Just a thought: If you support them, hold their feet to the fire. If you don't support them, then don't fall into the trap of calling them names and stirring up a hornet's nest that gives them publicity.
 
DJW said:
We need to stop letting the politicians off the hook by calling them dumb, moronic, etc...They're not.
Click to expand...

They may or may not be moronic (I do think Bachmann's lies are moronic), but I don't see how these kinds of criticisms are letting them off the hook.

I think remaining silent would be more like letting them off the hook.

Expressing outrage at Bachmann's outrageous statements is the right thing to do, IMO.
 
Elizabeth I said:
But none - or at least very few - of the founding fathers fought against slavery "until it was gone." I imagine most or all of them were dead at the time the Emancipation Proclamation was issued.
Click to expand...

And I might be willing to let that slide as a simple goofy misstatement (meaning that one of the founding fathers pushed for abolition until his dying day), if that were the only thing she said. Trouble is, it was pretty much a string of laughably false statements.
 
Well, if you think of the "Founding Fathers" as being the signatories to the Declaration of Independence, and assuming that this site contains correct information, none of the Founding Fathers lived past 1832, the year in which Charles Carroll of Carrollton died. (George Washington died in 1799.)

So, nope, none of them fought "until it was gone" to end slavery.

(Checking "Charles Carroll of Carrollton" on wikipedia shows this: "He was the only Catholic and the longest-lived (and last surviving) signatory of the Declaration of Independence, dying at the age of 95.")

eta: Re: Bachmann, I am appalled that someone who is a member of the Congress of the United States is either so ignorant of U.S. history, or so openly duplicitous, as to say stuff like this. I don't have much respect for the honesty of our elected officials, but I do at least give most of them credit for trying to hide their lies.
 
Last edited:
Elizabeth I said:
eta: Re: Bachmann, I am appalled that someone who is a member of the Congress of the United States is either so ignorant of U.S. history, or so openly duplicitous, as to say stuff like this.
Click to expand...


Hey, there are a few members of Congress who believe the old myth that all the 9/11 hijackers entered the United States from Canada. Even recent history gets the shaft sometimes.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
They may or may not be moronic (I do think Bachmann's lies are moronic), but I don't see how these kinds of criticisms are letting them off the hook.

I think remaining silent would be more like letting them off the hook.

Expressing outrage at Bachmann's outrageous statements is the right thing to do, IMO.
Click to expand...

I agree that remaining silent would aslo give them a pass. However, my point (as difficult as it is for me to get it across) is that the name calling justifies the other sides' opinion of the opposition, e.g. "You have Bush/Obama derangement, therefore I no longer need to listen to you". Furthermore, "the person I voted for was the best selection". It would be better if you simply put out the correct information. The obvious problem being that there's so much info, who knows what's right/wrong/sort of right/sort of wrong etc...

The politicians know this. I bet Michelle Bachmann gets all warm and fuzzy when someone calls her a moron, as much as Biden smiles when he get's called on his stupid gaffes. It's a big publicity game for them.
 
DJW said:
I agree that remaining silent would aslo give them a pass. However, my point (as difficult as it is for me to get it across) is that the name calling justifies the other sides' opinion of the opposition, e.g. "You have Bush/Obama derangement, therefore I no longer need to listen to you". Furthermore, "the person I voted for was the best selection". It would be better if you simply put out the correct information.
Click to expand...


I don't think name-calling excludes putting out the correct information (or even substantiating why the name is deserved).

Even one of Bachmann's defenders here agrees she was lying. Would it be wrong to point out that she's a liar? Or just wrong to phrase it as name-calling rather than saying she tells lies? (In other words, what if the thread title said that Bachmann's statements were moronic?)

I think criticizing Bachmann for valid and rational reasons is a good thing. Even when you do that, you'll have her defenders dismissing it as you suggested.

I don't think the fact that people who aren't thinking rationally will dismiss rational criticism is any reason to fuss over how you word that criticism.

ETA: FWIW, I also don't think that having one's reasonable criticism irrationally dismissed is the same thing as giving Bachmann a pass.
 
Last edited:
I think just calling them a politician and doing some leg work on what they're saying should be enough. I see no problem calling them manipulative. Aside from being redundant, calling them liars is hard to prove. I prefer willful ignorance. Is that lying?

Is this a game or semantics, or do words mean things that have important distinctions?

I really don't know why I react the way I do when I hear people called morons, when they just aren't.

This is why it's best that I lurk.:)
 
DJW said:
I really don't know why I react the way I do when I hear people called morons, when they just aren't.
Click to expand...

If you're referring to Bachmann, then I disagree.

I suspect maybe you're using a more restrictive usage of "moron" than I am. I'm not suggesting she would score low on a standardized test, but it is certainly moronic to say the things she said--even if she doesn't believe them herself. If you mean "moron" in some technical way (like someone mentally retarded), then of course it doesn't fit. I take it, in this case anyway, to mean lacking any sort of reasonable judgement.

Every high school student in the United States knows that when talking about people who came to America, they were not all treated the same regardless of the color of their skin, the language they spoke and so on. Even kids who couldn't find their own state on a map of the U.S. are aware of racism and prejudice in our history. So it's moronic of her to say such things--whether or not she believes them.

Any way, I think I know what you're getting at. Invalid criticism hurts the credibility of valid criticism. (That's why I get flat out angry, for example, at 9/11 CTists. They really helped undermine a lot of legitimate criticism of the Bush administration during those times.)

It's also similar to Bill Mahrer's comment about the term "cowardly" being used for suicide terrorists. It's a question of accuracy. While they were certainly murderous zealots, they weren't cowards.

In this case, though, I think even dismissing the notion that Bachmann believes the nonsensical things she says, her saying those things is nevertheless moronic.

And I think pointing it out doesn't give her a pass. (Speaking of accuracy, even if this were simply unsubstantiated name-calling in response to her speech, it wouldn't be giving her a pass.)
 
I dunno, Joe. Certainly Michelle Bachman has said a lot of stupid things, but she's obviously doing so mostly for the purposes of manipulating her political base. That may be ultimately unwise and poor judgment, but moronic? I have to think that someone that adept at manipulation is hardly a moron. Short-sighted, wrong-headed, maybe even hateful and bigoted, but moronic? I just don't agree with the adjective. It sounds too much like name-calling and demonization, which I think is the bane of civil political discussion.

Bachman is not moronic. She is a is a reasonably adept political manipulator. Not the best, by any means, but not the worst. I doubt she is good enough to have any national aspirations, but I've been wrong about that before. (I thought GW Bush was destined to be no more than a governor of Texas. I had no idea he would be able to do so much harm.)
 
She's not a moron, she's playing to morons. There are people who absolutely believe what she said. They're the same people who voted her in.

It's ultimately a bad move, as it drives away support that she would need to actually get anything done. Sure the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but only during election years.
 
Moron?

She's dangerous and smarter than Sarah Palin (take that as you will), and for some reason is actually in power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom