• 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.

Ed More Bachmann silliness

jj said:
But it's pretty clear to me that all of the wingnuts have been put in place to make a Gingerich/Romney ticket look "mostly harmless".
Click to expand...


Often it seems that the sanest candidate is the one with the magic underwear.

-- Roger
 
Last edited:
Who? I thought this was about Stephen King writing under a pseudonym. I don't know that there's any other Bachman worth talking about.
 
I'm in favor of less Bachmann silliness.

No, actually I'm not. Comic relief is good no matter what the means of conveyance.
 
steve s said:
Wasn't this war supposed to pay for itself?

Steve S
Click to expand...

Well, there some of the stupid, lying pro-war people who claimed that the war would pay for itself by use of Iraqi oil revenues; but events did clearly proove that the war would not pay for itself.
 
Puppycow said:
Bachmann: I Would Close Our (Non-Existent) Embassy In Iran

Hey, great idea! How come nobody thought of it before? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

To be fair, the exact words were

That's exactly what I would do. We wouldn’t have an embassy in Iran. I wouldn’t allow that to be there.

And while it was a clumsy choice of words, I actually believe it when she claims that she meant to be talking as if they would have had an embassy there.

Funny thing is that the quote I just pulled does not even say that it's what she would have done if she was president. That appears to have been added by Andrea Mitchell, and then later turned into the following by the ABC News:

That's exactly what I would do [if i were president]. We wouldn’t have an embassy in Iran. I wouldn’t allow that to be there.

Yep, that certainly looks bad.
But of course, it's just as easily to insert:

That's exactly what I would do [if i were them]. We wouldn’t have an embassy in Iran. I wouldn’t allow that to be there.

And suddenly, the statement makes a lot more sense, doesn't it? This time, it looks like she says what she would have done if she was in the British Government, who did up until now have an embassy in Iran.

And this comes from someone who would really rather not have her anywhere near the presidency at all. But I'd rather she was defeated through proper means, not through altered quoting that can, unaltered, easily have several different meanings, and the most obvious one making much more sense.


------
ETA: By the way, I've been editing this post quite a few times to make sure it says what I wanted to say. If you quoted me while I was busy editing, I apologise if that means my point seemed to change. I'm done editing now.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Hawk One! I had not actually read the link, but you appear correct.
 
tyr_13 said:
Thanks Hawk One! I had not actually read the link, but you appear correct.
Click to expand...

For now.

If someone can show me an unaltered quote where it's clear that she's talking about how she'd act as a US president, then I must obviously take such new facts into consideration.
 
I started a separate thread on another bit of Bachmania (I think the same day as this one), but it quickly faded. She apparently thinks we should model our social programs on those of China (which she claims has no modern welfare state). After all, China is growing, so it's proof we can cancel the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (never mind that that program hasn't existed since '96 when it was replaced with the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program). And never mind that her claim that the People's Republic of China has no food for needy families programs is false. For example. And that it's no more or less true to say the Chinese save for their own retirement than to say that Americans do as well. (In fact, the Chinese pension system is even struggling with the same changing demographics due to people living longer that our Social Security system is struggling with.)

Here's the quote:

Bachmann said:
I think, really, what I would want to do is be able to go back and take a look at Lyndon Baines Johnson's Great Society ... The Great Society has not worked and it's put us into the modern welfare state.

If you look at China, they don't have food stamps. If you look at China, they're in a very different situation. They don't have AFDC [Aid to Families with Dependent Children]. They save for their own retirement security. They don't have the modern welfare state. And China's growing. And so what I would do is look at the programs that LBJ gave us with the Great Society and they'd be gone.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom