Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Clevelander17

Michelle Bachmann

Recommended Posts

^^You certainly name some of the views of hers I find reprehensible.  But I guess I don't know why that doesn't make her get compared to Santorum (who I also have, er, very negative views of) as opposed to Palin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I have never seen a political forum that is more oppresively moderated than the political forums on this board."

 

Probably because the Admins understand that forumers will want to have political discussions and we try to accomodate, but at the same time, we don't get paid to clean up the aftermath of politically-charged fights. This isn't a politics forum at heart, and on plenty of other city-focused forums comparable to UrbanOhio - this type of discussion wouldn't even be allowed.

 

 

As respectfully as I can, may I state that this thread/topic is clearly a political thread and should be granted the greatest leniency possible within the spirit of free speach concepts.  I do not see that happening here. 

 

I will now accept my supension for being off topic. 

 

Tedolph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tedolph... move on.  You seem to be holding a grudge because you got suspended.  Time to get over it.

 

Now, I don't know what you did to get suspended, but just be respectful and you'll be ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go to Yahoo, Cleveland.com, or any other loosely moderated forum and take a peak at the comments following political articles.  We don't want that around here.  Well.... I don't, at least.  You also hold no right to free speech on this forum.  Only the government is prohibited from imposing restrictions on speech.  Private businesses can restrict your speech when you are in their establishment.  I can restrict your speech when you are in my house.  There is nothing wrong with the moderators restricting your speech on here.  That is their primary purpose, as a matter of fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm getting a little confused about what (or whose) standards we're supposed to follow. Just as I thought we were supposed to be on board with Jeffery's very welcome admonition that "you'd expect discussion to rise about snarky one-shots and retailing recieved spin" and to not engage in, as he put it, "BS spin and low-grade snark," the following hate-filled diatribe is posted:

"This "woman" (she barely qualifies as human IMO) is a wonderful representation of the many things that are wrong with America today. Her views on homosexuality are disgusting and would be laughable if she and her Westboro Minister-type followers didn't take them so seriously. She clearly has no understanding of what Planned Parenhood is or what this group does. Her views on religion are pretty much what you think, as she has no comprehension of church vs state or our country's origins. Her hypocrisy with entitlements, specifically Medicaid in which she and her husband are beneficiaries of over six figures, is appalling. She was more concerned with Obama's connections to Bill Ayers than say the fact that our country was facing economic holocaust back in '08. She is a politician of the lowest common denominator and she appeals to those who share such hatred for our country, despite claiming to be patriots. Remember that armed and dangerous quote? Wonderful.

 

The only difference between her and Sarah Palin is that she probably has some intelligence behind all that ugliness. I mean, I assume she passed the bar if she practiced as a tax attorney those years. Otherwise, she is, or should be, an embarrassment to women, to conservatives, and to people with an IQ over 60.

 

F her!"

 

I'm not some big fan of Michele Bachmann, but I fail to see how this kind of rant falls within the parameters of a "fairly sophisticated forum with most forumers pretty well informed." Can someone please provide a little clarity? Thanx :wave: (I doubt that this sort of language is used on the MacNeil Lehrer NewsHour or Face the Nation)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you can point out exactly what you disagree with in that post.  Sure, the parting comment and the barely human thing is not necessary, but I can't say I disagree with much more than that.  Her views on homosexualty are disgusting, her views on entitlements and government handouts are highly hypocritical.  She's one of those people who think we should be somewhat of a theocracy but claims to place the constitution above all else.  And she definitely draws her biggest fans from the 'hell in a handbasket' crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you can point out exactly what you disagree with in that post.  Sure, the parting comment and the barely human thing is not necessary, but I can't say I disagree with much more than that.  Her views on homosexualty are disgusting, her views on entitlements and government handouts are highly hypocritical.  She's one of those people who think we should be somewhat of a theocracy but claims to place the constitution above all else.  And she definitely draws her biggest fans from the 'hell in a handbasket' crowd.

the point of my reply was irrelevant to the opinions in the post and whether or not I agree or disagree with any or all of the statements. It was the tone, in which even you just pointed out "the parting comment and the barely human thing is not necessary." I thought the whole point of Jeffery's post was that this kind of incivility was not welcome here. So, is it, or isn't it? Or did I somehow misinterpret his remarks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Jeffrey was just stating his opinion/preference.  If you are curious as to the forum rules, they are available for viewing, I believe.  Funny though, I've never seen you throw that accusation at someone for uncivilly attacking Obama and other liberals.  Matter of fact, I'm pretty sure I could find a post or ten of yours that has the same tone.  Be careful throwing stones in a glass house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we all agree to click that "report to moderator" link every time we feel someone has gotten out of line instead of having these tit for tat airing of laundry sessions every so often.  I think the moderators here on your average day and average forum topic are pretty reasonable people that will consider your reasoning for why something should be moderated if you just go through the effort to explain why.  If you already do this awesome waffles to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like when someone makes a comment like "She really is a loathsome human"? I too hope we can put an end to these kinds of remarks.

 

Im talking more about comments like this one....

 

 

You sure know alot about Tea Party factions...  you learn all that watching Rachel Maddow?

 

...which is directed at a forumer, not a public figure.  Just address the content, not degenerate into a sarcastic attack.

 

  Yeah, I've done personal attacks too, usually toward the more liberal forumers like KJP and Boreas, believe it or not,  but I usually self-edit them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, back to Bachman.

 

I dont know much about her and so far what I'm reading here it sounds like she's replaced Huckabee as the candidate of the religous right wing of the GOP, plus apparenlty some Tea Party support.  So a good join of these two populist tendancies within the GOP, perhaps? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you can point out exactly what you disagree with in that post.  Sure, the parting comment and the barely human thing is not necessary, but I can't say I disagree with much more than that.  Her views on homosexualty are disgusting, her views on entitlements and government handouts are highly hypocritical.  She's one of those people who think we should be somewhat of a theocracy but claims to place the constitution above all else.  And she definitely draws her biggest fans from the 'hell in a handbasket' crowd.

the point of my reply was irrelevant to the opinions in the post and whether or not I agree or disagree with any or all of the statements. It was the tone, in which even you just pointed out "the parting comment and the barely human thing is not necessary." I thought the whole point of Jeffery's post was that this kind of incivility was not welcome here. So, is it, or isn't it? Or did I somehow misinterpret his remarks?

 

Consider the ratio of substance to BS. There was a sufficient amount of substance to look over the incivility. It's subjective, but you can't deny there was a significant amount of substance.

 

Also importantly, the incivility was not directed toward a user on this board. That's the really ugly stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any truth to the rumor that she would select former Dayton mayor and current U.S. Congressman (OH-3) Mike Turner as her running mate?  I think they believe that he could really help her kick her campaign into overdrive.  They'd be taking care of business in D.C. for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My tone was certainly ugly, but there was a certain gel and consistency to it that made my two subjective comments, at least from my perspective, a natural fit to my point. Based on her opinions, prejudices, poor character, and overall malice, strong language was warranted, at least when context is provided, as I think I did.

 

But for the sake of decor, I'll tone it down from hereonin.  After all, I'd rather discuss what makes her so despicable  rather than just say it bluntly and loudly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any truth to the rumor that she would select former Dayton mayor and current U.S. Congressman (OH-3) Mike Turner as her running mate?

 

This isnt as odd as it sounds.  Turner is just as socially conservative as she is.  He is a big opponent of gay rights.  He helped orchestrate the defeat of gay rights law here in the city when he was mayor and has repeatedly opposed gay rights while in Congress, repeatedly a co-sponsors of that anti-gay marriage Constitutional amendment.

 

So he has this vague 'moderate' reputation since he does have some 'urban' expertise given his being an inner-city mayor at one time, but he is very much in tune with the social conservative populist strain that Bachman represents.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, but running mates are usually chosen to deliver either a region or a demographic in which the primary nominee is weak.  Of course, that orthodoxy was behind McCain choosing Palin (to deliver the social conservative vote on which McCain was weak), so it doesn't exactly have an unblemished record, but it tends to be the SOP.  Bachmann has shown a lot more political pragmatism than a lot of her opponents give her credit for, given the top-level advisers with national experience in presidential campaigns that she's hired and so forth.  That notwithstanding, she does tend to follow orthodoxy (conservative/Republican orthodoxy, of course) a lot more than she challenges it.  I don't see her changing the standard playbook too much on this, meaning that I predict she would choose a running mate with more appeal to Republican elites (who tend to be slightly more centrist and slightly more economically than socially focused), since her primary appeal is to Republican non-elites.  I don't know who that might be.  Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty (though two Minnesotans on one ticket could be an issue), Rob Portman ... just brainstorming, but I think she'd end up picking someone along those lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.cleveland.com/schultz/index.ssf/2011/06/bachmanns_no_flake_but_she_get.html

 

I think this is all you need to know about this women:

 

Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact, which examines politicians' claims, has analyzed 26 of Bachmann's statements since 2009, and rated only one of them fully true.

 

The tally's breakdown:

 

True 1

 

Mostly True 0

 

Half True 2

 

Barely True 4

 

False 9

 

Pants on Fire 7

 

Can anyone say Glenn Beck in a skirt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason why we keep any political threads at all on this forum is to keep the political silliness out of the rest of the forum -- or at least as much as possible. Like the human body's kidneys, these threads filter out the waste. But that doesn't mean we're going to let people run rampant in the political threads, either.

 

No one said you HAVE to visit or contribute to UrbanOhio. So if you don't like posting here, then don't.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm no Bachmann fan, but the fact that she drew the wrath of Connie Schultz makes me think she's probably onto something.

 

Ha ha, speak of the devil. Ironically my first reaction to St. Pat's post on Politifact winning the pulitzer was "well, if Connie Schultz won it, then it's not saying much."

 

For the record, I give far more credence to Politifact than for Connie "I care" Schultz.

 

And it doesn't surprise me at all that Bachmann has been called out on the truthfulness of her comments. I've only seen three interviews with her. And while she's a much better conversationalist than Palin, every time she was challenged on her past statements she simply changed the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any truth to the rumor that she would select former Dayton mayor and current U.S. Congressman (OH-3) Mike Turner as her running mate?

 

This isnt as odd as it sounds.  Turner is just as socially conservative as she is.  He is a big opponent of gay rights.  He helped orchestrate the defeat of gay rights law here in the city when he was mayor and has repeatedly opposed gay rights while in Congress, repeatedly a co-sponsors of that anti-gay marriage Constitutional amendment.

 

So he has this vague 'moderate' reputation since he does have some 'urban' expertise given his being an inner-city mayor at one time, but he is very much in tune with the social conservative populist strain that Bachman represents.

 

Maybe, but running mates are usually chosen to deliver either a region or a demographic in which the primary nominee is weak.  Of course, that orthodoxy was behind McCain choosing Palin (to deliver the social conservative vote on which McCain was weak), so it doesn't exactly have an unblemished record, but it tends to be the SOP.  Bachmann has shown a lot more political pragmatism than a lot of her opponents give her credit for, given the top-level advisers with national experience in presidential campaigns that she's hired and so forth.  That notwithstanding, she does tend to follow orthodoxy (conservative/Republican orthodoxy, of course) a lot more than she challenges it.  I don't see her changing the standard playbook too much on this, meaning that I predict she would choose a running mate with more appeal to Republican elites (who tend to be slightly more centrist and slightly more economically than socially focused), since her primary appeal is to Republican non-elites.  I don't know who that might be.  Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty (though two Minnesotans on one ticket could be an issue), Rob Portman ... just brainstorming, but I think she'd end up picking someone along those lines.

 

And here I thought I was making a joke that was so obvious that people would I was being corny.  :wink:

 

Bachmann-Turner.  Taking care of business?  Anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michelle Bachmann's intellectual equal:

 

blog+box+of+rocks.jpg


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And since we've all agreed that Bachmann is smarter (or at least seems smarter) than Sarah Palin, one can surmise that one Box o' Rocks is has more intellectual prowess than Sarah Palin.

 

Couldn't resist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bachmann-Turner.  Taking care of business?  Anyone?

 

 

Excellent. 

 

 

....and Im old enough to have gotten that joke, too.  Sheesh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I certainly wasn't validating Connie Shultz or her article and agree with surfohio as well. Connie Shultz is as liberal as Michelle Bachman is conservative and should be taken at face value. However, Politifact is a solid organization who does their research before putting anything in writing. The fact that only 3 of her 29 statements are only half true is mind boggling bad...even for a politician.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I think that an argument is being made that they way Politifact interprets and grades the statements/claims made by politicians has been more punitive towards conservatives.  Not my words.  In fact there's actually a website that points out all of Politifact's biased assessments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, I've seen Politifact accused of having a liberal bias. 

 

That's a negative ghostrider, the pattern is full.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because it finds more 'pants on fire' statements coming from the GOP, does not automatically mean Politifact is bias.  It MIGHT mean there are more 'pants on fire' statements coming from the GOP.  Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...