It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chris Wallace asks Michelle Bachmann: Are You a Flake?

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   

edit on 2-7-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by Youmakemewonder
 



Originally posted by mishigas
Now what's so sinister about that?



The blatant hypocrisy.
No wonder you missed it.


There's no hypocrisy there...it's only in your mind. You're just grasping at straws, as I illustrated above.


All I see in that post is more evidence that she enjoys socialism and sucking off the government teat just like she keeps claiming is so evil for anyone else to do or for Obama to make possible. Just like her farm, this is tax dollars going to lighten the financial burden on her families operating costs. She needs to make or break it on her own like a big girl like she preaches.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
This entire thread is just depressing to me. The argument is reminiscent of football fans screaming about their team, or why such and such quarterback would be a better pick. The problem with politicians, the whole bunch of them, is that they are all professional lyers. plain and simple.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 




All I see in that post is more evidence that she enjoys socialism and sucking off the government teat just like she keeps claiming is so evil for anyone else to do or for Obama to make possible. Just like her farm, this is tax dollars going to lighten the financial burden on her families operating costs. She needs to make or break it on her own like a big girl like she preaches.


Of course that's all you'd see it. Not the fact that thousands of small-time physicians use the same method to offer extended job training to their employees. Not the good it brings to the nation, or the fact that many employees or doctors could not afford this training on their own.

If it doesn't have a dark side, you'll create one.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   

edit on 2-7-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
Of course that's all you'd see it.


Because of my silly habit of reading and understanding facts?


Not the fact that thousands of small-time physicians use the same method to offer extended job training to their employees.


Who cares. None of them are running for POTUS on the premise that these payments are a bad thing while doing so. Furthermore, what anyone else does does nothing to impact what Michelle and her family are doing. NOTHING.


Not the good it brings to the nation, or the fact that many employees or doctors could not afford this training on their own.


So socialism is ok when it helps people in need?


If it doesn't have a dark side, you'll create one.


Actually Michelle is the one that created the dark side by condemning this very thing she and her husband engage in. Funny how when Palin or Bachman embrace socialism people like you can justify it by saying it is good and helps people. Too funny.

Great job avoiding the farm subsidies I brought up as well.
edit on 2-7-2011 by Kitilani because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 



Originally posted by mishigas
Of course that's all you'd see it.


Because of my silly habit of reading and understanding facts?


No, because of your perennial pessimistic habit of twisting facts.


Not the fact that thousands of small-time physicians use the same method to offer extended job training to their employees.


Who cares. None of them are running for POTUS on the premise that these payments are a bad thing while doing so. Furthermore, what anyone else does does nothing to impact what Michelle and her family are doing. NOTHING.


What a stretch! Her platform is "that these payments are a bad thing"?



Not the good it brings to the nation, or the fact that many employees or doctors could not afford this training on their own.


So socialism is ok when it helps people in need?


I doubt you ever owned real estate or have kids, so I'll ask you this:

Did your parents ever take a mortgage or child dependent deduction from their federal taxes? They did?! What a bunch of socialists!!



Great job avoiding the farm subsidies I brought up as well.


You've already shown that you know nothing about socialism or medical economics, so why would I try to explain small farm economics to you?



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
No, because of your perennial pessimistic habit of twisting facts.


If you say so I guess.



What a stretch! Her platform is "that these payments are a bad thing"?


So preaching that socialism is all bad is not part of her platform?


I doubt you ever owned real estate or have kids, so I'll ask you this:

Did your parents ever take a mortgage or child dependent deduction from their federal taxes? They did?! What a bunch of socialists!!


How does that apply to Michelle Bachmann? When did I claim socialism is a bad thing? I know for a fact it can be good like medicare grants. I do not get what you are saying.


You've already shown that you know nothing about socialism or medical economics, so why would I try to explain small farm economics to you?


You do not have to explain anything to me except why Bachmann sucks off the government teat while denouncing exactly that.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 




You do not have to explain anything to me except why Bachmann sucks off the government teat while denouncing exactly that.


Because what she is doing does not equal socialism. You really grasp at straws to try to find fault with people, don't you?



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   

edit on 3-7-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
Because what she is doing does not equal socialism. You really grasp at straws to try to find fault with people, don't you?


So Michelle Bachamann does not say that farm subsidies and medicare grants equate to socialism and are a bad thing? You saying I got that all wrong?
Then maybe you can explain why she is trying to deny the farm subsidies?



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   
never mind
edit on 3-7-2011 by fooks because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Could you guys please refrain from calling Bachmanns hubby a doctor? He is a priest.
Also the training wasn't funded by medicare. That was additional subsidies. (And, no, I do not want my taxdollars to go to train christian fundies saying "God will make it all right")



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 




Originally posted by mishigas
Simple. Because

a) Bachmann is not a flake, and




OK. Did you hear her follow up to the founding father's quote? Earlier this year, she had stated that the Founding Fathers "worked tirelessly to end slavery". Now, while I understand making a mistake (even one this huge) when she came back to set it straight, she 'covered' by saying that John Quincy Adams was actually a founding father. (He was a young teen during the signing of the Declaration.) Yes, Adams worked to end slavery decades later, but he was not a founding father.


I just had to add this, to make sure BH realized how wrong she was.





EDITORIAL: Bachmann was right
The Founding Founders did fight against slavery


“There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it.”

- George Washington, letter to Robert Morris, April 12, 1786

“Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States. … I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in … abhorrence.”

- John Adams, letter to Robert Evans, June 8, 1819

“It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused.”

- John Jay, letter to R. Lushington, March 15, 1786

“I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil.”

- Patrick Henry, letter to Robert Pleasants, Jan. 18, 1773

“Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free.”

- Thomas Jefferson, “Autobiography,” 1821

“[The Convention] thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.”

- James Madison, Records of the Constitutional Convention, Aug. 25, 1787

“We have seen the mere distinction of color made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.”

- James Madison, speech at the Constitutional Convention, June 6, 1787

“It were doubtless to be wished, that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had not been postponed until the year 1808, or rather that it had been suffered to have immediate operation. But it is not difficult to account, either for this restriction on the general government, or for the manner in which the whole clause is expressed. It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy; that within that period, it will receive a considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue the unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example which has been given by so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them of being redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethren!”

Bachmann



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


They did not work tirelessly to end slavery, as Bachmann said. George Washington had 10 slaves at the age of 11 and had 316 slaves when he died. Regardless his personal beliefs, he did not work AT ALL to end slavery.



George Washington was born into a world in which slavery was accepted.
...
at the age of 22, he had a work force of about 36 slaves. With his marriage to Martha Custis in 1759, 20 of her slaves came to Mount Vernon. After their marriage, Washington purchased even more slaves.
...
By 1799, when George Washington died, there were 316 slaves living on the estate.


Source

They may have had personal opinions that slavery was wrong, but they sure didn't do anything about abolishing it. In fact, they just the opposite.

Everyone in your list, in fact, owned slaves. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Patrick Henry and John Jay all owned slaves, regardless their personal feelings about it. How owning slaves is seen as tirelessly working against slavery is a new one on me.

Source

John Jay did do some nice things for black folks, but owning slaves kind of cancels that out, IMO.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Don't you get it? Washington had over 300 slaves when he died so that no one else would own those slaves. He was obviously working tirelessly to make sure that someone else did not have those 300 slaves. You should know how this works. John Wayne Gacy was just working tirelessly to eradicate homosexual promiscuity in teen boys.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Why don't you tell the whole story instead of cherry-picking?:shk:


As President, Washington did not lead a public fight against slavery, however, because he believed it would tear the new nation apart. Abolition had many opponents, especially in the South. Washington seems to have feared that if he took such a public stand, the southern states would withdraw from the Union (something they would do seventy years later, leading to the Civil War). He had worked too hard to build the country to risk tearing it apart.

Privately, however, Washington could -- and did -- lead by example. In his will, he arranged for all of the slaves he owned to be freed after the death of his wife, Martha. He also left instructions for the continued care and education of some of his former slaves, support and training for all of the children until they came of age, and continuing support for the elderly.


You libs have no shame about bad-mouthing good people and destroying reputations with half-truths and twisting of facts.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


I dont see that BH did that at all. BH stated facts as did the article. George Washington was born into a country in which slavery was prominent. Not only was mum the word about it, but he promoted it by adding slaves to his own property. They're just facts. I understand why he was handcuffed so to speak about abolishing the issue for a young nation, but facts are facts. Regardless if Washington cared for his slaves and set to free them after Martha's death; he still owned men. He owned men, profited from their labor and purchased more.
- If you believe that George Washington was the Oskar Schindler of the United States then you have to show at the least that he wasn't adding to the problem.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
You libs have no shame about bad-mouthing good people and destroying reputations with half-truths and twisting of facts.


If you can explain how anyone that died a slaveowner "worked tirelessly to end slavery" you will have me convinced.

A dissenting opinion or a letter and "working tirelessly to end" something are very very different don't you think?



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
I just had to add this, to make sure BH realized how wrong she was.


EDITORIAL: Bachmann was right
The Founding Founders did fight against slavery




"Fight against slavery"? Some in rhetoric, none in practice.

But more to the point her claim was that the founding fathers..

"worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States.

Her error was not knowing that nearly 100 years seperated the founding fathers and the civil war.

You migth dismiss it as a poor choice of words if she hadn't defended the claim with another outright affront to historians everywhere and claiming that John Quincy Adams was a founding father.

John Quincy Adams was 9 years old at the time of the revolution. His father John Adams was a founding father.

Her statements leave no doubt that it is her claim that the founding fathers "worked tirelessly until slavery was no more"

She also chooses not to distinguish between two men named John Adams (Father - Son) as well John Wayne (Actor vs. John Wayne Gacey the serial killer)

And if you point out the error her defenders go balistic. Ignorance championed! I am just waiting for the TP Movement to start to post about how John Wayne Gacey was actually a swell guy and the media is wrong about him.

The fact that she instead defends her "up is down" "east is west" mistakes rather than acknowledge them is a quality that is absolutely not suited for leadership and is honestly a bit insane.


edit on 5-7-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-7-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join