Hysterical Michele Bachmann flees teenage gay activist

Originally posted by wasco2

Originally posted by Kitilani
Palin quit office to be on TV.

Wrong. Palin quit as governor to stop the endless and baseless ethics violation lawsuits filed by Democrats. It doesn't matter that she won all of them. The financial strain on her and the state defending against them was becoming too much and impairing her ability to serve as governor. If anything Palin's resignation is one of the strongest arguments yet for tort reform. Of course tort reform is never going to happen as long as the American Bar Association is one of the Democrats biggest campaign contributors.

Didn't she quit because there was some kind of investigation going on regarding the job she was doing?Something like that?

Was that her or some one else?

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by jibeho
Hit piece indeed! Why is the left afraid of successful, intelligent and powerful conservative women?? This is just the beginning of a loooong campaign.

Palin quit office to be on TV.
Bachmann submits to her husband and spent 15 years collecting taxes only to claim to be the teabagger savior.

Where is the right hiding the successful, intelligent, AND powerful women?

and what was the excuse for not voting in hillary? oh i know, because she was an "ugly dike."
the attack against woimen candidates in this country is DISGRACEFUL. hillary was too ugly, and palin was too pretty. every attempt was made to characterize her as an idiot, by objectifying her body parts, and supposedly progressive people bought that package hook line and sinker. her clips were cut in just the right places to make it sound like she was saying things she didn't. same thing happened to hillary. now we have photos clipped out of video, further objectifying yet another female candidate!

WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND, would encourage this kind of treatment of the collective identity of america's women?

Originally posted by wasco2

Originally posted by Kitilani
Palin quit office to be on TV.

Wrong. Palin quit as governor to stop the endless and baseless ethics violation lawsuits filed by Democrats. It doesn't matter that she won all of them. The financial strain on her and the state defending against them was becoming too much and impairing her ability to serve as governor. If anything Palin's resignation is one of the strongest arguments yet for tort reform. Of course tort reform is never going to happen as long as the American Bar Association is one of the Democrats biggest campaign contributors.

i did not know this. which further proves my point above. for progressive thinkers, they sure have their collective progressive minds in the dark ages where women are concerned. both sides know a democratic woman will be treated like a man in a woman's body and any republican woman will be treated like barbie in a human body. and never the twain shall meet on this subject. just wait till the thing really gets heated up. it's embarrasing how people behave before elections

For those of you offering a few different ideas as to why Palin quit.

This should settle it.

I hope.

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


To save me typing read this:

theconservativediva.net...

reply to post by wasco2


I'll read yours if you read mine.

Originally posted by wasco2
reply to post by gimme_some_truth

 

To save me typing read this:

theconservativediva.net...

quoting the article,

Remember, at the time, Sarah had a $500,000 personal legal bill fighting all of the bogus complaints [all of which were dismissed] that she had to pay from a salary as Governor of $125,000 a year.And had she stayed, the complaints would have continued, and possibly increased. Our readers who are familiar with the situation know Obama’s Alaska Mafia had turned filing bogus ethics complaints into a game. Even filing complaints using the names of TV characters as the complainants!

you have got to be kidding me!? whoever it was didn't want her running again. what were the bogus claims and who is obama's alaska mafia? haven't heard any of this before.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Well you can't get divorced without being married first. Why bother to debate further I won't be able to change your views on it nor no matter how much evidence and bible commentary I show you, you will still refuse to accept to believe it.

Anyone think to give her a corndog? It seems to calm her down.

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


Time magazine is a mouthpiece for the far left and hardly credible, especially when it comes to Republican politicians.

reply to post by kozmo


I was just wondering what you both thought would be better, a president without a particular faith (atheist/agnostic) or these near zealots I keep seeing pop up out of the woodwork?

In my personal opinion, and from my own understanding (which could be wrong), a true Christian (following Christ, not a church or any man-made doctrinal movement like the NAR or the leaders of such) has no business in politics at all. The two just aren't compatible. I'd much rather have a president who can make logical decisions without emotion over doctrine clouding his mind than someone who has to constantly worry what his or her pastor and church members would think.

Originally posted by wasco2
reply to post by gimme_some_truth

 

Time magazine is a mouthpiece for the far left and hardly credible, especially when it comes to Republican politicians.

to be fair, choice #5 for possible reasons she quit, is on the second page and discusses what you linked in the blog.

reply to post by mugger

I hesitate to call anyone's views "wrong", but what I find remarkable is that a person who wants to run POTUS can't stand up to a lone heckler. If you're views are strong enough that you're willing to demonize another human being but not strong enough to allow you to stand strong and face the person you've been demonizing, maybe you need to rethink those views, no?

reply to post by tncryptogal

We'll have a Muslim POTUS before we ever see an openly atheist one, regardless of what their platform consists of.

The 17 year old kid is right with what he says about her BS. Just maybe it isnt he right platform for the kid to blurt out like that. He could maybe focus his actions towards a more helpful way of fighting for his cause.

Anyway, amazed this weirdo gets any attention.

Weirdo = Female Political Contestant and 17 gay kid (for blurting out... you PC policing geeks)

reply to post by Jobeycool


She folded under pressure because she probably isn't thinking about her position logically. If she knew someone this scenario happened to, she might have a different opinion on gay marriage issues.

For the 10th time this election cycle, I'll explain why heterosexuals have special rights and gays do not.

We will use two couples, Couple A and Couple B. Both couples have spent the better part of 30 years building a life together. Both couples are committed and deeply in love. For the purpose of this exercise, they will have no children from their current marriages, but will have children from previous relationships.

The husband of Couple A gets sick. The wife has a good job, so her husband is covered under her insurance. However, he has had a stroke and is in intensive care. She spends countless hours at the hospital waiting for him to come back to her. He doesn't. She has to make the painful decision to end his life support. She plans a funeral, doing everything her husband wished her to do when the moment to plan his funeral came. She then settles his estate, keeping the home and some of the life insurance money for herself while doling the rest out to his children. She does this without difficulty because the law recognizes her as a legal spouse. She is legally his family. His children can contest the will if they want to, but they have to do it in a court of law because the law protects her as a spouse.

The husband in couple B gets sick. The partner has a good job, but because the state doesn't recognize them as being married, he isn't covered under his partner's health insurance. (despite the fact they've been together 30 years). He is unable to visit his partner in intensive care because his children (or other relative/parent) never approved of their father's/son's "abhorrent" abomination of a lifestyle. He is completely shut out. He doesn't want to end life support because he holds out hope his partner will recover. He has no say because the law doesn't recognize him as a spouse. He isn't legally protected under the definition of family. Others, who may not have had anything to do with the husband of couple B for decades, get to decide what happens from there on out. Husband B dies. His partner isn't allowed to plan the funeral, not even allowed to attend the funeral. Husband B's estate is settled by the same relatives who pulled the plug. They are within their rights under the law to throw the surviving partner out on the street with nothing. He has no protection under the law and no legal recourse.

Now tell me, who has the special rights here under marriage.

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


again, it was petty ethics violations filed against her out of the hatred of the Democrat/liberal machine. I would bet some Soros funded think-tank came up with that idea and maybe even paid people to file complaints.

Originally posted by tncryptogal
reply to post by kozmo

 

I was just wondering what you both thought would be better, a president without a particular faith (atheist/agnostic) or these near zealots I keep seeing pop up out of the woodwork?

In my personal opinion, and from my own understanding (which could be wrong), a true Christian (following Christ, not a church or any man-made doctrinal movement like the NAR or the leaders of such) has no business in politics at all. The two just aren't compatible. I'd much rather have a president who can make logical decisions without emotion over doctrine clouding his mind than someone who has to constantly worry what his or her pastor and church members would think.

Zealots? That's interesting. Marxists are zealots too. They believe in an ideology that has never worked anywhere in the world for the betterment of mankind. Look at the people who espoused Marx's Communist manifesto....Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Saul Alinksky, oh yes, and Anita Dunn, and how about that James Cone guy whom was followed by none other than our POTUS' pastor Rev Wright, and also Frank Marshall Davis, a mentor of POTUS.

I'm sorry to say but POTUS' pastor preaches one of exclusion and separateness, division, not inclusion and wholeness, and preaches Marxist philosphy as the solution to problems.

One of the pillars of Obama's home church, Trinity United Church of Christ, is "economic parity." On the website, Trinity claims that God is not pleased with "America's economic mal-distribution." Among all of controversial comments by Jeremiah Wright, the idea of massive wealth redistribution is the most alarming. The code language "economic parity" and references to "mal-distribution" is nothing more than channeling the twisted economic views of Karl Marx.

www.acton.org...

reply to post by drew1749


I hope yoyu yanks are not stupid enough to let this religious bigot become president.
She makes Hitler look like a cuddly teddy bear.
She would destroy the world with nukes because "god" told her to do so.
For the sake of the world that woman needs to be sidelined, but as there are so many stupid people who will vote for her, I shudder to think what may happen.
Come back Sarah Palin, all is forgiven!

Originally posted by technical difficulties
I don't know who's worse, Bachmann or the people who are defending her. That teenager is 100% in the right. People seriously need to grow out of this childish attitude towards homosexuality.

Never mind that POTUS pick for school safety czar overlooks pedophilia and actively teaches "fisting" techniques in public conferences. No wonder our country is in trouble with this kind of behavior being promoted.