Michele Bachmann is a disgrace to the human race.

The problem I see with this woman and those who share here views is this whole 'anti-american' sentiment. If you do not embrace traditional conservative values, including the religious values associated with them, then you are considered 'anti-american'. Pure hogwash! I might remind those who fall under this umbrella that Thomas Jefferson, a major influence on the Constitution and our third President was an aetheist and would be considered 'anti-american' by the beliefs expressed by those who share this woman's views. But apparently, it's coming back to haunt her and the Republican Party BIG TIME!!!

`New Brand of McCarthyism'

In Washington, former Republican Secretary of State Colin Powell mentioned Bachmann's statement as one reason he decided to endorse Obama. And the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee mounted a fundraising appeal seeking donations to combat ``this new brand of McCarthyism.'' The committee has already received ``hundreds of thousands of dollars,'' spokeswoman Carrie James said.

The trouble started when Bachmann, on national television, said she was ``very concerned'' that Obama ``may have anti- American views.'' She went on to suggest that ``the American media'' should ``take a great look at the views of people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America?''

Source.

This type of divisive politics MUST stop before we find ourselves in a new McCarthy Era, and become the laughing stock of history in this country, as McCarthy and his followers have. I, for one, do not want to live through such a dangerous time as those who's lives were ruined during the McCarthy witchhunt. Having different views concerning the future of this country does not make one unamerican, but I would say that pointing fingers at those who do not share your views and calling them unamerican certainly does make you 'anti-american'! Perhaps those of you who are 'getting your panties in a wad' while reading this post should go review how an why this country was founded in the first place. But I'm not too worried about it, as it seems apparent that the far right will be sitting on the sidelines for at least the next two years, and if you ask me, it's a well deserved and much needed 'time out'.

reply to post by Moonsouljah


Hilarious! Omg she kept her hand on him for like 10 min. That song makes it even better.

Reply to Marcus Calpurnius:
Besides that, I don't think we need anyone especially government officials trying to divide our country like they are this us vs. them mentality is not patriotic in the least. And I wasn't talking about what Chris Matthews said at all just the horribly divisive comments she made on his show.


[edit on 27-10-2008 by Shocka]

You know, this reminds me of a quote from Bush Sr. during the '88 campaign.

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

Source.

This kind of rhetoric has been building for quite some time. Add to this the recent remarks by Oklahoma State Representative Sally Kern, also a Republican, who stated that Homosexuality was more of a danger to the US than fundamental Islamic terrorists. Or Sarah Palin's "real America" gaffe just last week. It is clear to me that the Republican Party has become the party of exclusion, and view themselves as 'real Americans' while those outside the party are not.

Now before I get jumped for this, I am refering to the Republican Party, not all Republicans. You can have conservative values without sharing this exclusionist point of view.

Originally posted by damwel
Sorry chap, not reading anything. I call em as I em and this one is easy to call. Typical of you righties to question my patriotism, and frankly it's getting really old and isn't effective anymore as McCain's poll numbers show. You can't "Dixie

You know, I'm so sick of this complaint from democrats. They CONSTANTLY question our patriotism, but when it comes back at them they whine and pretend they don't do it.

reply to post by Marcus Calpurnius


Whiny libs are CONSTANTLY saying how anti american neo-cons are huh? Show me an example, let's say from the outrageously FAR LEFT MSM, which should have plenty of examples consider how they constantly do this. I'm waiting.

ColoradoJens

See who Barack Obama got donations from and how much.

See who John Mccain got donations from and how much.

reply to post by Marcus Calpurnius


I have yet to see anyone, liberal or moderate, who have questioned the patriotism of conservatives. I doubt very seriously that you can show me any example of that. The reverse cannot be said. As I said in a previous post, it's the new 'McCarthyism', and it belongs exclusively to the extreme right. It's also why the right will lose this election.

I remember immediately after 9/11 the entire country united together. Too bad that it takes an event of that magnatude for all of us to come together, and too bad it lasts for such a small period of time, sad indeed.

Good for her! This bs ideal that everyone is equal, and entitled to their own particular preferences in all things is a load of crap.

The Muslims that have invaded Europe, and to a smaller extent the US are expecting the host countries to bend to meet their needs.

No way. If this is the way they see things, they should return to the Islamic paradise they originated from.

Let France be French, the US be American, and Muslims continue their misery in their own countries of origin. Naw - they were miserable in Islamic cultures, and now want to spread that misery to Western cultures.

The hell with that!

The riots in France are purely because their government decided enough was enough and stopped the nanny pandering to all the immigrants and decided to reinforce their national ethics for their own countrymen and women's benefit, and rightfully so........................by doing this it upset the immigrants, many which are illegal.

Strange for me to see that France is starting to show some backbone whereas my poor England has lost all but hers thanks to the pc party, government bending over backwards to the immigrants and forgetting their own kith and kin.

Oh as for the vid, wearing pink, a pearl necklace (great ZZ Top song btw) female and talking politics, someone should re-house that lady into the shadier side of town, you know were the Great American people and way of life is all good, she will just get on fine................

Wolfie

Originally posted by jokei
My main criticism of this lady is that she seems somewhat incapable of strining coherent sentences together - this makes her look and sound Stupid, lacking in education etc, that was the first thing that struck me when I viewed the first video in this thread.

We seem to see this a lot on ATS. Criticizing and judging people based on their grammar I mean.

Is there really any difference between judging a person inferior based on their use of English, which is often simply a result of where they grew up rather than their schooling, or judging them inferior based on skin color? Probably not.

OP - There would seem to be a movement from the Far Left to eliminate free speech for the Far Right. I'd rather free speech apply to everyone.

More on topic -

My business partner's ex-wife lives in Southern France. Or did I should say. She still owns and pays for her Apartment there. They are Jewish. It became so dangerous there for his son that he has had to keep them mostly in the US out of fear for their lives. Mostly out of worries of his son getting hurt or killed.

I asked him a while ago after he had just returned from visiting there, "is it as dangerous there for Jewish People as I have heard"? He said it has gotten very dangerous due to the increasing Muslim population there and their children. He did not seem to think the adults were a problem, but that it was their children. What is happening seems to be very much like the gangs in our inner cities except it is based on Religion rather than the selling of drugs. Apparently the Muslim youth are forming into quite dangerous gangs.

My Partner is about as Kosher as Kentucky Ham and is by no means a Zionist. He is just an ordinary guy. Something must be going terribly wrong in France if he has to move his son out of a wealthy neighborhood and a private school to protect him from teenage Muslim Gangs.

To fix a problem, first you have to admit there is a problem. We learned that the hard way dealing with Gangs in the US. Is France perhaps burying its head in the sand due to some kind of warped pride?

Originally posted by Shocka
See who Barack Obama got donations from and how much.

See who John Mccain got donations from and how much.

I guess I'm a bit dense. What has that got to do with your topic regarding this womans words about France and the riots? How does it relate exactly?

reply to post by Blaine91555


Right, just a quick one as I've just finished a 12 hour shift...

The criticisism of someones use of language would perhaps be a "gross" and unfair statement to make against an "average Joe" - however, would you not expect (hope) that someone entering a position of power were capable of using the basics of language. It really scares me when politicians make up words, it implies a fatal flaw in their understanding of whatever they're discussing. It's fine for people on here to make errors with language, but politics (by nature) is all about language, diplomacy - things like that... surelt politicians, as our representatives (like the marines (?)) should be the elite, the best representatives available? I wouldn't trust this woman to pump gas.

reply to post by Dock6


Here is the palm card we read from: Note the wonderful character of the Rebulican Senator (the one who smeared Max Cleland!!!!) who voted TWICE against the Dem appropriation bill to BETTER FUND THE TROOPS. Guess who made the video - an Iraq War Vet! Good site too.

www.VoteVets.org...

The ad features Peter Granato, Iraq War Veteran. In the ad, Granato fires shots from an AK-47 through the kind of flak jacket troops were given early on in the war, and modern Body Armor, featuring (Stand Alone Protective Insert (SAPI) plates. The shots go through the older vest, but are stopped by the newer armor. Granato explains that Chambliss voted against funding to give American troops the newer armor.

Chambliss did so twice, voting against an amendment offered by Senator Christopher Dodd in 2003 (S.Amdt. 1817), which would have appropriated $300 million more for needed equipment for the troops, including proper Body Armor, to make up for a funding shortfall that did not meet the request of the US Army. He also voted against an amendment by Senator Mary Landrieu ( S.Amdt. 452) in the same year that would have appropriated $1 billion for equipment on a list of priorities from the Marines, also including Body Armor, as Landrieu made clear in her press release on the amendment at the time.

"Senator Chambliss should be held accountable for these votes, and troops and veterans are doing just that," said Jon Soltz, Iraq War Veteran and Chairman of VoteVets.org.

These guys and their anti american rhetoric are starting to piss me off.

ColoradoJens

[edit on 27-10-2008 by ColoradoJens]

reply to post by jokei


You and I are from different worlds. In mine people are not judged by their grammar or oratory skills, but rather on their actions and character. Anyone who makes it into office has proved their intellect and I applaud the ones who don't see the need to learn to speak like a member of the Ivy League Snob Squad.

Whenever we judge others by their color, clothes, grammar or any other meaningless tripe, we become part of the problem, not the solution IMO.

reply to post by Blaine91555


No, you live in the same world. She is right. You should be able to have constructive language skills. Just because GW was the most outstanding example of bad oratory skills in history for a world leader does not make it ok. Communication is of the utmost in conveying intent. You post on ATS. She is coached and paid a lot of money to convey her message and the people are fed up of unintelligle gobbledygook. This made me laugh in my new sad way.

www.liveleak.com...

GW is going down as the worst orator ever as President and it didn't help his cause.



And that's two years old. Sure raises confidence in your "leader" when they talk like a complete idiot.

ColoradoJens


[edit on 27-10-2008 by ColoradoJens]

reply to post by Blaine91555


o nothing lol i just thought it was interesting and didnt want to make a thread about it

reply to post by Blaine91555


We're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one, I think it vital that politicians from all sides are capable of expressing themselves to a decent standard, especially as it can be incredibly detrimental when they're not. As an example, imagine you're receiving instructions from a boss that don't make sense and are somewhat unintelligible? Yes, you can ask your boss for clarification, try to get to the meaning of it by asking questions, but when you're a politician just feeding stuff to people via tv, there isn't that means of debate. We can argue that that is what the interviewer is for, but honestly, Republican-Democrat, what news presenter would you really trust? ...and even if any, you've got to admit there must be a lot of times (on either side) that there have been questions you wanted asked that never came up.

A little apology as well on my part, it may seem I'm trying to have the last word here, I'm not interested though in rilling people up, I just enjoy the debate