Who Would Michele Bachmann Add to Mount Rushmore?

[Evo]

Bachmann jumped on the anti-vaxxer bandwagon too: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63369.html

It's almost like there's no bit of science that's too well established for her to deny.

You can't make up stuff this bizarre.

 

[TheCool]

It's an unwritten rule amongst Republicans to reject science, or so it seems. Look at Fox News' attacks on Sponge Bob, whom they view as a sort of environmental extremist

 

[WhoWee]

It's an unwritten rule amongst Republicans to reject science, or so it seems. Look at Fox News' attacks on Sponge Bob, whom they view as a sort of environmental extremist

Did anyone notice that George Bush's administration was correct to hold the funding to a certain solar panel company, but the new Obama Administration decided incorrectly to move full speed ahead with more than a half $Billion in taxpayer dollars (and even changed the structure whereby the taxpayers weren't the preferred creditor)?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-09-14-Solyndra-bankruptcy-White-House-loan.htm

"White House officials on Wednesday defended a decision to award a now-bankrupt solar energy company a $535 million loan as House Republicans released Obama administration e-mails suggesting that the loan was rushed despite deep internal skepticism about the government investment."

 

[Evo]

No more off topic responses please, let's stay on the topic of Bachman while she's still contending.

 

[turbo]

Ed Rollins (GOP adviser and former Bachmann campaign manager) has called on Bachmann to walk back her condemnation of the HPV vaccine.

Also, there are at least a couple of professors of bio-ethics that are willing to call her bluff with their own money as a reward to the "mentally retarded" girl.

Physician groups including the American Academy of Pediatrics rushed out statements defending the safety of Merck's vaccine and Cervarix made by GlaxoSmithKline, whose most common side effects include a sore arm, a rash and fever.

As a measure of their incredulity over Bachmann's comments, two bioethicists are offering rewards, one of more than $10,000, if she can bring forward the child who suffered irreparable damage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/15/analysis-bachmann-hpv-va_n_964768.html

Bachmann's anti-vaccination attack on Perry is getting her lots of press, just not the kind she would have liked.

 

[Borg]

Ed Rollins (GOP adviser and former Bachmann campaign manager) has called on Bachmann to walk back her condemnation of the HPV vaccine.

Also, there are at least a couple of professors of bio-ethics that are willing to call her bluff with their own money as a reward to the "mentally retarded" girl.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/15/analysis-bachmann-hpv-va_n_964768.html

Bachmann's anti-vaccination attack on Perry is getting her lots of press, just not the kind she would have liked.

You beat me to it, turbo. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/professors-offer-more-10-000-proof-bachmann-story-132647843.html".

 

[DoggerDan]

Is only Bachmann-bashing allowed, here, or is Obama-bashing allowed as well? Would an "Obama quotables" thread be instantly locked? Given the serious leftist slant of most of the posts below, I'd lay odds that it would.

Ivan, you don't seem to understand anything about the Tea Party. Furthermore, I'm not in the Tea Party.

I'll add I haven't seen a lot of understanding here, either. czelaya, I'm not in the Tea Party, nor do I support them. Yet I've been rampantly (possibly rabidly) accused of it for little other reason than I'm not a Democrat, either. Meanwhile, I find some of their ideas are teaming with common sense, just as I find some of the ideas from Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, and other lines of thought hold merit.

Meanwhile, the "tea party" name-calling is much the same as it's been over the millennia, simply because "they" don't understand the differences or respect one another's point of view. Are "they" wrong? Yes, sometimes they are. But "they" may be as well-educated as "us" and just as convinced "their" point of view is the correct one as "we" are of "our" own point of view.

Put simply, it's childish, at best. At it's worst, well, the people's of this Earth have suffered enough at the hands of name-callers who've risen to power and backed up their ignorance and foolishness with force that threatens and curtails life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The key is electing someone whose ideas hold the most merit given the current and near-term future state of our country, while ignoring their ideas that are irrelevant to the post to which they're being elected.

 

[Evo]

Is only Bachmann-bashing allowed, here, or is Obama-bashing allowed as well?

There are several Obama bashing threads.

 

[Decimator]

It's an unwritten rule amongst Republicans to reject science, or so it seems.

She's getting shredded by the right over her Gardasil retardation comments, actually. I think she's done.

 

[daveb]

OK, I know she's probably now an also-ran, but http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44726590/ns/politics-decision_2012/" is priceless.

You want to know why we have an Arab Spring? Barack Obama has laid the table for an Arab Spring by demonstrating weakness from the United States of America," she said. "The No. 1 duty of the president is to be the commander-in-chief.

Does she not realize that some of these countries were ruled by autocratic dictators? Does she prefer Qaddafi?

 

[Borg]

OK, I know she's probably now an also-ran, but http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44726590/ns/politics-decision_2012/" is priceless.

You want to know why we have an Arab Spring? Barack Obama has laid the table for an Arab Spring by demonstrating weakness from the United States of America," she said. "The No. 1 duty of the president is to be the commander-in-chief.

Does she not realize that some of these countries were ruled by autocratic dictators? Does she prefer Qaddafi?

Nice. Take two unrelated things, draw an erroneous conclusion and then blame your opponent for something good that happened. This should almost be a Darwin Award (for killing one's own political aspirations).

 

[WhoWee]

Nice. Take two unrelated things, draw an erroneous conclusion and then blame your opponent for something good that happened. This should almost be a Darwin Award (for killing one's own political aspirations).

Of course - time will tell if something "good" happened. At this point all we know for certain is that change happened.

 

[Borg]

Of course - time will tell if something "good" happened. At this point all we know for certain is that change happened.

In the short term, I think that most people would agree that it is good for people to be freed from oppressive dictators. On the longer term, I agree. What they do with their new-found freedom will determine how good it is for them and the rest of the world.

 

[WhoWee]

In the short term, I think that most people would agree that it is good for people to be freed from oppressive dictators. On the longer term, I agree. What they do with their new-found freedom will determine how good it is for them and the rest of the world.

I basically agree. The real question is what will emerge from the ruins? I always wonder when watching news clips from a war zone - how do these people find food for their families?

 

[MATLABdude]

I basically agree. The real question is what will emerge from the ruins? I always wonder when watching news clips from a war zone - how do these people find food for their families?

I'll take this a little OT. Most of these places (save for parts of Libya) haven't become war zones--they haven't suffered extended breakdowns in services, non-black market commerce, or even (basic) law and order.

As for the actual war zones, most of the people will probably do what they usually do in times of extended war: get out of Dodge and go somewhere where the food is (or where it's stable enough that food can be grown / raised), which in these days is probably a refugee camp in or near a neighbouring country. The few that remain probably get food via the profiteers / black marketers (who are probably getting stolen supplies from one or both of the sides), or from the warring parties through their charity and good graces, or by making themselves "useful".

Still, at least modern armies carry their own food and supplies (at least the first and second world ones). Times were probably a lot rougher for non-combatants in the past when armies were going around taking YOUR food (regardless of whether or not you were on their "side"). Or, if the story about Hannibal crossing the Alps is to be believed, counting on attrition and cannibalism to solve your logistical problems for you.

EDIT: Isn't "logistical difficulties" such a nice and sanitary way of referring to mass starvation or famine?

 

[MarcoD]

I basically agree. The real question is what will emerge from the ruins? I always wonder when watching news clips from a war zone - how do these people find food for their families?

Tripoli is a city of 1.7 million people. There were only a few tens of thousand people fighting. I am pretty sure the rest just went to the supermarket.

They may be trying to starve the people of Sirte at the moment, though. Not sure of that.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Of course - time will tell if something "good" happened. At this point all we know for certain is that change happened.

Excellent point. So all Bachmann needs to do for the present is to hope that it turns out bad.

 

[WhoWee]

Apparently this is the official response from the Left to Bachmann's attempts to keep tax funds from funding abortions?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/13/nancy-pelosi-protect-life-act_n_1009461.html

""When the Republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor, and health care providers do not have to intervene," Pelosi said at a press conference."

 

[Evo]

Apparently this is the official response from the Left to Bachmann's attempts to keep tax funds from funding abortions?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/13/nancy-pelosi-protect-life-act_n_1009461.html

""When the Republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor, and health care providers do not have to intervene," Pelosi said at a press conference."

This bill is outrageous, and throws womens rights back 100+ years. IMO.

In addition to allowing hospitals to opt out of providing life-saving abortions, H.R. 358, sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), denies federal funding to all health insurance plans that cover abortion. It would be the first law to restrict what kind of coverage women with private health insurance plans can purchase.

Supporters of the bill say its purpose is to free taxpayers from having to pay for abortions and to free hospitals from having to provide them against their will. But the Hyde amendment, which has been in place for 30 years, already prohibits the flow of taxpayer dollars to any kind of abortion service.

"I can't even describe to you the logic of what it is that they are doing," Pelosi said. "I just know that you'll see a large number of women on the floor today fighting for women's health issues as well as to point out how savage this is about withholding care for a woman because of this legislation."

 

[DoggerDan]

This bill is outrageous...

Only 2.8% of abortions here in the U.S. are performed for the mother's maternal health. Therefore, Pelosi's focus on women "dying on the floor" is outrageous, deceptive, and manipulative. Source: Table 2, "Underlying Reasons For Abortion," Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries, Akinrinola Bankole, Susheela Singh and Taylor Haas, International Family Planning Perspectives
Volume 24, Number 3, September 1998, Guttmacher Institute. Link: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html

Bachman's bill isn't denying abortions. It's saying "if you want an abortion, pay for it yourself."

contribute to abortions, you can always start or fund an institution which provides funding for it. It would be voluntary, and when supporting highly controversial issues, that's a tremendous improvement over making everyone pay, particularly when many have religious or moral objections to it.

 

[turbo]

Only 2.8% of abortions here in the U.S. are performed for the mother's maternal health.

How many of the 2.8% of those mothers would it be acceptable to deny abortions to, when their lives are at risk? It's easy to say "all life is sacred" while letting women with problematic pregnancies risk death, infertility, infection or debilitation, especially when quick intervention is called for and/or the woman is poor or uninsured?

 

[Evo]

Only 2.8% of abortions here in the U.S. are performed for the mother's maternal health. Therefore, Pelosi's focus on women "dying on the floor" is outrageous, deceptive, and manipulative. Source: Table 2, "Underlying Reasons For Abortion," Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries, Akinrinola Bankole, Susheela Singh and Taylor Haas, International Family Planning Perspectives
Volume 24, Number 3, September 1998, Guttmacher Institute. Link: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html

Bachman's bill isn't denying abortions. It's saying "if you want an abortion, pay for it yourself."

If you would like to contribute to abortions, Evo, you can always start or fund an institution which provides funding for it. It would be voluntary, and when supporting highly controversial issues, that's a tremendous improvement over making everyone pay, particularly when many have religious or moral objections to it.

Have you heard of the Hyde Ammendment? Did you miss this part of WhoWee's article?

Supporters of the H.R. 358 (Bachman) bill say its purpose is to free taxpayers from having to pay for abortions and to free hospitals from having to provide them against their will. But the Hyde amendment, which has been in place for 30 years, already prohibits the flow of taxpayer dollars to any kind of abortion service.

Public Law 111-8
H.R. 1105, Division F, Title V, General Provisions

SEC. 507. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for any abortion.

(b) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.

(c) The term `health benefits coverage' means the package of services covered by a managed care provider or organization pursuant to a contract or other arrangement.

http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/qt/HydeAmendmentText.htm

 

[DoggerDan]

How many of the 2.8% of those mothers would it be acceptable to deny abortions to...

Not only did I not mention denying abortions (so why are you?), I specifically added a comment suggesting a more appropriate alternative for people desiring to fund them. I think that's very objective.

As for Pelosi: ""I can't even describe to you the logic of what it is that they are doing," Pelosi said. "I just know that you'll see a large number of women on the floor today fighting for women's health issues as well as to point out how savage this is about withholding care for a woman because of this legislation."

Pelosi obviously doesn't understand the bill. She's probably not even read the thing. To help ensure you don't make the same mistake, read on: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr358eh/pdf/BILLS-112hr358eh.pdf

The Protect Life Act extends the restrictions imposed by the Hyde amendment. It does NOT outlaw abortions, nor will it prevent a doctor for taking steps necessary to protect the life of the mother. The exceptions are explicitly stated in the bill:

‘‘(A) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or ‘‘(B) in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical in-jury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."

Pelosi's comment about women "dying on the floor" is grossly untruthful, misleading, and totally contrary to the provisions contained in the bill. I really hate it when Pelosi, or anyone else for that matter, lies, twists, and distorts the truth for personal gain, or in her case, just because she's either being obstinent, or because she's opposing this merely because it was floated by the "other side." Of the 121 co-sponsors of the bill, 6 are Democrats.

Back on topic...

Did Bachman really say the President's primary responsibility was to be the Commander in Chief? Good! That's what the Constitution says: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec2

 

[Evo]

Not only did I not mention denying abortions (so why are you?), I specifically added a comment suggesting a more appropriate alternative for people desiring to fund them. I think that's very objective.

Have you heard of the Hyde Ammendment? Do you have any idea what it is? Did you miss this part of WhoWee's article?

 

[DoggerDan]

Have you heard of the Hyde Ammendment? Do you have any idea what it is? Did you miss this part of WhoWee's article?

Did you not read my post? Middle of the section beginning with "The Protect Life Act extends the restrictions imposed by the Hyde amendment."

 

[Evo]

Did you not read my post? Middle of the section beginning with "The Protect Life Act extends the restrictions imposed by the Hyde amendment."

Yeah, I see you edited it.

There is no reason for this bill, it's created by and for a bunch of paranoid people that need to feel that they have control over other people and make them do what fits in with their beliefs, religious or otherwise. It's wrong and these people need to be stopped. IMO to all.

H.R. 358, sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), denies federal funding to all health insurance plans that cover abortion. It would be the first law to restrict what kind of coverage women with private health insurance plans can purchase.

 

[WhoWee]

Have you heard of the Hyde Ammendment? Do you have any idea what it is? Did you miss this part of WhoWee's article?

Just for clarity - I chose that article because it was the one that tried hardest (IMO) to explain the Pelosi viewpoint - tried to be fair. I just think Pelosi was a little too dramatic - but not necessarily more dramatic than Bachmann in the other direction. They are a good opponents - again IMO.

 

[DoggerDan]

Yeah, I see you edited it.

Not that sentence.

 

[WhoWee]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/08/michele-bachmann-mount-rushmore_n_1081742.html

"When asked who she would add to the South Dakota monument, she proposed Reagan. She then mentioned James Garfield, who was president for just over seven months before being assassinated. She reportedly said she chose him because he is the only person to become president from the House of Representatives. (Bachmann could be the second if she is elected president.) She then said Calvin Coolidge would be a good candidate for the monument, since he "got the country's budget back on track.""

my bold