Michele Bachmann Mangles Revolutionary History

[Political Junky]

Michele Bachmann Mangles Revolutionary History

This isn't the first time she has had fucked up like this, first history and now geography, with a teabag in her hand.

Fortunately, there's a depository for such wild-eyed ruminations.....

Bachmann Watch

Thanks for this site. Michele busted.

 

[The T]

Michele Bachmann Mangles Revolutionary History

This isn't the first time she has had fucked up like this, first history and now geography, with a teabag in her hand.

Fortunately, there's a depository for such wild-eyed ruminations.....​

Bachmann Watch

​

Thanks for this site. Michele busted.​

For what? A faux pas? Get over yourself.​

​

 

[The Gadfly]

Some functions are performed at the federal level, some are at the state level and some are at the local level

We actually fought a war to determine the extent of States Rights. The country has done very well since then

MOST are better performed AT the State Level.

The FED has limits. They have overreached their mandate, and are being called to task BY the States, and the people for their power grabs.

And *YOU* have a problem with this how?

You are the one bitching, not me

I love my country

Yes, I believe you do. I'm a conservative, and I love my country too. I'm not one who is going to sit here and attempt to demonize everyone with a point of view different from mine as Un-American; i simply don't believe that's true. Now, does that mean I share the vision of America you have? No; I agree with you on some matters, and vehemently disagree with you on others. I don't share your liking for an all-powerful central government; I believe that that government which is the closest to the people is more accountable, and more cognizant of their interests. I presume that my state representatives know more about how to run my state for the benefit of the people thereof, than the representatives of some other state, or the federal government in Washington. There are some things the central government does well, and some things local and state governments do better. I believe, therefore, that the federal government should only interfere in the affairs of a state, when it has a clear and compelling constitutional mandate to do so (and not on the whims of politicians or bureaucrats). Big government sometimes leads to unresponsive, unaccountable, and overbearing government. That's not good; it may work (for the moment) for causes you believe in; but it can work against them and you ought to remember that.

Too many judges have a tendency to use the bench to usurp the prerogatives of the legislative branch. Sometimes, that's necessary; most of the time, it isn't. The poor interstate commerce clause has been beaten to death, overused time and again to get the nose of the federal camel where it does not belong, and was never intended to go. I'm suspicious of the idea of aggregating too much power at any level of government; to do so, may be efficient, but it also tends to destroy the natural tension between state and federal power that helps maintain a balance and therefore to preserve individual liberty.

The union of this republic means nothing, if it must be held together by force.We rely instead, on being able to reconcile a wide variety of very divergent interests, in a way that is at least tolerable to most. That is not so efficient as you might like, but let one set of interests ride roughshod over another, any other, and while it may "work" for your interests for a while(assuming it's not your ox that's being gored) sooner or later, that interest or interests will demand redress, and you'll either have to give it to them, or maintain the republic by force, at which point (just like the last time) it will cease to be a republic at all.

 

[The T]

Some functions are performed at the federal level, some are at the state level and some are at the local level

We actually fought a war to determine the extent of States Rights. The country has done very well since then

MOST are better performed AT the State Level.

The FED has limits. They have overreached their mandate, and are being called to task BY the States, and the people for their power grabs.

And *YOU* have a problem with this how?

You are the one bitching, not me

I love my country

In the present state? You love usurpation? Really?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Michele Bachmann Mangles Revolutionary History

This isn't the first time she has had fucked up like this, first history and now geography, with a teabag in her hand.

Fortunately, there's a depository for such wild-eyed ruminations.....

Bachmann Watch

good gawd, how childish.

Nooooooo....she's a lil'-more CRAZY, than anything......​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

ANOTHER example of why the Repub's denied her the leadership position she wanted:

House Republicans sabotaging Michele Bachmann's dreams - War Room - Salon.com

Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is pretty sure that she was an integral part of the Republican victory at the polls. And so she'd like to be rewarded for her efforts. Bachmann seeks a House leadership position. Specifically, she wants to be the chairwoman of the House Republican Conference -- the fourth-ranking Republican leadership post in the House, and a position once held by John Boehner, Dick Cheney, and Jack Kemp. There's just one slight problem: She's a prominent national Republican solely because she says insane things on television, not because of her leadership skills or policy chops.

She MUST have found Joe McCarthy's secret booze-stash!!

Only THAT kind of aging would make someone this paranoid!!


*

*
​

 

[Dot Com]

I like having her be in the limelight just like I like it when Bible Spice/Caribou Barbie remains in the limelight, it gives independents a good reason to not vote for extreme candidates like O'donnell, Buck, & Angle.

 

[rightwinger]

They would rather the Judicial Branch act in the stead of the Legislative one.

How did righties respond to Obamacare?

I'm shocked, you are usually so logical. The reference was to opposing legislation through the courts and you whiffed and gave an example which didn't involve legislation through the courts but limiting the legislature to enacting laws that are Constitutional. You're usually such a strict adherent to logical reasoning whether it works for your against your cause that I can't believe you missed that one. I guess it just goes to show that everyone, even you, miss one once in awhile.

You never oppose legislation itself through the courts. You pick a specific aspect of that legislation and hope to prove it is unconstitutional. Logic would show your hypocrisy in declaring the left alone uses the court system to strike down laws.
The conservative movement, after being unable to block Obamacare through the legislative process immediately went running to the courts

 

[Toro]

By sheer happenstance, I found this just now. Don't know the context in which it is set though.

Is there a history tutor in the house? 'Cause Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-MN, needs one bad. The Tea Party fave said that "the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States....Men like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country."

True, J.Q. Adams didn't rest before slavery ended...he died. Or maybe he was just taking a dirt nap.

As for a few other points from the rest of Bachmann's Bizarro U.S. History Class, Thomas Jefferson -- who wrote that all men are created equal -- owned slaves. And perhaps did more than own them. George "Father of the Country" Washington owned human property, too.

Read more: Tea Party GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann thinks founding fathers ended slavery : SFGate: Politics Blog

[youtube]eg8kDG94kb8[/youtube]

 

[rightwinger]

They would rather the Judicial Branch act in the stead of the Legislative one.

How did righties respond to Obamacare?

They responded through the courts to stop legislation. What a lefty does is respond through the courts to thwart the will of the people in an election. You made the mistake of forcing me to buy something I don't want to buy. You can't do that. It's unconstitutional.

It's called running to the courts to thwart legislation. Hypocrisy?

 

[rightwinger]

MOST are better performed AT the State Level.

The FED has limits. They have overreached their mandate, and are being called to task BY the States, and the people for their power grabs.

And *YOU* have a problem with this how?

You are the one bitching, not me

I love my country

Yes, I believe you do. I'm a conservative, and I love my country too. I'm not one who is going to sit here and attempt to demonize everyone with a point of view different from mine as Un-American; i simply don't believe that's true. Now, does that mean I share the vision of America you have? No; I agree with you on some matters, and vehemently disagree with you on others. I don't share your liking for an all-powerful central government; I believe that that government which is the closest to the people is more accountable, and more cognizant of their interests. I presume that my state representatives know more about how to run my state for the benefit of the people thereof, than the representatives of some other state, or the federal government in Washington. There are some things the central government does well, and some things local and state governments do better. I believe, therefore, that the federal government should only interfere in the affairs of a state, when it has a clear and compelling constitutional mandate to do so (and not on the whims of politicians or bureaucrats). Big government sometimes leads to unresponsive, unaccountable, and overbearing government. That's not good; it may work (for the moment) for causes you believe in; but it can work against them and you ought to remember that.

Too many judges have a tendency to use the bench to usurp the prerogatives of the legislative branch. Sometimes, that's necessary; most of the time, it isn't. The poor interstate commerce clause has been beaten to death, overused time and again to get the nose of the federal camel where it does not belong, and was never intended to go. I'm suspicious of the idea of aggregating too much power at any level of government; to do so, may be efficient, but it also tends to destroy the natural tension between state and federal power that helps maintain a balance and therefore to preserve individual liberty.

The union of this republic means nothing, if it must be held together by force.We rely instead, on being able to reconcile a wide variety of very divergent interests, in a way that is at least tolerable to most. That is not so efficient as you might like, but let one set of interests ride roughshod over another, any other, and while it may "work" for your interests for a while(assuming it's not your ox that's being gored) sooner or later, that interest or interests will demand redress, and you'll either have to give it to them, or maintain the republic by force, at which point (just like the last time) it will cease to be a republic at all.

I believe that a strong centralized government was not possible at the time of the founding of this country due to limitations in communications and transportation. At the time, it made sense to delegate more power to the states
I lived through the civil rights era and saw the abuses of States rights. The belief that individual states can decide how their people should be treated. I have also seen the expansion in the US economically and as a world power since we moved to a centralized government
There are no major economic powers in the world that operates on a states rights form of government

 

[The T]

You are the one bitching, not me

I love my country

Yes, I believe you do. I'm a conservative, and I love my country too. I'm not one who is going to sit here and attempt to demonize everyone with a point of view different from mine as Un-American; i simply don't believe that's true. Now, does that mean I share the vision of America you have? No; I agree with you on some matters, and vehemently disagree with you on others. I don't share your liking for an all-powerful central government; I believe that that government which is the closest to the people is more accountable, and more cognizant of their interests. I presume that my state representatives know more about how to run my state for the benefit of the people thereof, than the representatives of some other state, or the federal government in Washington. There are some things the central government does well, and some things local and state governments do better. I believe, therefore, that the federal government should only interfere in the affairs of a state, when it has a clear and compelling constitutional mandate to do so (and not on the whims of politicians or bureaucrats). Big government sometimes leads to unresponsive, unaccountable, and overbearing government. That's not good; it may work (for the moment) for causes you believe in; but it can work against them and you ought to remember that.

Too many judges have a tendency to use the bench to usurp the prerogatives of the legislative branch. Sometimes, that's necessary; most of the time, it isn't. The poor interstate commerce clause has been beaten to death, overused time and again to get the nose of the federal camel where it does not belong, and was never intended to go. I'm suspicious of the idea of aggregating too much power at any level of government; to do so, may be efficient, but it also tends to destroy the natural tension between state and federal power that helps maintain a balance and therefore to preserve individual liberty.

The union of this republic means nothing, if it must be held together by force.We rely instead, on being able to reconcile a wide variety of very divergent interests, in a way that is at least tolerable to most. That is not so efficient as you might like, but let one set of interests ride roughshod over another, any other, and while it may "work" for your interests for a while(assuming it's not your ox that's being gored) sooner or later, that interest or interests will demand redress, and you'll either have to give it to them, or maintain the republic by force, at which point (just like the last time) it will cease to be a republic at all.

I believe that a strong centralized government was not possible at the time of the founding of this country due to limitations in communications and transportation. At the time, it made sense to delegate more power to the states
I lived through the civil rights era and saw the abuses of States rights. The belief that individual states can decide how their people should be treated. I have also seen the expansion in the US economically and as a world power since we moved to a centralized government
There are no major economic powers in the world that operates on a states rights form of government

This is why you are a LOSER and A Gubmint employee. YOU can't make it any other way, can you?

 

[Charles_Main]

How did righties respond to Obamacare?

I'm shocked, you are usually so logical. The reference was to opposing legislation through the courts and you whiffed and gave an example which didn't involve legislation through the courts but limiting the legislature to enacting laws that are Constitutional. You're usually such a strict adherent to logical reasoning whether it works for your against your cause that I can't believe you missed that one. I guess it just goes to show that everyone, even you, miss one once in awhile.

You never oppose legislation itself through the courts. You pick a specific aspect of that legislation and hope to prove it is unconstitutional. Logic would show your hypocrisy in declaring the left alone uses the court system to strike down laws.
The conservative movement, after being unable to block Obamacare through the legislative process immediately went running to the courts

When a law clearly violates the Constitution. The courts are the only recourse.

 

[The T]

I'm shocked, you are usually so logical. The reference was to opposing legislation through the courts and you whiffed and gave an example which didn't involve legislation through the courts but limiting the legislature to enacting laws that are Constitutional. You're usually such a strict adherent to logical reasoning whether it works for your against your cause that I can't believe you missed that one. I guess it just goes to show that everyone, even you, miss one once in awhile.

You never oppose legislation itself through the courts. You pick a specific aspect of that legislation and hope to prove it is unconstitutional. Logic would show your hypocrisy in declaring the left alone uses the court system to strike down laws.
The conservative movement, after being unable to block Obamacare through the legislative process immediately went running to the courts

When a law clearly violates the Constitution. The courts are the only recourse.

And it's up to the Courts to side with the Constitution.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You are the one bitching, not me

I love my country

Yes, I believe you do. I'm a conservative, and I love my country too. I'm not one who is going to sit here and attempt to demonize everyone with a point of view different from mine as Un-American; i simply don't believe that's true. Now, does that mean I share the vision of America you have? No; I agree with you on some matters, and vehemently disagree with you on others. I don't share your liking for an all-powerful central government; I believe that that government which is the closest to the people is more accountable, and more cognizant of their interests. I presume that my state representatives know more about how to run my state for the benefit of the people thereof, than the representatives of some other state, or the federal government in Washington. There are some things the central government does well, and some things local and state governments do better. I believe, therefore, that the federal government should only interfere in the affairs of a state, when it has a clear and compelling constitutional mandate to do so (and not on the whims of politicians or bureaucrats). Big government sometimes leads to unresponsive, unaccountable, and overbearing government. That's not good; it may work (for the moment) for causes you believe in; but it can work against them and you ought to remember that.

Too many judges have a tendency to use the bench to usurp the prerogatives of the legislative branch. Sometimes, that's necessary; most of the time, it isn't. The poor interstate commerce clause has been beaten to death, overused time and again to get the nose of the federal camel where it does not belong, and was never intended to go. I'm suspicious of the idea of aggregating too much power at any level of government; to do so, may be efficient, but it also tends to destroy the natural tension between state and federal power that helps maintain a balance and therefore to preserve individual liberty.

The union of this republic means nothing, if it must be held together by force.We rely instead, on being able to reconcile a wide variety of very divergent interests, in a way that is at least tolerable to most. That is not so efficient as you might like, but let one set of interests ride roughshod over another, any other, and while it may "work" for your interests for a while(assuming it's not your ox that's being gored) sooner or later, that interest or interests will demand redress, and you'll either have to give it to them, or maintain the republic by force, at which point (just like the last time) it will cease to be a republic at all.

I believe that a strong centralized government was not possible at the time of the founding of this country due to limitations in communications and transportation. At the time, it made sense to delegate more power to the states
I lived through the civil rights era and saw the abuses of States rights. The belief that individual states can decide how their people should be treated. I have also seen the expansion in the US economically and as a world power since we moved to a centralized government
There are no major economic powers in the world that operates on a states rights form of government

Well, at least there's no more doubts as to where this guy's coming from.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, I believe you do. I'm a conservative, and I love my country too. I'm not one who is going to sit here and attempt to demonize everyone with a point of view different from mine as Un-American; i simply don't believe that's true. Now, does that mean I share the vision of America you have? No; I agree with you on some matters, and vehemently disagree with you on others. I don't share your liking for an all-powerful central government; I believe that that government which is the closest to the people is more accountable, and more cognizant of their interests. I presume that my state representatives know more about how to run my state for the benefit of the people thereof, than the representatives of some other state, or the federal government in Washington. There are some things the central government does well, and some things local and state governments do better. I believe, therefore, that the federal government should only interfere in the affairs of a state, when it has a clear and compelling constitutional mandate to do so (and not on the whims of politicians or bureaucrats). Big government sometimes leads to unresponsive, unaccountable, and overbearing government. That's not good; it may work (for the moment) for causes you believe in; but it can work against them and you ought to remember that.

Too many judges have a tendency to use the bench to usurp the prerogatives of the legislative branch. Sometimes, that's necessary; most of the time, it isn't. The poor interstate commerce clause has been beaten to death, overused time and again to get the nose of the federal camel where it does not belong, and was never intended to go. I'm suspicious of the idea of aggregating too much power at any level of government; to do so, may be efficient, but it also tends to destroy the natural tension between state and federal power that helps maintain a balance and therefore to preserve individual liberty.

The union of this republic means nothing, if it must be held together by force.We rely instead, on being able to reconcile a wide variety of very divergent interests, in a way that is at least tolerable to most. That is not so efficient as you might like, but let one set of interests ride roughshod over another, any other, and while it may "work" for your interests for a while(assuming it's not your ox that's being gored) sooner or later, that interest or interests will demand redress, and you'll either have to give it to them, or maintain the republic by force, at which point (just like the last time) it will cease to be a republic at all.

I believe that a strong centralized government was not possible at the time of the founding of this country due to limitations in communications and transportation. At the time, it made sense to delegate more power to the states
I lived through the civil rights era and saw the abuses of States rights. The belief that individual states can decide how their people should be treated. I have also seen the expansion in the US economically and as a world power since we moved to a centralized government
There are no major economic powers in the world that operates on a states rights form of government

This is why you are a LOSER and A Gubmint employee. YOU can't make it any other way, can you?

Make that a PROUD Government Employee

 

[The T]

I believe that a strong centralized government was not possible at the time of the founding of this country due to limitations in communications and transportation. At the time, it made sense to delegate more power to the states
I lived through the civil rights era and saw the abuses of States rights. The belief that individual states can decide how their people should be treated. I have also seen the expansion in the US economically and as a world power since we moved to a centralized government
There are no major economic powers in the world that operates on a states rights form of government

This is why you are a LOSER and A Gubmint employee. YOU can't make it any other way, can you?

Make that a PROUD Government Employee

Well goodie for you. Unicorns and rainbows for you isn't it courtesy of the TAXPAYERS>

 

[Dot Com]

The T, Charles Main and soggy in NOLA are here right on cue.

 

[The T]

The T, Charles Main and soggy in NOLA are here right on cue.

And your point is what?

 

[rightwinger]

This is why you are a LOSER and A Gubmint employee. YOU can't make it any other way, can you?

Make that a PROUD Government Employee

Well goodie for you. Unicorns and rainbows for you isn't it courtesy of the TAXPAYERS>

Yes, I am PROUD of my more than 30 years service in the Dept of Defense. I started working for the evil government shortly after the Vietnam War. I saw 50,000 soldiers die due to poor equipment and poor tactics
I am PROUD every time I see a soldier using a piece of equipment that I have helped test and field. I am PROUD of the magnitude of decreases in soldier deaths due to having the best equipment in the world. I am PROUD of the fact that soldiers will not take the field without equipment I have spent countless hours providing
The Government Employees I have worked with through the years are dedicated to providing the best possible equipment to our soldiers. I have seen them work long hours and pass up more lucrative Defense Contractor positions

Yes.....I am PROUD to be a US Government employee