The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Bachmann talks

Re: Bachmann talks

MoeLarryAndJesus — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:13:08 -0000

Now Bachmann is claiming Matthews "trapped her."

I guess that explains her feral, wolverine-in-the-headlights mental patient stare while she was babbling on with her paranoid whackjob bullshit.

Re: Bachmann talks

sharky — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:11:22 -0000

Are you suggesting that women call men worse names than men call women, or just that women have more social power?

Either's a source for a daily giggle.

Re: Bachmann talks

Jim — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:38:12 -0000

"Perhaps at this point I'm just irritated that in gendered terms, among the examples you suggested, the most offensive are female. "

Yeah, the shock of the shoe being on the other foot for once must be awful.

Re: Bachmann talks

sharky — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:45:58 -0000

Mmm, probably not!

Your terms are still weighted kind of funny. I mean, in offensiveness scaled 1-5, that's 3, 2, 3 at most, 5!, and 4.

Perhaps at this point I'm just irritated that in gendered terms, among the examples you suggested, the most offensive are female.

Re: Bachmann talks

Tony Comstock — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 07:34:16 -0000

Hello Sharkey, and thanks for the cheerful happy call-out!

RE: Misogynistic Language

Perhaps as a side effect of the work I do, I have spent more than a little time thinking about where, when and how I use sexual and/or excretory organ words, especially as invectives.

For example, I never use the word "pussy" or "wussy" for coward; nor do I use "douche" or "douche-bag" for worthless or contemptible.

I do use -- variously -- asshole, prick, dickhead, cunty and yes, even sometimes, twat.

Similarly, I never use "sucks" as a descriptor, but sometimes use "jerk".

Probably none of them are appropriate here. After all, this is The Atlantic.

Re: Bachmann talks

sharky — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:05:24 -0000

Tony--cheerful happy calling-out on thanks for not using misogynistic language!

...what? I can't let the Republicans get ahead of me.

Re: Bachmann talks

Tessa — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:44:49 -0000

This is the same woman who said THIS...

"[Pelosi] is committed to her global warming fanaticism to the point where she has said that she's just trying to save the planet. We all know that someone did that over 2,000 years ago, they saved the planet -- we didn't need Nancy Pelosi to do that," Michele Bachmann

Oy.

Re: Bachmann talks

dkan71 — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:40:03 -0000

Remember all those people that said that BHO's ad regarding JMc's technology ignorance was below the belt because his POW injuries prevented him from using a computer.

Well, this is why it's relevant. It's like none of these Republican pols has ever heard of youtube or know how the thing works.

They need to be rounded up into a youtube sensitivity training seminar or something so they don't continue to make such giant buffoons of themselves. Or on second thought...nah...let the buffoonery continue.

btw...love the idea that with the assistance of youtube tha "this is how the politics of Rove stop, we get offended at the blatant lies and contribute to defeating the liar."

Democracy and the free market at work in service of justice. I love it!

I think Sarah Palin is personally responsible for about $85M of the $150M Obama raised last month.

Re: Bachmann talks

Tony Comstock — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 19:46:01 -0000

Manju,

Did you see this bit on Doutwat's blog:

"...the thing with Marxism was that every single time someone actually tried to implement its tenets, the result was mass murder and large-scale impoverishment: There weren't any examples, save in fantasyland, of a Marxist regime that wasn't an economically-incompetent tyranny. So for Weisberg's analogy to work, libertarian principles would need to have produced misery more or less steadily, across multiple regimes and cultures."

Now granted, capitalism, with the slavery and the genocide and the world wars, etc. doesn't exactly have a stirling record. But still, where do you want to live? Pol Pot's Cambodia, or Argentina circa 1977?

Re: Bachmann talks

Manju — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 19:10:37 -0000

Well, there is a group called "People For the American Way." Aren't they implying Conservatives are anti-American, ie against the American way?

Didn't MLK tirelessly argue that slavery and Jim Crow was un-American, in violation of our creed. Wasn't he implying that racists, some of whom fought and died for this country, harbour views that can accurately be described as anti-American?

After all, America has a creed. And surely Ayers and the Weathermen, communist sympathizing anti-capitalist terrorists, fall under the category of anti-American because, like the segregationists MLK railed against, they embrace a political philosophy that doesn't respect the inalienable rights of the individual on which our regime was built.

I'm voting Obama, but I think its fair to say he appears a tad insensitive to the enormity of the evil leftist intellectuals and fellow travelers like Ayers unleashed on the world during Communism's heyday. I don't think Mathews and Vanden Heuval would've given right-wing extremists, militiamen leaning toward fascism for example, such a pass.

Re: Bachmann talks

deborah — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 19:08:54 -0000

The idea that Harry Reid is un-American (or even very liberal) is patently ludicrous.

That won't matter when Palin comes into office and takes over the Senate.

Re: Bachmann talks

adoannie — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:30:30 -0000

Well, I only watched the tape once, but my recollection is that when Tweety kept pushing her to say whether she thought all liberals were un-American, she refused to answer the question. She didn't deny that she thought that all liberals were un-American, she just refused to make a definitive statement on that question. Which really, given the stupidity of the proposition, is like saying "yes." A proper response would have been to say, "No, of course not." The idea that Harry Reid is un-American (or even very liberal) is patently ludicrous.

Re: Bachmann talks

Drew Ricketts — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:17:52 -0000

On Why the Media Will Chase the White Joe Vote Indefinitely:

http://newsone.blackplanet.com/nation/media-chases-the-white-joe-vote/

Re: Bachmann talks

Stacy — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:14:07 -0000

Yeah, fair point, Asher. TNC probably could have just skipped that part, but I think his point was that she can't bullshit her way out of this one because everyone has seen the tape. I think its funny that she claimed to have "never called all liberals anti-American," because no one was really claiming she did. Her thoughts were terrifying regardless of how you identify yourself.

Re: Bachmann talks

sv — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:58:26 -0000

I am a little concerned here regarding the long-run. We are right to denounce this sort of nonsense, but there is a danger here of focusing too much on the extremely weak and flailing arguments, what TNC would call "weak-sauce", coming out of the GOP with regard to the presidential and other elections taking place on Nov. 4th. They simply have no arguments, no coherent ideas for coming up with good solutions to the problems we face in the short- and medium-term future. That much is clear. As a consequence, most reasonable people, even if they're not convinced to be for Obama, are emphatically *not* voting GOP. As a consequence, they're losing lifelong Republicans, as well as any chance of appealing to young independents of my stripe whom they have struggled to win over, what with their hypocracy and incoherence, for at least a decade.

I support Obama largely because he seems to be the antithesis to all that, and I sense many of you here do too. He's likely to win and that is good, but then what should we do? We have already been robbed of the robust and intelligent debate on issues we were supposed to have with an Obama-McCain race, but that shouldn't make us sit on our hands and just hope Obama figures everything out for us once he's in there. We have got to have this debate anyway. We've got to read his proposals, as well as the actual bills as passed, with a critical eye. What are we going to do long-term about our broken farm bill, for example? I have a clearer idea of how he'll fix our broken foreign policy and defense strategy, and I'll hold him to it, but what about more well-defined and feasible energy policy? What about taxes and healthcare and financial system oversight and governmental transparency? What about the decades-long creep in Big Government, how can we square that with all that we collectively need to do? What about wage inflation and education, and educational inequality?

We aren't talking enough about all those things, is my point. The last debate went further than the previous ones, and Obama has made some detailed proposals, but you can't have a one-voice debate. Just because he's running against an incompetent, doesn't mean we should lower the standard. Bush has already lowered our standard; we need to have higher-than-average standards now.

I propose we touch upon some of these subjects in the coming weeks. (I'm not saying that TNC and others never do, but our focus on the election this fall was supposed to be a catalyst for real exploration and public discourse on the problems we face, and it simply has not been.) Something I'll throw out there just as a first: what pragmatic steps do people think we can take to really improve the American education system? How can we get particularly under-performing schools in poor areas up to speed? Is more school even the answer to improving the economic opportunities available for young people in poor areas with many broken families? Is the answer something simple like charter schools and vouchers?

Re: Bachmann talks

Paul Gilmartin — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:48:25 -0000

Hmmmm, do you think it was the fact that her opponent has received so much financial support since Friday that compelled her to go on Faux news and deny her words???

There have been some historical campaign meltdowns through the years but if (hopefully, when) she loses, this would be absolutely priceless. It would show that the good people of Minnesota reject outright sleazy, bogus, hate-filled rhetoric, especially from their elected representatives.

Come on Tinklenberg!!!

Re: Bachmann talks

Asher — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:27:13 -0000

She denied saying it, Stacy. And TNC's response was, "we saw the tape, lady." Implying that what she said wasn't true. So I was merely wondering why he didn't just dot dot dot that part of her statement, since it is true. But yeah, of course she deserves to go down to defeat. Although personally I'd like to see checks on Obama's ability to get anything passed (though I am voting for him), so the more congressional Republicans the better, but in the case of someone so nuts, we're probably all better off without her.

Re: Bachmann talks

adoannie — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:26:12 -0000

Whatever the hell "anti-American" means. That's what I kept thinking, "Who gets to decide what it means, to be "for" or "against" America?" She was unbelievably ghastly, the way she kept readjusting her smile for the camera.

Re: Bachmann talks

Stacy — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:19:20 -0000

Asher,

Who said that she called all liberals anti-American? She said the media should do an investigation to see what members of Congress are anti-American. I doubt she thinks any of her fellow Republicans are anti-American, but that's really beside the point. I don't care if you're a Republican, or a Democrat, she's fucking crazy and deserves to lose her election.

Re: Bachmann talks

Asher — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:04:07 -0000

But she didn't call all liberals anti-American. She did, however, at least implicitly question Obama's patriotism. But on that statement she's 1 for 2.

Re: Bachmann talks

MoeLarryAndJesus — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:39:15 -0000

I would love to be able to be there on election night to see the immense hissy fit this monstrous Nazified nitwit throws when she loses.

Re: Bachmann talks

BS Bachmann — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:08:01 -0000

I just love the fact that this remark and its subsequent denial is serving to fill the coffers of her opponent. This is how the politics of Rove stop, we get offended at the blatant lies and contribute to defeating the liar.

Re: Bachmann talks

Persia — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:47:10 -0000

"I never called all liberals anti-American"

Sure, lady. Just the brown ones with funny names.

Re: Bachmann talks

ET — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:37:44 -0000

She's so stupid that she believes people are as stupid as she is.

Seriously. Sure she didn't say the equivalent of Democratic = un-American but that is what she was saying. She's just back pedaling because she got caught. She really does believe it that much is obvious. If real conservatives want the GOP to survive they need to rid their party of half-wits like this.

Re: Bachmann talks

howard — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:36:10 -0000

i've noted this before, but it's worth repeating here.

bill ayers was part of a few thousand people in the late '60s and early '70s who were so much in a bubble of their own making that they thought the united states was in a pre-revolutionary situation.

but the key it that it was a few thousand people.

rep. bachman is part of a group of millions of people in our times who are so deeply into a bubble of their own making that they quite literally don't make any sense to the rest of us.

millions vs. thousands, but i'm supposed to worry about socialism or something....