Michele Bachmann

Started by Ushgarak7 pages
Originally posted by dadudemon
Calling SC out when he's been following myself and others around, trolling, and using strawman posts like it's going out of style? You know I haven't reported it despite that he's bordering on harassment at this point. At least point out that I did not report jack shit so people don't think I went whining to the mods about SC.

All I see in this thread is you making it personal first and as a result derailing the thread. You not reporting a purported wrong but instead bringing it into arguments in the threads is not the way we like things done.

So please do not act like that in future.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
All I see in this thread is you making it personal first and as a result derailing the thread. You not reporting a purported wrong but instead bringing it into arguments in the threads is not the way we like things done.

So please do not act like that in future.

Yes sir. But I was just responding to a video that literally calls me an ***hole, mean, a jerk, etc...and I did not call him any names, at all.

And that's that. The subject is closed.

It literally does nothing of the sort.

If you feel there is an issue, report it rather than 'call out'.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It literally does nothing of the sort.

If you feel there is an issue, report it rather than 'call out'.

The subject is closed, at this point. If you have any further comments, please send me a PM and I'd be more than happy to respond. You and I have taken this thread off track, now.

Try and backseat mod like that again and you will receive an official warning. You do not get to make those decisions.

I did not demand you send me a PM, I politely requested you take it there. If you continue to publicly harass me, I will report your actions.

Ok, you are doing this just to be annoying now,. That's an official warning to you and a ban if you continue.

Michele Bachmann is the most "memorized" candidate, that I an see. Herman Cain also comes off as memorizing and spitting out an advertisement, but Michele has him beat. I actually think that is a detriment to her candidacy. However, she is not savvy enough to have the correct answers so she has not choice but the use rote memory to answer questions. This is my observation of the last 4 Republican debates, at least.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Calling SC out when he's been following myself and others around, trolling, and using strawman posts like it's going out of style? You know I haven't reported it despite that he's bordering on harassment at this point. At least point out that I did not report jack shit so people don't think I went whining to the mods about SC.

Don't bother...Mods only support their buddies. When I was harrass by Bardock during my global mod days not a single mod support me. Which is why I don't bother coming here anymore. KMC is the shitter for moderator buddies and trolls. I like how he's going off topic and not a damn warning to stop. Bullshit...don't waste your post.

As for my post...don't give two-shits about it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Michele Bachmann is the most "memorized" candidate, that I an see. Herman Cain also comes off as memorizing and spitting out an advertisement, but Michele has him beat. I actually think that is a detriment to her candidacy. However, she is not savvy enough to have the correct answers so she has not choice but the use rote memory to answer questions. This is my observation of the last 4 Republican debates, at least.

What i've noticed is that she just doesn't answer the question asked. I remember once she was asked if Romney's health care plan made him unelectable, and she starts talking about how "Obamacare is killing jobs" and not saying a thing about the question. It seems like all the candidates have their own personal technique for trying to avoid answering questions.

Originally posted by King Kandy
What i've noticed is that she just doesn't answer the question asked. I remember once she was asked if Romney's health care plan made him unelectable, and she starts talking about how "Obamacare is killing jobs" and not saying a thing about the question. It seems like all the candidates have their own personal technique for trying to avoid answering questions.

lol, yup. That was the exact moment I had in mind while typing that post out. She memorizes everything because she can't answer the questions properly. So she ends up answering the questions tangentially half the time.

Originally posted by King Kandy
What i've noticed is that she just doesn't answer the question asked. I remember once she was asked if Romney's health care plan made him unelectable, and she starts talking about how "Obamacare is killing jobs" and not saying a thing about the question. It seems like all the candidates have their own personal technique for trying to avoid answering questions.

It's because she's an idiot.

I don't think she's an idiot, politically an idiot and an idiot in many important senses (like common sense, Burning a Quran and filming it? WTH?), but I don't think she's idiotic in the sense Sarah Palin is idiotic.

My main issue with her is that she uses what little actual intelligence she possesses for--at the risk of sounding cliche--evil.

Originally posted by dadudemon
lol, yup. That was the exact moment I had in mind while typing that post out. She memorizes everything because she can't answer the questions properly. So she ends up answering the questions tangentially half the time.

I think her only talking point on health care is "get rid of Obamacare!" She literally can't give any other answer when asked anything with the words health care.

Newt Gingrich's dodge is my favorite: Give an extremely simplistic non answer in five seconds, then say "well, since I still have some time left..." and talk about whatever he wants. I swear, he uses that almost every question.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Newt Gingrich's dodge is my favorite: Give an extremely simplistic non answer in five seconds, then say "well, since I still have some time left..." and talk about whatever he wants. I swear, he uses that almost every question.

Do you have an example or two of what you mean? I have yet to experience one of Newt's simplistic "non-answer" questions. They always seem to be relevant...but superficial.

Generally, I like Newt's approach. I like it when he calls the moderators out on their "gotcha" or "fight eachother" questions. Though

Do you think it would be okay to create another thread dedicated to the republican debates? I don't think the individual debates will garner much attention beyond one page, at the most. I think it would be easier to have one "2012 Republican Nomination Debates" thread.

Go ahead.

They aren't really non-answers, more like, he gives a super-short summary and instead of speaking on the question extensively just tries to get to the switch-off as soon as he can.

WILLIAMS: Congressman, thank you.

Over to Speaker Gingrich.

(APPLAUSE)

Mr. Speaker, as you remember, you wrote the foreword to Rick Perry's most recent book called "Fed Up," and you called him, quote, "uniquely qualified to explain what's taking place with the economy." Does that mean, in terms of job creation credentials, he has your proxy at a gathering like this?

GINGRICH: No, but it means that, if he wants to write another book, I'll write another foreword.

(LAUGHTER)

As he himself -- look, he's said himself, that was an interesting book of ideas by somebody who's not proposing a manifesto for president. And I think to go back and try to take that apart is silly.

Here comes the switchup:

But let me just use my time for a second, if I might, Brian. I served during the Reagan campaign with people like Jack Kemp and Art Laffer. We had an idea for job creation. I served as a freshman -- or as a sophomore helping pass the Reagan's jobs program. At newt.org, I put out last Friday the response to the Obama stagnation.

The fact is, if you took the peak of the Reagan unemployment, which he inherited from Carter, by last Friday, going month by month, under Ronald Reagan, we'd have 3,700,000 more Americans working.

When I was speaker, we added 11 million jobs, in a bipartisan effort, including welfare reform, the largest capital gains tax cut in history. We balanced the budget for four straight years.

The fact that President Obama doesn't come to the Reagan Library to try to figure out how to create jobs, doesn't talk to any of these three governors to learn how to create jobs, doesn't talk to Herman Cain to learn how to create jobs tells you that this is a president so committed to class warfare and so committed to bureaucratic socialism that he can't possibly be effective in jobs.

WILLIAMS: Congresswoman, time.

Speaker Gingrich, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, will come to the end of his term in 2014. Would you reappoint Ben Bernanke?

GINGRICH: I would fire him tomorrow.

WILLIAMS: Why?

GINGRICH: I think he's been the most inflationary, dangerous, and power-centered chairman of the Fed in the history of the Fed. I think the Fed should be audited. I think the amount of money that he has shifted around in secret, with no responsibility, no -- no -- no accountability, no transparency, is absolutely antithetical to a free society. And I think his policies have deepened the depression, lengthened the problems, increased the cost of gasoline, and been a disaster.

I want to take the rest of my time, Brian, to go back to a question you asked that was very important. We were asked the wrong question at the last debate. The question isn't, would we favor a tax increase? The question is, how would we generate revenue?

There are three good ways. The Ronald Reagan technique put 3,700,000 more people back to work as of last Friday. You reduce government spending. You raise government revenues enormously. The committee of 12 ought to be looking at, how do you create more revenue, not how do you raise taxes.

Second, you go to energy, exactly as Michele Bachmann has said. You open up American energy, $500 billion a year here at home, enormous increase in federal revenue.

Third, we own -- with all due respect, Governor -- we own 69 percent of Alaska. That's one-and-a-half Texases. Now, let's set half of Texas -- let's set a half Texas aside for national parks. We could liberate an area the size of Texas for minerals and other development. That would raise even more revenue, not the normal Washington viewpoint.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Go ahead.

They aren't really non-answers, more like, he gives a super-short summary and instead of speaking on the question extensively just tries to get to the switch-off as soon as he can.

K. I will. I just didn't want to talk about stuff in 17 different threads for basically the same shit.

Anyway...

I agree. I did not see them as being non-answers, per se. In fact, his answer on Ben Bernanke is pretty much what I would have said if put on the spot in an interview. Of course, if given plenty of time to carefully think out of my answer, I could use actual actions and statements to back that up which is what some better prepared candidates can sometimes do (just wait until the presidential debates: that's when they start to memorize facts and quotes and use them...as you obviously already know).

I do remember in like the second or third debate, he was asked a question that the rest of them took quite a while to answer and his answer was "no. 😐 " The crowd laughed. He then proceeded to give 2 or 3 sentences on why his answer was "no" but it still did not go much into detail. I still don't consider those non-answers, just superficial. Keep in mind that most people eat that shit up: they love it. It makes Newt appealing to many voters because he comes off less as a silver-tongued politician and more of a "straight and to the point" common-man.

Obviously, he is the former and not the latter, but that doesn't stop him from employing that. I do enjoy that particular aspect of his style, however. I also like some of his answers, but I do not like Newt for President.

Two weeks ago, President Obama signed a government takeover of
healthcare into law. Unemployment remains high, and federal spending
continues to increase at an alarming rate. Now, it is more important
than ever to protect our nation's founding principles of individual
freedom, personal responsibility and the free market by supporting
candidates with time-tested conservative principles like Minnesota's
own Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.
Today, thousands of you will join me to welcome Governor Sarah Palin
to Minneapolis for a rally to salute Congresswoman Michele Bachmann
for her leadership.
Even if you can't be at today's rally in person, I urge you to be
support Michele's fight against Washington liberals. Send her your
message of support today and contribute $10, $25 or $100 today to
ensure that she will continue to fight the liberal agenda in
Washington.
Michele Bachmann is under attack from extreme liberal activists for
standing up for her Constitutional conservative principles. Michele
has a proven record of promoting free markets, questioning the
encroachment of the federal government, and refusing to accept that
government officials in Washington should make decisions for everyday
Americans.
I founded Freedom First PAC in order to support candidates who will
promote these conservative principles to ensure a strong America for
future generations. Michele Bachmann is one of these proven
conservative candidates.
Thanks for your support,

She's an idiot.

Gingrich is a blowhard, I hope that adulterous old Zionist gets knocked out of the race ASAP.