Jun 02, 2011 1:47 AM GMT
Not bad at all. I've never watched her much before. From what I saw tonight I like.
Bachmann on Sean tonight
-
Jun 02, 2011 1:47 AM GMT -
Jun 02, 2011 1:57 AM GMTOldGeezer saidNot bad at all. I've never watched her much before. From what I saw tonight I like.
Do you think she'll state again that gays target children? -
Jun 02, 2011 2:10 AM GMTI don't like her. She represents everything regressive about the republican party. She's like a fundie "called" to do the Lord's will and "bring the nation back to God". She stirs up the anti-gay crowd and she seems vehemently anti-gay, not just someone opposed to calling gay unions "marriage". -
Jun 02, 2011 2:22 AM GMTI've never really watched her at all before. I'll stay tuned. She was a federal tax litigation attorney prior to congress and those folks are pretty tough. I think I like her as much as palin. I listen to all of them pretty openly so I'll do some more listening. -
Jun 02, 2011 3:45 AM GMTjprichva said
OldGeezer saidI've never really watched her at all before. I'll stay tuned. She was a federal tax litigation attorney prior to congress and those folks are pretty tough. I think I like her as much as palin. I listen to all of them pretty openly so I'll do some more listening.
Oh, I like her much more than Palin.
Palin's just a whiny pill. But Michele----her lunacy is an art form. Endlessly entertaining, a train wreck you can't take your eyes off of. I may contribute to her campaign. I'd hate to see her run out of cash before all the primaries are over.
That's true. She is pretty amusing. Great for comedy. -
Jun 02, 2011 3:47 AM GMTjprichva said
OldGeezer saidI've never really watched her at all before. I'll stay tuned. She was a federal tax litigation attorney prior to congress and those folks are pretty tough. I think I like her as much as palin. I listen to all of them pretty openly so I'll do some more listening.
Oh, I like her much more than Palin.
Palin's just a whiny pill. But Michele----her lunacy is an art form. Endlessly entertaining, a train wreck you can't take your eyes off of. I may contribute to her campaign. I'd hate to see her run out of cash before all the primaries are over.
Yeah, there'a a wild gleam in Bachmann's eyes that just screams CRAZY.
She's a hoot.
I hope she'll be a big part of the Repub fight for the nomination. -
Jun 02, 2011 4:34 AM GMTUh oh, I'm going to get in trouble here, but I hope rickrick that she isn't part of the Repub fight for the nomination.
Not all conservative ideas are bad, anymore all liberal ideas are good. I'd like the republicans of your country to come up with a true and secular leader that though he has convictions of a personal nature, knows better than to inflict them in a public manner, as they are by definition personal, and not part of his job description.
This man or woman would be considering the economy and not wasting taxpayer dollars of massive amounts on stalling gov't to focus on social engineering. They do NOT have the best interests of your country at heart, which is all about liberty, I think. Get rid of them. There are excellent republicans out there; all they have to do is seek them out.
-
Jun 02, 2011 4:37 AM GMTApologies, but I can't stand the way your two political sides demonize each other without taking into consideration that by having only two parties, there has to be extremes in each group, as there is nowhere else for them to go.
I think you have to purge them and make them form their own parties.
-
Jun 02, 2011 4:44 AM GMTrickrick91 said
jprichva said
OldGeezer saidI've never really watched her at all before. I'll stay tuned. She was a federal tax litigation attorney prior to congress and those folks are pretty tough. I think I like her as much as palin. I listen to all of them pretty openly so I'll do some more listening.
Oh, I like her much more than Palin.
Palin's just a whiny pill. But Michele----her lunacy is an art form. Endlessly entertaining, a train wreck you can't take your eyes off of. I may contribute to her campaign. I'd hate to see her run out of cash before all the primaries are over.
Yeah, there'a a wild gleam in Bachmann's eyes that just screams CRAZY.
She's a hoot.
I hope she'll be a big part of the Repub fight for the nomination.
And then there's her husband, who's supposedly a big Mary.
-
Jun 02, 2011 4:50 AM GMTmeninlove said Apologies, but I can't stand the way your two political sides demonize each other without taking into consideration that by having only two parties, there has to be extremes in each group, as there is nowhere else for them to go.
I think you have to purge them and make them form their own parties.
Good luck with that.
I've tried talking to Repubs about remaking their party.
They're not interested.
They don't even admit that they fucked up.
They claim that Bush did a good job - and is "underrated".
They think that the only reason Bush became unpopular is because of the meanness of the "liberal media elite" - totally ignoring the cold hard facts of his record of failure.
They claim that the Dems are the fiscally irresponsible ones who blew up the National Debt even though Reagan more than tripled it while he was in office and Dubya doubled it while he was in office.
They can't possibly correct their failings and failures because they're determined to never even SEE them - let alone admit and apologize for them.
All they want to do is repackage the same failed policies and try to sell the same old shit to the American people with a different label on it.
And YES - there definitely ARE "extremes in each" party - but it ain't the same thing.
The extremes in the Repub party - RUN AND CONTROL THE REPUB PARTY.
The extremes in the Dem party are on the fringe and aren't dictating the party platform and running and controlling the Dem party.
So, I'm sorry I can't agree with you.
-
Jun 02, 2011 5:17 AM GMTrickrick91 said
I've tried talking to Repubs about remaking their party.
They're not interested.
What? You mean Republicans didn't take you're all-knowing sage advice??? GET OUTTA TOWN!!!!!
-
Jun 02, 2011 6:19 AM GMTHere's the link for Michele Bachmann tonite on Hannity---
http://video.foxnews.com/v/971693102001/bachmann-next-to-jump-into-2012-race/
and Sarah Palin will be on on Friday- -
Jun 02, 2011 10:52 AM GMTOoooh ..... such riveting journalism
......... because Hannity is Such a journalist
-
Jun 02, 2011 11:19 AM GMTGQjock saidOoooh ..... such riveting journalism
......... because Hannity is Such a journalist
Sean doesn't claim to be. -
Jun 02, 2011 12:33 PM GMTOn "Sean"???
While I think it fair to listen to some of the Fox "productions", that is one
I'm glad I missed. -
Jun 02, 2011 1:10 PM GMT"sean" is a dweeby little creature...... -
Jun 02, 2011 2:59 PM GMTI might have watched it if it were not on "Hannity". I honestly can hardly stand to listen to that man. All he does is whine whine whine, complain complain complain.
As for Michelle Bachman, I'm not sure what I really think of her yet. She seems like a bright woman, and obviously she has been quite successful. I admire anyone who has helped raise 23 foster children. My mind remains open about her until I actually see what she's got to offer and her stance on any number of issues. I get that many here don't like her, and that's fine, but I'll make up my own mind about her, as I will all the candidates, once we see their platforms take shape in the months to come. It's going to be really tough to beat Barack Obama, and I'm not even sure if I want to see that happen. I think he's doing a pretty good job. -
Jun 02, 2011 3:19 PM GMTmeninlove said Apologies, but I can't stand the way your two political sides demonize each other without taking into consideration that by having only two parties, there has to be extremes in each group, as there is nowhere else for them to go.
I think you have to purge them and make them form their own parties.
I wish we could form a centrist party that was moderately liberal on social issues, moderately conservative on economic issues. Sigh. -
Jun 02, 2011 3:27 PM GMTshowme said
meninlove said Apologies, but I can't stand the way your two political sides demonize each other without taking into consideration that by having only two parties, there has to be extremes in each group, as there is nowhere else for them to go.
I think you have to purge them and make them form their own parties.
I wish we could form a centrist party that was moderately liberal on social issues, moderately conservative on economic issues. Sigh.
That sounds like me
-
Jun 02, 2011 5:05 PM GMTshowme said
meninlove said Apologies, but I can't stand the way your two political sides demonize each other without taking into consideration that by having only two parties, there has to be extremes in each group, as there is nowhere else for them to go.
I think you have to purge them and make them form their own parties.
I wish we could form a centrist party that was moderately liberal on social issues, moderately conservative on economic issues. Sigh.
You just described the Democratic party.
-
Jun 02, 2011 5:10 PM GMTrickrick91 said
showme said
meninlove said Apologies, but I can't stand the way your two political sides demonize each other without taking into consideration that by having only two parties, there has to be extremes in each group, as there is nowhere else for them to go.
I think you have to purge them and make them form their own parties.
I wish we could form a centrist party that was moderately liberal on social issues, moderately conservative on economic issues. Sigh.
You just described the Democratic party.
In your own words,
TOTAL BS. -
Jun 02, 2011 5:34 PM GMTrickrick91 said
showme said
meninlove said Apologies, but I can't stand the way your two political sides demonize each other without taking into consideration that by having only two parties, there has to be extremes in each group, as there is nowhere else for them to go.
I think you have to purge them and make them form their own parties.
I wish we could form a centrist party that was moderately liberal on social issues, moderately conservative on economic issues. Sigh.
You just described the Democratic party.
Wow, BS overload here. -
Jun 02, 2011 6:42 PM GMTmocktwinkie said
rickrick91 said
showme said
meninlove said Apologies, but I can't stand the way your two political sides demonize each other without taking into consideration that by having only two parties, there has to be extremes in each group, as there is nowhere else for them to go.
I think you have to purge them and make them form their own parties.
I wish we could form a centrist party that was moderately liberal on social issues, moderately conservative on economic issues. Sigh.
You just described the Democratic party.
Wow, BS overload here.
Well, lets' look at this in a rational and reality based way.
On "social issues" - the Democratic party is of course liberal.
There are some in the party on the far left who aren't moderate, but the party as a whole is moderately liberal.
The Republican party is of course conservative and NOT liberal on "social issues".
On "social issues" - the Repub party is an advocate for the very conservative agenda of the religious right.
So on "social issues" - the Democratic party matches the description of the political party decribed by showme, while the Republican party does not.
On "economic issues" - both parties haven't been very conservative.
However, on the main component of economic responsibilty - debt creation - the Repubs have been much worse than the Dems.
Reagan more than tripled the National Debt.
Dubya doubled the national Debt.
Clinton, on the other hand - actually had yearly budget surpluses during his presidency.
And while Obama has added a lot of debt to the massive National Debt he inherited from Bush (in order to pull the country out of the recession he also inherited from Bush) - he hasn't come close to tripling the National Debt.
Also, while Obama got a lot of criticism for passing a HCR bill that was large and not completely paid for - Bush passed a prescription drug bill that was large and completely UNpaid for.
So, the facts show that the Repubs - the party of "deficits don't matter" - have been AT LEAST as fiscally irresponsible on "economic issues" as the Dems.
As I said - the Democratic party is a pretty good match for the "centrist party" that is "moderately liberal on social issues, moderately conservative on economic issues" that showme described.
The Repub party on the other hand - doesn't match that description at all - and is actually the OPPOSITE of the description to a large degree. -
Jun 02, 2011 7:14 PM GMTrickrick91 said
mocktwinkie said
rickrick91 said
showme said
meninlove said Apologies, but I can't stand the way your two political sides demonize each other without taking into consideration that by having only two parties, there has to be extremes in each group, as there is nowhere else for them to go.
I think you have to purge them and make them form their own parties.
I wish we could form a centrist party that was moderately liberal on social issues, moderately conservative on economic issues. Sigh.
You just described the Democratic party.
Wow, BS overload here.
Well, lets' look at this in a rational and reality based way.
On "social issues" - the Democratic party is of course liberal.
There are some in the party on the far left who aren't moderate, but the party as a whole is moderately liberal.
The Republican party is of course conservative and NOT liberal on "social issues".
On "social issues" - the Repub party is an advocate for the very conservative agenda of the religious right.
So, the Democratic party matches the description of the political party decribed by showme, while the Republican party does not.
On "economic issues" - both parties haven't been very conservative.
However, on the main component of economic responsibilty - debt creation - the Repubs have been much worse than the Dems.
Reagan more than tripled the National Debt.
Dubya doubled the national Debt.
Clinton, on the other - actually had yearly budget surpluses during his presidency.
Blinded by bias once again. You're implying yearly as in every year? How many years? I don't see any credit from you going to Newtie and the republican congress.
And while Obama has added a lot of debt to the massive National Debt he inherited from Bush (in order to pull the country out of the recession he also inherited from Bush) - he hasn't come close to tripling the National Debt.
Also, while Obama got a lot of criticism for passing a HCR bill that was large and not completely paid for - Bush passed a prescription drug bill that was large and completely UNpaid for.
So, the facts show that the Repubs - the party of "deficits don't matter" - have been AT LEAST as fiscally irresponsible on "economic issues" as the Dems.
The Democratic party is indeed a good match for the "centrist party" that is "moderately liberal on social issues, moderately conservative on economic issues" that showme described.
The Repub party doesn't match that description at all - and is actually the OPPOSITE of the description to a large degree. -
Jun 02, 2011 7:16 PM GMTrickrick91 said
showme said
meninlove said Apologies, but I can't stand the way your two political sides demonize each other without taking into consideration that by having only two parties, there has to be extremes in each group, as there is nowhere else for them to go.
I think you have to purge them and make them form their own parties.
I wish we could form a centrist party that was moderately liberal on social issues, moderately conservative on economic issues. Sigh.
You just described the Democratic party.
The democratic party of JFK's era? Ok maybe. The democratic party of Reed, Pelosi, and Obama - not hardly.
