Among the many things I was grateful for this past Thanksgiving was the fact that this deeply ignorant woman will never, never, never be president. Her candidacy is an anomaly [wait...Cain? Perry?...maybe not], and perhaps after the 2012 elections, this country will sober up from the drunken binge of teh stupid it has recklessly wallowed in these past months and which has embarrassed every sober-thinking American.
Her latest pronouncement has her wondering why American public schools don't teach Biblical dogma to students; and in addition to that idiocy, she repeats the imbecility that Evolution is "only a theory" and should be taught as an equal science with Intelligent Design and Creationism.
Once upon a time this country respected and admired scholarship, erudition, and those who strove to better themselves through higher education.
For some reason, the current GOP has decided that pandering to those with the least amount of education is the best way to win votes. How else to explain their absurd claim that Evolution is just a theory or that climate change is a hoax, or that cutting taxes for billionaires will create revenue and jobs, and worse, that vaccinating children against disease causes mental retardation?
The lastest twaddle from Rep. Bachmann, who will never be president, is this:
"Asked by a Catholic student why it’s not a violation of the separation of church and state for a public school to teach the religiously-tinged theories, Bachmann said evolution is just a 'theory' that even 'evolutionists' are not sure of:
BACHMANN: I think what you’re advocating for is censorship on the part of government. So the government would prohibit intelligent design from even the possibility of being taught in questioning the issueof evolution. And if you look at scientists there is not a unanimity of agreement on the origins of life. … Why would we forstall any particular theory? Becuase I don’t think that even evolutionists, by and large, would say that this is proven fact. They say that this is a theory, as well as intelligent design. So I think the best thing to do is to let all scientific facts on the table, and let students decide."
Michele Bachmann is an embarrassment to anyone who values education and enlightenment.
And this statement alone should disqualify Bachmann from representing anyone who has a functioning intellect:
"Because I don’t think that even evolutionists, by and large, would say that this is proven fact. They say that this is a theory, as well as intelligent design. So I think the best thing to do is to let all scientific facts on the table, and let students decide."
Creationism and Intelligent Design are not scientific facts. And I don't know of any "evolutionist" [whatever that is] who denies that evolution is a fact. Bachmann shouldn't talk about things she knows nothing about.
Conservatives become indignant and complain that liberals and others make fun of them; call them dumb. Here's a way to put an end to that teasing: Stop allowing stupid people to represent you.
"Speaking to supporters in Iowa Wednesday, Bachmann talked about the recent conflict in the Iranian capital of Tehran between protesters and the British embassy, which has led to the closure of the facility and the evacuation of diplomats.
"That's exactly what I would do [if I were president]," Bachmann said. "We wouldn't have an embassy in Iran. I wouldn't allow that to be there."
This is another example of Bachmann's ignorance. The above isn't a "gaffe." It is an example of Bachmann's profound stupidity and ignorance of basic foreign policy information.
The US has not had an embassy in Iran since 1980.
Bachmann is a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence. Shame on the people in her district in Minnesota for allowing someone as stupid as Bachmann to represent this country in any capacity.
UPDATE:
Republican John Danforth, who served as a senator from Missouri for nearly 20 years and later as George W. Bush’s ambassador the United Nations, is not happy with the slate of Republican presidential candidates. “I’ve been watching some of these Republican debates and they’re just terrible. Terrible,” he told KTRS in St. Louis yesterday. “It’s embarrassing for me as a Republican to watch this stuff,” he added, calling out audiences for applauding the candidates’ morbid boastings. Via Fired Up Missouri:
DANFORTH: What have been the big applause lines in these debates? Well, a statement that the governor of Texas is responsible for killing 234 people on death row. Or that we favor torture. Or that we’re creating a fence on the Mexican border that electrocutes people when they try to cross it. Or when people show up at the emergency room at hospitals and they’re not insured don’t treat them. And that, I mean these are the big applause lines, people just hoop and holler when they hear all that. [...]
It doesn’t have anything to do with the republican party that I was a part of. This is just totally different. And all of these people who are saying this, y’know, and claiming that, y’know, they’re for all this stuff, they also sort of ostentatiously say, “Oh, we’re very religious people. We really, we’re just very pious, Christian people.” They were for torture, and electrocution of the people on along the border and all of that. That doesn’t have anything to do with, is contrary to the Christianity that I understand.
33 comments:
I think you were raised Catholic Shaw. I still am one.
Maybe you could explain this to me. The Jesus freaks don't believe evolution. But now they don;t belive the biblical story of creation either since they made up creationism.
Never mind. I figured it out from your clues. They're idiots.
The media is on 24/7 Bachmann watch for the most trivial gaffes and non-gaffres, but the really serious gaffes by Obama are ignored. Bachmann has made fewer misstatements than the average politician. However, Team Obama media jackals have made a career of perverting and distorting her statements to turn them into gaffes. These Team Obama jackals have ignored Obama's continual lies and gaffes, to wit:
Barack Obama said that he campaigned "in all 57 states;" that our country was founded "20 centuries ago;" pronounced Navy Corpsman "corpseman;" called "Austrian" a foreign language; and referred to "The President of Canada" and to Europe as "a country." Speaking in Hawaii, Obama said "Here in Asia..."
There are 50 States in the USA. But there are 57 Muslim States in the world: a Freudian slip by Barack Hussein Obama.
More significantly, Obama lied about his relationship with convicted terrorist Bill Ayers, whom Obama called "some guy in the neighborhood." Ayers was an early Obama political supporter. Obama began his campaign for the Illinois State Senate at a fundraiser at Ayers' house.
cma6, I see that you're a Bachmann supporter.
And because you do support Bachmann, it is not surprising that you don't understand the difference between a gaffe and a stupid statement.
It is not "censorship" on the part of the government to not teach a Biblically-based doctrine in a tax-payer funded school, as Bachmann claims. And it is embarrassingly stupid to suggest, as Bachmann does, that Evolution is not a fact, when it is a fact.
This country has many problems to solve; we need smart people to solve them, not confused and ignorant jackasses who pander to the dumbest among us.
TRUTH, I was raised a Catholic. Never once did I hear anything in my CCD classes to dispute Evolution.
I believe evangelical Christians are so insecure in their faith that they fear scientific enlightenment will cause them to lose it.
Why else would anyone with a clear mind compare saying "57 states" [Mr. Obama was referring to the 57 primaries he had to compete in, BTW] to someone who questions an established scientific fact.
Everyone makes gaffes--Bachmann, for example said Concord, NH, is where the American Revolution started, for example, instead of Concord, Mass. A gaffe.
cma6 tries to make his/her case by citing Mr. Obama's gaffes as proof of what? That candidates who are traveling and talking 24/7 during a campaign get tripped up? Really?
But you've got to be really ignorant to claim, as Bachmann does, that the Biblical story of creation [the earth was created in 6 days, the earth is only 6,000 years old, etc.,] is scientific fact and should be taught along side of Evolution.
That's like suggesting astrology should be taught along side of astronomy in science class because they both deal with astronomical objects.
"Speaking to supporters in Iowa Wednesday, Bachmann talked about the recent conflict in the Iranian capital of Tehran between protesters and the British embassy, which has led to the closure of the facility and the evacuation of diplomats.
"That's exactly what I would do [if I were president]," Bachmann said. "We wouldn't have an embassy in Iran. I wouldn't allow that to be there."
To cma6:
This is another example of Bachmann's ignorance. The above isn't a "gaffe." It is an example of Bachmann's profound stupidity and ignorance of basic foreign policy information.
The US has not had an embassy in Iran since 1980.
Bachmann is a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence. Shame on the people in her district in Minnesota for allowing someone as stupid as Bachmann to represent this country in any capacity.
Shaw, we can entertain cma6, but looking at the profile of this "blogger" will show us that once again, he/she is new to the new, has few pages views, and has a mix of numbers and letters in the screen name.
Every other time we have seen this, it has been shown to be someone masquerading as a real person/blogger.
I think it is safe to assume that, based on a talking point response that does not address the facts of your post, that this person too is a fake, like so many before.
Nice post BTW. I might add that when Bachmann does err, she then doubles down on stupid instead of just saying she made a mistake.
At least Perry could laugh at himself.
Stupid, ignorant, idiots... Hm, enough to offend even this atheist non Bachmann supporter.
RN, How would you describe a person who claims creationism as fact?
A person who wants to be president but doesn't know that the US has had no embassy in Iran since 1980?
A person who, on hearing only one story from one person, claims during a nationally televised debate, that a vaccine causes mental retardation?
A person who said not once, but twice in reference to the Founding Fathers: "The very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States."
No well educated person would repeat such nonsense.
And this:
"Bachmann took to the House floor and paid tribute to the economic policies of Calvin Coolidge and the "Roaring 20s" (the era that ended with a massive monetary contraction and the Great Depression). One particular line really does stand out, though -- saying Franklin Roosevelt turned a recession into a depression through the "Hoot-Smalley" tariffs:
Here's what really happened: When Franklin Roosevelt took office, unemployment was already about 25%. And the tariff referred to here was actually the Smoot-Hawley bill, co-authored by Republicans Sen. Reed Smoot of Utah and Rep. Willis Hawley of Oregon, and signed into law by President Herbert Hoover.
Interestingly, this speech also happened on the same day when Bachmann connected the 1970s swine flu outbreak to Democrat Jimmy Carter being president, even though it was actually Gerald Ford in office at the time.
You find it offensive that I regard her as stupid? How else would anyone label these egregious statements. She's a United States Representative with a supposed law degree. At any other time in our US history, she would have been laughed off of the presidential nomination stage. Why is it acceptable now to regard this ignoramus as a viable candidate to be president of the United States?
You should be offended, RN--offended that a huge number of people think of her as a serious candidate for president of the United States.
BTW, RN, I've left several comments over at your blog, and they disappear. You should check your "comments" tag in Blogger to find out why this keeps happening.
Shaw, maybe RN should be scared... I am.
This is my favorite line from your post...
"So I think the best thing to do is to let all scientific facts on the table, and let students decide."
Since when did facts become something you can pick and choose to believe?
You know, come to think of, I just don't think we can trust those scientists that claim the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Can we?
RN,
If I were in your shoes (glad I am not for reasons other than you think - I have 8 appendages), but if I were in your shoes, I would be offended that my party's reputation has been sullied by the exceptionally low quality of candidates. This is where tribal politics distorts objectivity to the point of unreality. Party loyalty blinds people to the damage being done. At no point in the history of this country has there ever been a clown show of this magnitude: Grossly under qualified (Perry), flagrant flip flopper (Mittens), serial groper (Cain), character disordered megalomaniac (Gingrich), and the Queen of Preen (Michelle Munchkin). If I were in your shoes, I'd be mad as hell.
Fortunately, some of us are not your shoes. We just sit back and laugh.
Uninformed. ill informed, driven by mystical or mythological religious dogma or doctrine as pronounced by man, one who has decided that faith "science" is a reasoned as science based in reason and documented facts, could probably come up with a bunch more if I had time.
The point is the choice of your words may play well with the left. I suspect it does little to get the attention of the ones you are attempting to "influence", like the moderates and reasonable conservatives.
Just MHO.
I'll check it out. Although I haven't change anything.
RN, while his choice of words may be over the top, Octo has an 8 point slam dunk on this one.
It was not too long ago that the right/conservatives/GOP/pre Tea party folks branded candidate Barack Obama as unqualified to be president.
Yet as this group of candidates moves forward, we see GOP coalitions leaving behind previously held positions to support those with whom they disagree [Gingrich and Cain], support people who change their positions to deal with situations [I believe the GOP has called this flip flopping in the past], and defend those who double down on stupid statements [Bachmann].
Tell us, how can a party, and a block of voters be taken seriously when this is what they are foisting on us?
I think the last Democratic primary had 5 sitting Senators, 2 former Senators, 1 Representative, 2 former governors, and 1 sitting Governor.
A majority of these folks had serious foreign policy and administrative experience. A case could be made that we got the least qualified of them all, but he seems head and shoulders above the group the GOP has out front now.
Here's a great question for the right... SHould we believe GOP Leaders when they publicly state that they are happy with this crop of weak candidates, or are they not telling the truth because it is too painful?
You tell me.
Here's the Bachmann double down link which we all knew we'd be seeing today... just like her revolutionary war comment...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/01/michele-bachmann-iran-embassy_n_1122956.html
"...like the moderates and reasonable conservatives."
RN, the moderates and reasonable conservatives agree with me. Don't you read Frum, Douthat, Parker, Brooks? They ARE appalled, and they don't use euphemisms to cover up the ugly fact that the GOP has allowed a group of intelligence-challenged candidates to represent the Party of Lincoln.
I'm not a Republican, but even I am offended that Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Palin, O'Donnell, Walsh, West, etc. represent the party. Gingrich and Romney may possess some intellect, but they've corrupted what little they have in order to pander to the low-information voters in the GOP.
Someone once said that Newt Gingrich is a stupid man's idea of what a smart man sounds like.
And Romney has changed his position on every major issue. Every single one.
I have no expectation to convince the extremists in the GOP who support the likes of Bachmann, Perry, and Cain of anything.
The fact that they support these types of candidates proves they are incapable of making any sort of rational judgement based on facts.
Dave, that link you posted also has this quote from Bachmann on vice presidential choices she'd consider:
"We've got a lot of wonderful candidates who would fit that bill," Bachmann said during an interview on Fox News. "Easily comes to mind I think would be Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina. Marco Rubio of Florida certainly would be in that category. There's a lot of great people out there. And Donald Trump is someone that I think a lot of people would be intrigued with, too."
Doesn't Michele know that Donald is too busy gathering information from the investigators he sent to Hawaii to prove that Mr. Obama's birth certificate is a fake?
Did she forget how he unequivocally stated that he cannot believe what his investigators were finding, that we all would be amazed at what those investigators found.
That was how many months ago?
Why hasn't Donald shown us this unbelievable evidence he speaks of?
Yes, Michele, Donald certainly is "intriguing,"--in the way we would be intrigued by hamster doing cartwheels on an elephant's trunk.
Yes I read what moderate conservatives like Frum are saying. I stand by my statements in prior comment.
BTW, I like your "intelligence challenged candidates" euphemism for the truth.
That's why I am supporting Ron Paul. Who I am sure in the minds of the liberals, as opposed to libertarians, is the least of the republican "evils."
From Crooks and Liars:
"Even though Michele Bachmann's viability as a candidate is almost nil, what she stands for is important, since Rick Perry and Sarah Palin are also high-profile members of the dominionist movement. Dr. George Grant is the chancellor and founder of New College Franklin in Tennessee. New College Franklin is a small, private Christian university with big dreams.
Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ-to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.
But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice.
It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.
It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
It is dominion we are after.
World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less.
If Jesus Christ is indeed Lord, as the Bible says, and if our commission is to bring the land into subjection to His Lordship, as the Bible says, then all our activities, all our witnessing, all our preaching, all our craftsmanship, all our stewardship, and all our political action will aim at nothing short of that sacred purpose.
Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land - of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. It is to reinstitute the authority of God's Word as supreme over all judgments, over all legislation, over all declarations, constitutions, and confederations.
Rarely have I seen such a straightforward statement of dominionism. By the way, it is such a radical theology and political stance that many politicians running for office run away from these types. John McCain embraced, then rejected John Hagee in 2008, and now Bachmann has removed the reference to Grant's endorsement from her campaign website, too."
Sounds exactly like something that represents Islam as well. Just substitute Allah and bingo, there it is again.
Which is why religion, which is man/women inspired (as opposed to spirituality) is dangerous. At the end of the day religion, like statist government is all about power. Which is to say control over your fellow man/women.
RN: “ The point is the choice of your words may play well with the left. I suspect it does little to get the attention of the ones you are attempting to "influence", like the moderates and reasonable conservatives.”
Les,
Please accept my apologies with the over-the-top word choice. I understand how you feel, and it would certainly annoy me if the roles were reversed. All I am saying is that grassroots Republicans should put more pressure on their leadership to field more viable candidates with wider voter appeal.
Write to Chairman Rancid Priebus and let him know how unhappy you are. Perhaps you can circulate a questionnaire to help the party come up with the purrfect designer candidate based on qualifications, experience, poise, hair color, shoe size, and choice of makeup artist. Once you query the rank and file, perhaps your ideal candidate may be this, or maybe even this.
At least Krauthammer, whom I rarely agree with, has come out in a column today and called the field weak.
All we need now is for the rest of what was once a national party with some honor, to do the same and get real with the American people.
Really, any candidate who thinks people like Cain and Trump belong anywhere the Oval Office is not worthy of consideration.
Any party who refuses to address and denounce this type of silliness, and remains silent, must be seen to agree with silliness.
That is, after all, the GOP standard for judging others, isn't it?
"Michele Bachmann is an embarrassment."
Indeed she is. So was George W. Bush, yet he not only got appointed, he got "re-elected" after people had already seen four years of his perversity, shallowness and incompetence, and the rampant corruption in his administration and among congressional Republicans.
Somehow, Danforth toughed all that out. Go figure.
As for Bachmann and those of her ilk on education, evolution and such, her attitude is no surprise. When all you know and care about is politics, about winning and wielding power, facts and truth mean nothing. Inconvenient science is easily dismissed. Just as bad, science is placed on an equal plane with faith-based theories.
as a moderate observer from another country i can tell you that it took about 5 minutes listening to bachman to figure out she's a mean spirited vindictive bitch. as are most fundamentalist christians.
" BP - ...it took about 5 minutes listening to bachman to figure out she's a mean spirited vindictive bitch. as are most fundamentalist christians."
I get the point about Bachmann and your somewhat justified thoughts about her.
I'm just curious as to how you arrive at the closing part of your statement. Fundamentalist Christians certainly are opinionated {who isn't?}, and true to their beliefs as well {who isn't?} But to classify the majority as you did? It is a stretch.
BTW, I am not a fundamentalist Christian.
I agree 100% with Billy's comment. I live around nothing but fundamentalists for the most part and, sadly because I love them nevertheless, the majority of my family are fundamentalists. For every reasonable conservative, moderate, or what have you I meet, I run into 25 fundies at least. Moving back to Nashville after over 30 years in Denver has been total culture shock
I find them, without exception, to be mercenary, mean-spirited, hate-filled, paranoid, vindictive, close minded, and ignorant as all hell. Without exception. Oh, I said that already.
You're right on Leslie. I reconnected with an old high school buddy recently who's also a fundie. His parents especially were real nuts. You couldn't talk any sense at all to these people.
Any form of dissent from what they believed was attacked as blasphemy and threats of hell and banishment from their home.
These nuts had to pray over what kind of dog food they bought. All kinds of crazy shit. And to my knowledge they always had menial, minimum wage or close to it jobs. Yet voted straight republican every time because they beleived democrats had no moral values and wanted to kill babies and take away everyone's gun.
These kooks will convince themselves to beleve any lie no matter how ridiculous if it comes from "one of them."
Billy, Leslie, and TRUTH, we understand why Bachmann appeals to certain fundamentalists. She gets down to their level of paranoia and ignorance and cultivates an "us against them" attitude.
TRUTH, do you know anything about this Illinois state legislator:
Daniel Biss?
I had the pleasure of seeing his brother, Jonathan, perform Beethoven's Piano Concerto #4 yesterday at Boston Symphony. Last spring I saw Jonathan perform Beethoven's Piano Concerto #5.
What talented people the Biss are!
I was amazed to read Daniel's background (Harvard and MIT grad in mathematics) and learn that he went into politics!
Daniel is a Democrat! That makes me feel somewhat more positive about the level of intelligence in our politicians.
Well that about settles lt for me. Guess I'm lucky I haven't met many fundies. But why would I seeing how I'm a depraved immoral atheist.
RN,
If you are a depraved immoral atheist, welcome to the club. May I buy you a drink!
never had any contact with Rep. Biss. We don't get much news from outside of Quincy from our local media though. And since my mutual shunning of the Machinist Union I don't get out much.
I hope Mr. Biss does well. Illinois is fortunate that a guy with his brilliance decided to go into politics.
Octo - Whenever your're in MA shot me a line. I'm sure it could be arranged! I've got second round.
On a off topic note. Love my man Ron Paul's response to Trump and the Circus Debate venue. Spot on Mr. Paul!
Yes, RN, I gave Paul props for being the only sensible pol in the GOP who understands the foolishness of a Donald Trump ego trip.
Hi there to every one, since I am really eager of reading this weblog's post to be updated regularly. It consists of good stuff.
Also visit my blog post: exercises for vertical leap
Post a Comment