Michelle Bachman derails her own Presidential campaign

[kieefer]

Bachmann, a Minnesota congresswoman, told about 50 Cemen Tech employees that she favors a “tough love†approach in Washington D.C. that will require some reprioritizing and big reductions of federal spending, repealing federal health care changes, easing tax burdens for job creators, and easing “job-killing EPA regulations†that are impeding a U.S. economic recovery at a time when unemployment is at a “stunningly bad†9.2 percent.

“My position is clear: I will not raise taxes, I will reduce spending, and I will not vote to raise the debt ceiling,†she added

Iowa Caucus 2012 – Bachmann says she’d show economy ‘tough love’

The "vow" means little except for the media to use it as ammo against a candidate.

[kieefer]

Considering signing isn't the same thing as signing it. I don't think he will sign it, but we will see. I have been surprised before.

This is what he said in 2004, The Federal Marriage Amendment Is a Very Bad Idea by Ron Paul

Why would he even consider it now?

[mav]

This is what he said in 2004, The Federal Marriage Amendment Is a Very Bad Idea by Ron Paul

Why would he even consider it now?

I don't really think he is considering it, regardless of what he said. I think he was being polite in brushing them off.

[Mike.357]

anyone who signs that thing will not get my vote.

Homo's are not second class citizens, pornography is not inherently evil. The constitution is very clear.

Naked pics for all, and marriage for all human beings in this country that want to be married to each other!

[Oh Shoot]

... Marriage was instituted by God, several millenium before our government was ever thought of. There were only followers, not Christians or Jews at that point–they came later....

I assure you, "marriage" or actually "pairing" was instituted long before there was any widely shared concept of "God". It was a tribal more, dictated by practicality of getting children to adulthood for survival of the group. Happened at the very onset of homo sapiens about 200,000 years ago, or we wouldn't be here.

Though there was certainly a variety of social ritual involved with the mating depending on culture and time frame, injecting some sort of religious sanctity on top of it certainly didn't occur in any widespread way until Jewish culture, certainly less than 4,000 years ago (which was also the first real widespread belief in "one god instead of many").

"Marriage" has always been a social/civil ethic fomented from the logical end of group survival since Oog first conked Oona on the head and humped her.

- OS

Edited July 13, 2011 by OhShoot

[56FordGuy]

The way marriage was intended, it would be the ONLY people you had relations with.

Think of the problems we would not have today if people lived that way.

Fixed that for you. While I'm not as up to speed on Biblical era cultures as some others here, didn't most men in the Bible have multiple wives?

anyone who signs that thing will not get my vote.

Homo's are not second class citizens, pornography is not inherently evil. The constitution is very clear.

Naked pics for all, and marriage for all human beings in this country that want to be married to each other!

I assure you, "marriage" or actually "pairing" was instituted long before there was any widely shared concept of "God". It was a tribal more, dictated by practicality of getting children to adulthood for survival of the group. Happened at the very onset of homo sapiens about 200,000 years ago, or we wouldn't be here.

Though there was certainly a variety of social ritual involved with the mating depending on culture and time frame, injecting some sort of religious sanctity on top of it certainly didn't occur in any widespread way until Jewish culture, certainly less than 4,000 years ago (which was also the first real widespread belief in "one god instead of many").

"Marriage" has always been a social/civil ethic fomented from the logical end of group survival since Oog first conked Oona on the head and humped her.

- OS

Both of y'all, just stop. That sounds too much like freedom, and that's scary.

In any case, it's just politics. Pledge this that or the other, make this that or another group feel special. To heck with Constitutionality, the people want someone that agrees with their pet issue.

Back to my bunker now, I know there's a reason I usually stay out of things like this...

[mav]

I assure you, "marriage" or actually "pairing" was instituted long before there was any widely shared concept of "God". It was a tribal more, dictated by practicality of getting children to adulthood for survival of the group. Happened at the very onset of homo sapiens about 200,000 years ago, or we wouldn't be here.

Though there was certainly a variety of social ritual involved with the mating depending on culture and time frame, injecting some sort of religious sanctity on top of it certainly didn't occur in any widespread way until Jewish culture, less than 10,000 years ago.

"Marriage" has always been a social/civil ethic fomented from the logical end of group survival since Oog first conked Oona on the head and humped her.

- OS

The traditionalist viewpoint of marriage has always been a religious institution in this country. Although the ceremony and the sacrement of marriage was indeed religious in nature, there is no denying the societal benefits of such a union between a man and woman. It was and still is considered the best structural and stabilizing force within society, and especially in regards to fostering children. It was only until the states started meddling in the affairs of individuals that civil/legal benefits became attached. This is where the problem started.

This problem only got worse once the federal government started going beyond their enumerated powers by enacting social programs and creating federal benefits. Ultimately, it ends up with the quagmire we have today. As I stated earlier, the government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether. There is no reason a couple should have to look to the government for validation of their marriage, but since there are benefits involved, I believe that all, regardless of sexual orientation, should commit to civil/legal unions. For example, if a heterosexual couple gets married, they are not issued a marriage license by the state (the "marriage" document can be issued by their church, synagogue, whatever). They will apply for a civil contract. If they do not enter into a civil contract, then there is no guarantee of transfer of benefits etc... The above example would also apply to homosexuals.

Since I am a Christian and I hold the traditionalist perspective on marriage, which is still the dominant viewpoint, I do not agree with gay marriage. However, I think it is an infringement of a citizen's rights (gay or not) to not be allowed to enter into civil unions and/or contracts. The only way I know to solve the problem is to get government out of the marriage business. By removing government from marriage and issuance of civil unions for all who apply, traditionalists can still keep their viewpoint, and gay people will not be infringed upon. No one group will receive special rights and/or privileges over the other. All will be treated as equals.

Edited July 13, 2011 by mav

[Oh Shoot]

... By removing government from marriage and issuance of civil unions for all who apply, traditionalists can still keep their viewpoint, and gay people will not be infringed upon. No one group will receive special rights and/or privileges over the other. All will be treated as equals.

All well and good, but "marriage" already IS a civil contract in both the eyes of the states and the federal government, even though the fed has not (yet) recognized some of those civil contracts that 6 states do. You're really just talking semantics.

Whether you are married in the Baptist Church by a minister or at the courthouse by justice of the peace, the "civil union" is equally binding. Some states still recognize common law marriage, AFAIK, also. Whatever you wish to call it, and whatever other religious sacramental significance you wish to attribute to it is up to you.

But your divorce will be handled in court.

- OS

[BigK]

I hope you're not using the term RINO to describe somebody doesn't have some religious/moral agenda. They need to be worried about running the country. Sooner or later, somebody is going to have to deal with the stuff that matters. I don't CARE if homos get married.

You jumped to the wrong conclusion about what I meant. I was speaking strictly of fiscal conservatism, but since you mentioned it...

I believe it is far less "wrong" to feel a sense of duty to spread one's religious and/or moral convictions than it is to be devoid of any.

We ALL have an idea of what is right and wrong and we ALL feel a sense of duty to spread those beliefs or at least stand up for them. Afterall, there's a reason they're called "beliefs" instead of musings or suppositions. They are usually a deeply personal set of convictions. So, whether we are all in the same Judeo-Christian camp or not we will never all share the same set of moral convictions any more than we'll all agree on which is better, Original Recipe or Extra Crispy.

The country is approximately 60-65% "conservative", but we are not united against socialism, b/c we can't get past each others' religious/moral beliefs long enough to get anything done about the fiscal issues we mostly agree on.

Edited July 13, 2011 by BigK

[enfield]

Original Recipe.

I also roll my toilet paper instead of wadding it.

[mav]

All well and good, but "marriage" already IS a civil contract in both the eyes of the states and the federal government, even though the fed has not (yet) recognized some of those civil contracts that 6 states do. You're really just talking semantics.

Winna winna chicken dinna. Yes, my entire argument is really nothing more than semantics. We are both in agreement that marriage in the eyes of the government is a civil contract. Based upon some of the responses in this thread, we can see that marriage also has a religious or spiritual signifigance to some. So, what do we do? Do we crap all over the vast majority of the population that hold the traditonalist view of marriage by recognizing gay marriage? Do we tell homosexuals tough s**t, you can't have the same rights as everyone else? I don't think so. A mere changing of the word(s) should be sufficient for everyone.

Alas, I know what I am arguing is not likely to occur. To be honest, I don't know if this issue will ever be solved to the point where people on both sides of the issue will be satisfied. I guess this is just a good example of the pitfalls of large governments.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

One of the acid tests for a politician is to be nimble enough to avoid gotcha situations which supply delicious soundbites to the opposition.

Trivial and silly perhaps, but failure to be nimble is fatal to election possibilities. It only takes one or two mis-steps except when the entire mass media appears to be covering for your mistakes.

Democrats have enough homophobes that they have to be careful what they say to avoid chasing off voters and contributors. Obama has been careful what he says and depending on the audience has intoned the "between a man and a woman" line to reassure democrat homophobes.

Bachman could have avoided some of the traps while not making homophobe potential supporters mad, by deflecting in this manner-- "I will pay attention to our sinful modern practices after the budget is balanced. We don't have the resources to exterminate all sinners until after the budget is balanced." (well a little more tactful than that, but you get the idea) Because everyone knows that hell will be frozen by the time the budget is balanced, it wouldn't scare off too many moderate voters.

Because she repeatedly keeps stepping right in it, indicates either she is not quick enough for the job (and if elected she would routinely step in it with unhelpful misstatements about foreign dignitaries and such). Or, she is such a fanatic on irrelevant issues that she can't keep her mouth shut even knowing the consequences.

Neither of which recommends her for the position of POTUS. Possibly a shame because she is good looking and basically likeable and arguably better-educated with better experience than the current POTUS. But the current POTUS is relatively good at avoiding stepping right in the middle of a cow patty, especially when armed with teleprompter. Though he can't be all that nimble because he gets a foot on the edge of a cow patty pretty routinely. Luckily the media is there to catch him before he falls down in it and gets all messy.

[Warbird]

I don't think Bachman is anything less than very bright. She understands very complex fiscal issues and she made her living as a tax law attorney.

What she lacks is understanding in, is that the national stage is very different than the congressional district stage. She isn't only talking to Iowans or Minnesotans. It truly is something most people running for national office run into and some handle it better than others. This is her first foray into the pit of terror. It is a great example also of why so few times in history congressmen have had any luck in getting a presidential nomination.

She also has a very loyal dedicated staff of of people. However, most of them have never played on the national stage either. They will get better at it as will other candidates and staffs. Bush had an exemplary staff of seasoned people, but he was different. The Clinton folks made huge gaffes along the way, but by the election were quite seasoned and very good at looking ahead before speaking or acting on their ideas. Believe me, it is not an easy game, this presidential politics business.

This is why politicians are so well scripted. This is why they don't speak outside of the box. People always say what they want from a politician is to be given the truth and lay their cards on the table. However, it is proven time and again that that is not what the American people want to hear.

[Smith]

Some of you guys ..... You want an idealist until they are ideal. You want a politician until they are political. As far as marriage goes, this is a prime example of what happens when government takes something that was solidly and culturally understood and makes it "better".

BTW - anarchy is NOT freedom. Freedom is the absence of negative consequences.

[Oh Shoot]

Some of you guys ..... You want an idealist until they are ideal. You want a politician until they are political. As far as marriage goes, this is a prime example of what happens when government takes something that was solidly and culturally understood and makes it "better". ..

There have been other practices that were solidly and culturally understood that had to be changed to reflect the "equal rights for all" premise of America. Little issues like slavery and women not allowed to vote/run for office come immediately to mind.

- OS

[Guest mosinon]

One of the acid tests for a politician is to be nimble enough to avoid gotcha situations which supply delicious soundbites to the opposition.

Trivial and silly perhaps, but failure to be nimble is fatal to election possibilities. It only takes one or two mis-steps except when the entire mass media appears to be covering for your mistakes.

Democrats have enough homophobes that they have to be careful what they say to avoid chasing off voters and contributors. Obama has been careful what he says and depending on the audience has intoned the "between a man and a woman" line to reassure democrat homophobes.

Bachman could have avoided some of the traps while not making homophobe potential supporters mad, by deflecting in this manner-- "I will pay attention to our sinful modern practices after the budget is balanced. We don't have the resources to exterminate all sinners until after the budget is balanced." (well a little more tactful than that, but you get the idea) Because everyone knows that hell will be frozen by the time the budget is balanced, it wouldn't scare off too many moderate voters.

Because she repeatedly keeps stepping right in it, indicates either she is not quick enough for the job (and if elected she would routinely step in it with unhelpful misstatements about foreign dignitaries and such). Or, she is such a fanatic on irrelevant issues that she can't keep her mouth shut even knowing the consequences.

Neither of which recommends her for the position of POTUS. Possibly a shame because she is good looking and basically likeable and arguably better-educated with better experience than the current POTUS. But the current POTUS is relatively good at avoiding stepping right in the middle of a cow patty, especially when armed with teleprompter. Though he can't be all that nimble because he gets a foot on the edge of a cow patty pretty routinely. Luckily the media is there to catch him before he falls down in it and gets all messy.

+1 for the advice to Bachman. Cracking me up.

[Guest ThePunisher]

I think most of us will. I do, however, prefer Obama has to run against a candidate more in line with my views than just another moderate republican. If we are forced to choose between a moderate and Obama, the moderate will certainly be the better choice, but they will still suck. JMHO.

DittoThe most conservative candidate and one who would eat Obama's lunch in debates is Newt Gingrincg, but he's not going to get the nomination because of his marital infidelities. Bush 41 and Bush 43 were moderates.

[Guest nicemac]

I assure you, "marriage" or actually "pairing" was instituted long before there was any widely shared concept of "God".

…In the beginning

…Adam and Eve

[Smith]

There have been other practices that were solidly and culturally understood that had to be changed to reflect the "equal rights for all" premise of America. Little issues like slavery and women not allowed to vote/run for office come immediately to mind.

- OS

Exactly. Government cannot regulate what is good only try to prevent what is bad. When you throw absolutes out the window you get either a socialist government or a dictatorship.

[mikegideon]

…In the beginning

…Adam and Eve

... and the talking snake

[Oh Shoot]

... and the talking snake

I duck out when mythology is purported as logical rebuttal.

- OS

[Guest nicemac]

I duck out when mythology is purported as logical rebuttal.

- OS

Mythology? We'll see. If you're wrong…

[jonlisha]

Let gays marry or do something like it, some of us must remember where our rights end and others begin. Porn is healthy, I would have a kid by now without it.

My vote will go to ron paul, the best candidate I see at the moment.

[mikegideon]

Mythology? We'll see. If you're wrong…

I'm hoping there's a mixup, and WE get the virgins.

[Guest nicemac]

I'm hoping there's a mixup, and WE get the virgins.

Most guys have enough trouble with one woman. But 72?