Michele Bachmann is first GOP presidential candidate to sign pledge banning gay marriage, porn.

[GSF]

As Baculus said, black children were not more likely to have 2 parent families during slavery. This is just a false statement. It is also false to claim that the founding fathers fought to abolish slavery. Of course, the religious right have no problem re-writing history to try to support their views.

Bachman is crazy as hell and had no chance of getting elected before this pledge. Now she has even less chance.

You would think with as much scrutiny Obama has been under the GOP would come up with a candidate or 2 that mainstream Americans can relate to and believe in. People are focused on the economy, jobs, the housing market, ect. Why waste 1 minute signing pledges against homo-sexuality and porn?

[elkabong82]

*EDIT* Okay, now I see the part where they received some money to train their staff to treat drug addictions and the like. Again, though, if the money's there anyway, it's not hypocrisy to use it as intended, any more than it's hypocrisy for Nancy Pelosi to keep the Bush tax cuts instead of taking two minutes to go to treasury.gov and click donate.

.

Why even quote me if you're going to ignore the points I made, each of which had already addressed what you say here?

It is hypocrisy. Condemning something verbally but applying for and accepting it in action defines hypocrisy. Only people trying to protect such offenders, likely based solely on party affiliation, would try to argue otherwise.

The aid is there for those who actually need it, as I said earlier. Those who don't need it, like someone who pulls in 6 figures, abuse the system by taking it anyways. The aid isn't intended for those who can do without.

So those who condemn it, but then take it even though they don't need it, are not only hypocrites, but also greedy jerks who corrupt the system, and then turn around and complain that the aid doesn't work, even though their actions and the actions of like-minded people contributed to the failure. So many condemn government handouts, but don't hesitate to take it themselves even if they don't need it, and at the expense of those who do.

[techboy]

It is hypocrisy. Condemning something verbally but applying for and accepting it in action defines hypocrisy.

Is Nancy Pelosi a hypocrite for not sending back her portion of the Bush tax cuts?

I say no. There is no hypocrisy inherent in working within the system while trying to change it. The money would have been spent on clinical training anyway.

Only people trying to protect such offenders, likely based solely on party affiliation, would try to argue otherwise.

I think Baculus and I have been over this.

The aid is there for those who actually need it, as I said earlier.

You mean like drug addicts on Medicaid?

Those who don't need it, like someone who pulls in 6 figures, abuse the system by taking it anyways.

For the record, this a a substantially different charge than hypocrisy, and is totally irrelevant to the specific point being addressed.

I'd note, however, that you have not established abuse. As far as we know, the money was used as intended, for non-religious training of staff in how better to help people.

If there was evidence that they took the money and used it for a junket in Hawaii under the guise of "training", that would be different, but it wouldn't be hypocrisy, it would be theft and abuse of resources.

[elkabong82]

You mean like drug addicts on Medicaid?

If you're just going to do drive-by comments that don't actually address what I say, then please stop responding.

Hilarious, though, that you complain of drug addicts abusing Medicaid, but defend a guy pulling in six figures who abuses the system as well, all apparently for the sake of party affiliation. Awesome. Totally awesome.

[techboy]

If you're just going to do drive-by comments that don't actually address what I say, then please stop responding.

I edited my last response to reflect a more thorough response, as requested.

Hilarious, though, that you complain of drug addicts abusing Medicaid, but defend a guy pulling in six figures who abuses the system as well, all apparently for the sake of party affiliation. Awesome. Totally awesome.

Whoa, there, tiger.

If you had actually read the article we've been discussing, you would have noticed that the vast majority of the "federal aid" that went to the clinic was from Medicaid. In other words, the clinic accepted Medicaid patients, despite, as I already pointed out, the fact that they likely paid a lot less than privately insured clients.

The other small amount was for non-religious training of staff in dealing with drug addiction and the like.

It is not a stretch, therefore, to suggest that the clinic used the money to help drug addicts on Medicaid, which is hardly the self-serving abuse of funds you're alleging.

That's all I was pointing out. Calm down.

[elkabong82]

I edited my last response to reflect a more thorough response, as requested.

Whoa, there, tiger.

If you had actually read the article we've been discussing, you would have noticed that the vast majority of the "federal aid" that went to the clinic was from Medicaid. In other words, the clinic accepted Medicaid patients, despite, as I already pointed out, the fact that they likely paid a lot less than privately insured clients.

The other small amount was for non-religious training of staff in dealing with drug addiction and the like.

It is not a stretch, therefore, to suggest that the clinic used the money to help drug addicts on Medicaid, which is hardly the self-serving abuse of funds you're alleging.

That's all I was pointing out. Calm down.

"Marcus Bachmann's Bachmann & Associates clinic -- a Christian counseling service with offices in Lake Elmo and Burnsville -- collected six-figure annual sums, and state records show Marcus Bachmann, a clinical psychologist, also applied for and received $24,000 in federal and state grants to provide mental health and chemical dependency treatment."

If he's pulling in 6 figures, why does he need state and federal grant money, in the sum of $24k, to provide treatment? He has enough money coming in that he didn't need to apply for federal aid, regardless of what it was for. Oh no, he would have only pulled in $1,976,000 instead of an even $2 million if not for that federal aid that he applied for! His wife is against government medical aid, yet he applies for and accepts it. He is a Christian-faith based therapist pulling in six figures, he couldn't eat that marginal cost instead so Medicaid wasn't necessary? No, I guess that would be sticking with principles.

Your comment of drug addicts on medicaid, as your first drive by response, implied a tone that they are abusing it. Yet you defend someone else took $24k in federal and state aid despite pulling in millions.

Nothing in my previous posts implies an angry tone, so please spare the attitude behind the "calm down" comment.

and to address your edited post: if you make enough money to where you don't need aid, then regardless of circumstance or how you use it, you shouldn't be applying for it. a person pulling in millions doesn't need to apply for nor receive $24k in aid.

[Larry]

"Marcus Bachmann's Bachmann & Associates clinic -- a Christian counseling service with offices in Lake Elmo and Burnsville -- collected six-figure annual sums, and state records show Marcus Bachmann, a clinical psychologist, also applied for and received $24,000 in federal and state grants to provide mental health and chemical dependency treatment."

If he's pulling in 6 figures, why does he need state and federal grant money, in the sum of $24k, to provide treatment? He has enough money coming in that he didn't need to apply for federal aid, regardless of what it was for. Oh no, he would have only pulled in $1,976,000 instead of an even $2 million if not for that federal aid that he applied for! His wife is against government medical aid, yet he applies for and accepts it. He is a Christian-faith based therapist pulling in six figures, he couldn't eat that marginal cost instead so Medicaid wasn't necessary? No, I guess that would be sticking with principles.

You do realize the difference between "his company received" and "he's pulling in", don't you?

Heck, I bet my Doctor's office brings in $100K a week. Doesn't mean my Doctor's making that much.

Nor does it mean that if he takes my Mom's Medicare card, and votes Republican, then he's a hypocrite.

[SpacePenguin]

Let's ban corporations from contributing money to the campaigns of politicians. Deport any candidate that tries to get around this.

Oh wait, no...I'm sorry, gays and porn are the REAL issues, not both parties being corporate puppets. My word! The things slaves say....

So tired of these same two parties, who have almost identical policies, using divide and conquer issues like this to turn the serfs against each other. Meanwhile we all get screwed on the real issues that affect our lives.

I pray that those on both ends of the spectrum realize this finally. It's not dems vs repubs, it hasn't been for 60 years. It's the corporate mafia vs the serfs....and we're losing fast. Just look at the policies in this country for the past 20 years,no matter the party, and it becomes crystal clear who's driving this bus off the cliff.

[techboy]

If he's pulling in 6 figures, why does he need state and federal grant money, in the sum of $24k, to provide treatment? He has enough money coming in that he didn't need to apply for federal aid, regardless of what it was for. Oh no, he would have only pulled in $1,976,000 instead of an even $2 million if not for that federal aid that he applied for!

1. Two million is not 6 figures. It's 7 figures. You're off by a factor of 10. $100,000 is 6 figures, so in theory, you're off by as much as $1,900,000.

2. Would you really prefer that the clinic turn away poor people with Medicaid? Really? Even leaving aside the small fact that it would be illegal?

3. As Larry pointed out, the money didn't go directly to him. It went to training his clinic's staff to better serve those that need it. How terrible.

Your comment of drug addicts on medicaid, as your first drive by response, implied a tone that they are abusing it.

You complained that the money could have gone to help people who really needed it, and my response was "You mean like drug addicts on Medicaid?", i.e, the people that the clinic is helping... In other words, I was using a rhetorical question to expose the flaw in your criticism.

You misunderstood where I was going with it, and that's understandable. That's one of the reasons I edited my post, to make it more clear.

Now that I've told you otherwise, though, there's no reason to keep hammering away based on your misunderstanding.

Yet you defend someone else took $24k in federal and state aid despite pulling in millions.

Again, 6 figures is not "millions", though it doesn't really matter.

Let's try Hubbs' question again: If the Bachmanns ran a grocey store, would you expect them to turn away people on food stamps?

Nothing in my previous posts implies an angry tone, so please spare the attitude behind the "calm down" comment.

You accused me of posting with political motivations twice, and I get the sense that you think calling someone a Republican is an insult. For the record, I am not, not that there's anything wrong with that.

I also got the impression that you were kind of upset with me for what you thought I was implying about people on medicaid, and I can understand why if your interpretation of my comment is correct (which it's not), so I just told you to calm down, that you had it wrong.

No attitude implied, other than a bit of amusement at the miscommunication that led to you getting something out of my comment that was about 180 degrees opposed to what I actually meant.

[NoCalMike]

Let's ban corporations from contributing money to the campaigns of politicians. Deport any candidate that tries to get around this.

. It's not dems vs repubs, it hasn't been for 60 years. It's the corporate mafia vs the serfs....and we're losing fast. Just look at the policies in this country for the past 20 years,no matter the party, and it becomes crystal clear who's driving this bus off the cliff.

DING DING! Except I'd say the last 30 years. Until money is banned from politics, it will never get better. The only power the citizenry has against corporate money is if we were all united by at least a 70% majority and took to the streets. Maybe then...and only maybe. As of now, the only thing that matters to politicians is who can offer them the most monetarily and make sure they have a nice cushy life when they are out of office.

[88Comrade2000]

Bachmann would never win the presidency but I do believe she could someone steal the nomination if the TEA PART dominates the primaries or she could be a third party tea party candidate. She is going to win Iowa unless Perry gets in.

[twa]

does Iowa matter?

[Burgold]

does Iowa matter?

Yes.

[doctorshockalu]

It baffles me that the Tea Party has been hi-jacked so quickly. The Tea Party was supposed to represent freedom. Now they start labeling what you can and cannot watch.

[twist]

does Iowa matter?

Well, same sex marriage is legal in Iowa and I'm willing to bet some of them are fond of pornography.

Conservatives areas actually larger purchacers of online pornography as a trend.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680-porn-in-the-usa-conservatives-are-biggest-consumers.html

[Baculus]

Nope, not crazy, just wrong.

You you yourself have proven her hypocrisy. :-) And I have proven countless examples of such hypocrisy. If you rail against government health care, declaring it horrible, socialist, and you accept it WILLINGLY, because she DOES NOT have to use the FEHB, you are prime example of a hypocrite. I don't care if it's a supposed "job perk," either. If anything, it's a demonstration of the attitude, "What's good enough for me ain't good enough for thee." She's fine with accepting government manage health care which is subsidized by the U.S. government as long as its for her. Meanwhile, she tells other people to pray to God for help.

If I started an anti-Exxon campaign, and then I turned around and invested into Exxon, I would be a hypocrite. If you rail against government health care and you turn around and accept it, you are a hypocrite. The circumstances do not matter one bit, because these are voluntary actions.

If government health care is such a horrible thing, as the right-wing so vehemently claimed during the health care debate, then none of them should use it. It's that simple. Because, otherwise, they are inconsistent elitists, which is probably the case, anyway.

I never denied she was a hypocrite (I even stated she probably was), just that your examples weren't good ones.

I really don't recall this -- I know you said that, after defending her actions, that you're don't care for her and you aren't defending her. Because, otherwise, I would have asked you, "Show me some examples of her hypocrisy from your POV and we can debate those, and see where we go." I just think, for whatever reason, you are seemingly determined to defend these points. Because it took a while before you admitted that you didn't even support Bachmann, after you spent several hundred words on this subject.

If you want to leave it there, don't ask me whether or not I think a lack of hypocrisy is important when assessing a politician.

I am more than willing to further defend these points, because I simply don't think you're right on this matter, especially when it comes to the health care matter, considering Bachmann's stance on repealing the ACA, which is similar to the managed health care she is using.

Regarding her vote, when she was a state legislator, she voted FOR those sort of agricultural funds, which is why I thought she supported it as a member of Congress. I didn't realized she had suddenly flipped her views . . . again,

[techboy]

Conservatives areas actually larger purchacers of online pornography as a trend.

That's the same study referenced earlier, and while it makes for a good joke, there's not really much "there" there. Again:

After controlling for differences in broadband internet access between states – online porn tends to be a bandwidth hog – and adjusting for population, he found a relatively small difference between states with the most adult purchases and those with the fewest.

The biggest consumer, Utah, averaged 5.47 adult content subscriptions per 1000 home broadband users; Montana bought the least with 1.92 per 1000. "The differences here are not so stark," Edelman says.

Fun for the media, though.

[Baculus]

It baffles me that the Tea Party has been hi-jacked so quickly. The Tea Party was supposed to represent freedom. Now they start labeling what you can and cannot watch.

I think that is going to cause major issues in the Tea Party between the fundamentalists and the libertarians.

---------- Post added July-16th-2011 at 05:56 PM ----------

Your comment of drug addicts on medicaid, as your first drive by response, implied a tone that they are abusing it. Yet you defend someone else took $24k in federal and state aid despite pulling in millions.

Nothing in my previous posts implies an angry tone, so please spare the attitude behind the "calm down" comment.

and to address your edited post: if you make enough money to where you don't need aid, then regardless of circumstance or how you use it, you shouldn't be applying for it. a person pulling in millions doesn't need to apply for nor receive $24k in aid.

Exactly my point, which is why I can't understand why TB is defending these actions (which is what you're doing, TB, no matter your insistence that you are not).

[techboy]

You you yourself have proven her hypocrisy. :-)

Yes, I have provided one accurate example of hypocrisy practiced by Michelle Bachmann. I did so because none of yours were valid, which is why we've been going around and around and around and around and around...

Obviously you're stubborn or something.

I really don't recall this --

Ahem...

Now, I have no doubt that Michelle Bachmann is a hypocrite. Leaving aside the fact that we are all hypocrites, she's a member of Congress, and virtually every member of Congress routinely does two hypocritical things:

1. Pass laws that they exempt themselves from

2. Call the other party hypocrites for switiching sides, without apparently realizing that if the other guy has switched sides, and you're still disagreeing with him, then you switiched sides too.

The national debt you reference is an excelllent example of #2. You're right that most Republicans (with exceptions like Ron Paul, who really isn't a Republican despite his party affiliation) spent like drunken sailors and dismissed the debt while they were in power, and now are complaining about the debt. Of course, Democrats who were screaming about the debt during the Bush years are suddenly kind of quiet. No doubt if you want to defend the purity of the Democrats here, you can find a stray current quote about the debt now, but I could do the same from Republicans before. It's about the volume, more than anything.

The wars/denial of civil liberties/Guantanamo are other good examples of this.

I just think, for whatever reason, you are seemingly determined to defend these points.

I told you the reason, repeatedly. I even "insulted" Socrates, remember?

I value accuracy over which "team" a politician is on.

[Baculus]

Why even quote me if you're going to ignore the points I made, each of which had already addressed what you say here?

It is hypocrisy. Condemning something verbally but applying for and accepting it in action defines hypocrisy. Only people trying to protect such offenders, likely based solely on party affiliation, would try to argue otherwise.

The aid is there for those who actually need it, as I said earlier. Those who don't need it, like someone who pulls in 6 figures, abuse the system by taking it anyways. The aid isn't intended for those who can do without.

So those who condemn it, but then take it even though they don't need it, are not only hypocrites, but also greedy jerks who corrupt the system, and then turn around and complain that the aid doesn't work, even though their actions and the actions of like-minded people contributed to the failure. So many condemn government handouts, but don't hesitate to take it themselves even if they don't need it, and at the expense of those who do.

Again -- right on point, Elka. Bachmann claims that Medicaid and similiar programs expand the welfare state, causing further problems, but her husband is the sort of person who abuses it. It's like Medicare -- the #1 cause for Medicare abuse and fraud, running in the hundreds of millions, is the private health care industry -- the same industry the GOP want to take over Medicare.

Bachmann contributes to the exact issues that she decries.

[techboy]

Exactly my point, which is why I can't understand why TB is defending these actions (which is what you're doing, TB, no matter your insistence that you are not).

So if the Bachmanns ran a grocery store, you'd expect them to turn away clients with food stamps?

And why are you leaving out those right wingers Larry and Hubbs? They're defending Michelle Bachmann too, right?

Isn't that the way it works? Reject an argument as invalid, and support the target, no matter what?

I guess I was saying that Charles Manson wasn't a murderer after all. Who knew? :whoknows:

[Baculus]

Yes, I have provided one accurate example of hypocrisy practiced by Michelle Bachmann. I did so because none of yours were valid, which is why we've been going around and around and around and around and around...

Obviously you're stubborn or something.

As stubborn as the person who is still defending Bachmann's hypocrisy and still posting on this subject. :-)

Again, tell me why her health care stance isn't hypocritical? Because your "job perks" argument isn't sound.

Ahem...

That was not your stance from the get-go. You only revealed such sentiments after you gave a long defense of her actions.

I told you the reason, repeatedly. I even "insulted" Socrates, remember?

Because the quote you gave flew in the face of Bachmann's deceitful actions. It's like Fox News saying they are fair and balanced. Bachmann tells people one thing then does another; those actions are not worthy of Socratic philosophies, who, I suspect, would support someone such as Bachmann. Socrates believed in ethical individuals.

That is NOT Bachmann. So, please, don't disabuse the man.

I value accuracy over which "team" a politician is on.

I don't think your defenses have been accurate. I made an error, due to an assumption, on her past votes, but that does nothing to undermine my main premise, which others have also agreed is "accurate."

It's funny you should say that, because that's probably your worst attempted example, honestly.

The only defense you have is your rubbishy "jobs perks" defense, as if everything else she says is then irrelevant. You have made no concrete examples to undermine my position on this. Even more so, the example you cited, regarding her vote on the agricultural bill, which you said was hypocritical, is the EXACT reason why she is hypocritical on the ACA, using YOUR OWN parameters.

This is what you said: "That is full on hypocrisy, not just taking advantage of a program she opposed but which would happen anyway after it went through, but actively encouraging more of the thing she denounced." She opposes government health care, but then accepts it. She tells others not to accept Medicaid, but then her husband takes Medicaid money.

That is the whole point of my argument, but you seem to shift your position on this, depending on the subject and the direction of the wind.

[88Comrade2000]

does Iowa matter?

In this political climate, yes. If a Tea Partier wins Iowa that gives that candidate some momentum for NH the following week. Could Romney be upset there, possible. I think if Michelle wins Iowa; it will help her win South Carolina.

The GOP race isn't going to be one candidate rolling up wins and crushing everyone. It's going to be establishment- probably Romney vs. Tea Party- probably Michelle Bachman and maybe SoCon- though Tea PArty candidate could cover that.

[Baculus]

So if the Bachmanns ran a grocery store, you'd expect them to turn away clients with food stamps?

Unless it is as state law, she doesn't have to accept food stamp money. And if it were a state law, she would probably oppose it. Remember, she opposes "mandates," at least when they aren't social issues such as gay marriage. Otherwise, it's an irrelevant argument that has nothing to do with her philosophies on this subject.

I mean, this is a disingenuous argument because the GOP want to defund food stamps, but here you are using it to defend Bachmann's hypocrisy. It's the same with Medicaid, which is the sort of "socialistic" system Bachmann and others on the Right denounce.

And why are you leaving out those right wingers Larry and Hubbs? They're defending Michelle Bachmann too, right?

I haven't read all of their arguments, so I don't know their exact views, but I think it's over the Medicaid funds, which is above and beyond the other funds they accept. If anything, you are shifting the argument from the original topic to Medicaid.

Isn't that the way it works? Reject an argument as invalid, and support the target, no matter what?

If you actually had a good argument, then maybe I wouldn't be rejecting it. :-)

I guess I was saying that Charles Manson wasn't a murderer after all. Who knew? :whoknows:

That, my friend, is not a good example nor a logical argument.

[twa]

In this political climate, yes. If a Tea Partier wins Iowa that gives that candidate some momentum for NH the following week. Could Romney be upset there, possible. I think if Michelle wins Iowa; it will help her win South Carolina.

The GOP race isn't going to be one candidate rolling up wins and crushing everyone. It's going to be establishment- probably Romney vs. Tea Party- probably Michelle Bachman and maybe SoCon- though Tea PArty candidate could cover that.

You think her doing well in SC depends on Iowa results?

NH ?....seriously?

who won Iowa in 08?