Michelle Bachmann claims that she defeated her liberal foes using "evidence based arguments." Wait, what?


Courtesy of Raw Story:

Bachmann told World Net Daily, which referred to her as a “GOP legend” in the headline, that she had become a media target because she had basically outsmarted her liberal foes. 

“I took them on, and their agenda, and I went to the heart of whatever it was they wanted to advance, and tried to take it apart through evidence-based arguments, and they don’t like that,” Bachmann said. “When the left argues, they argue from emotionalism.” 
  
“That’s the best way to defeat them, by the way — defeat them with evidence and defeat them with their false premises, and I did that,” she said.

“The Republican Party always gets a bad rap because there are not as many women that are in elective office, but it’s a tough business,” Bachmann said. “It is public humiliation, public ridicule, constant criticism when you’re in public office – if you take on the left.”

Yeah, I don't think the ridiculing had anything to do with her gender.


Let's revisit some of Michelle Bachmann's "evidenced-based arguments" shall we?

These are courtesy of the Daily Kos:

Accusing members of Congress of being "anti-American:

The news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would, I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out are they are pro-America or anti-America. 

Claiming that the Obama Administration was going to be forcing Americans to attend re-education camps:

The real concerns is that there are provisions for what I would call re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward and then they have to go to work in some of these politically correct forums. 

Claiming that actor John Wayne was from Waterloo, Iowa, when instead it was serial killer John Wayne Gacy:

What I want them to know is just like John Wayne was from Waterloo, Iowa, that's the spirit that I have too. It's really about not being ashamed of America. It's embracing America. 

Terrifying parents by relaying an unsubstantiated story from an anti-vaxxer:

There’s a woman who came up crying to me tonight after the debate. She said her daughter was given [the HPV] vaccine. She told me her daughter suffered mental retardation as a result. There are very dangerous consequences. 

Claiming that earthquakes and hurricanes are messages from God about reining in big government:

I don't know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We've had an earthquake; we've had a hurricane. He said, 'Are you going to start listening to me here?' Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we've got to rein in the spending.

There are more, in fact the Daily Kos lists 40 altogether, but I think we get the point. 

That my friends is the kind of "logic" that Michelle Bachmann used to "defeat" us.

Gosh, I guess we never had a chance.


Conservatives finally notice that a teacher has been asking his students to recite a rewritten Pledge of Allegiance for the past twenty years. Did you guess they were outraged? Well you were right.


Courtesy of Campus Reform: 

A tenured professor at Metropolitan State University (MSU) in Denver required students pledge their allegiance to a racist, sexist, homophobic America that targets "blacks," and "women who want abortions," in the name of Jesus. 

 Dr. Charles Angeletti, a self-proclaimed atheist and socialist professor of American Civilization at the publicly funded Denver university, required students recite the satirical Pledge of Allegiance during the fall 2014 semester according to a class flier obtained by Campus Reform. 

"I pledge allegiance to and wrap myself in the flag of the United States Against Anything Un-American and to the Republicans for which it stands, two nations, under Jesus, rich against poor, with curtailed liberty and justice for all except blacks, homosexuals, women who want abortions, Communists, welfare queens, treehuggers, feminazis, illegal immigrants, children of illegal immigrants, and you if you don't watch your step.”

Seems accurate to me. 

When asked why he had the students recite this, the professor responded thusly:

“We’re very racist, we’re very repressive, we’re very Christian oriented, we don’t tolerate other kinds of thinking in this country,” Angeletti told Campus Reform. 

“I could go on and on—and do in my classes for hours about things that we need to do to make this a better country.” 

Angeletti, who has taught at MSU since 1967, has a B+ grade on RateMyProfessor.com, but one former student addressed Dr. Angeletti’s liberal bias.

Dr. Angeletti admits he is “biased” and says that he has distributed the pledge for 20 years because it helps people look differently about what goes on in this country. 

“We are scared to death of anything un-American,” Angeletti said. 

During the interview, Angeletti repeatedly affirmed his love for America, his disdain for “family values people,” and his course, clarifying that he supports diversity of thought and allows his students to “say and do anything.”

Of course this freaked out those on the Right, including Greta Van Susteren who used this to further the Fox News agenda of attacking "liberal" education in America.

It should be noted that this is a UNIVERSITY class that is offered as an elective and is not mandatory for graduation.

Personally I think educators who challenge student's perception of their country, their religion, and even themselves are helping to create a generation of rational thinkers and that can only be good for the country.


New poll shows that liberals want Elizabeth Warren for their 2016 presidential candidate over Hillary Clinton by double digits. Which really should come as no surprise to anyone.


Courtesy of CNN:  

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren -- not Hillary Clinton -- is the top progressive choice for president in 2016, according to a new poll. 

In fact, Clinton doesn't even make second place. Forty two percent of respondents favor Warren, and Vermont Independent Senator Bernie Sanders also edges out Clinton with 24% compared to her 23%, according to results from the 2016 Presidential Pulse Poll commissioned by progressive grassroots organization Democracy for America.

Okay now before everybody gets their hemp panties in a twist, please remember that this poll was conducted by Democracy for America, which is to liberal politics what the Tea Party Express is to conservative politics.

I am in total agreement that Elizabeth Warren would make an amazing candidate in 2016, but the facts are that she does not want the job. (At least not yet.)

And though I adore Bernie Sanders, let's face it on TV he often looks like somebody woke your grandfather up from his nap and stuck a microphone in his face.

He is great on the politics, but the packaging might be a problem. (Yes I know it is not supposed to be a beauty contest, but there is a reason the Republicans chose Mitt Romney and it is not due to his mastery of the facts.)

I think, to be honest, that there is no real doubt that Hillary is going to be the candidate whether she is the liberal's first choice or not.  And let's face it, they will turn out to vote for her, no problem.

Now in my favorite political fantasy she invites Warren to join her on the ticket. But at this point I don't know if that is feasible or not.

If it were to happen, I would say that the turn out may far exceed the turnout for Barack Obama in the 2008 election, and it would quite literally cause many Republicans to soil themselves in response.


Senator Orrin Hatch, "My gosh, they're just straight old dumbass liberals anyway." Hey!


Courtesy of HuffPo: 

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) came out swinging against Democrats Friday, telling a room of conservative lawyers that Republicans were ready to give the other party "a taste of their own medicine." 

"Frankly, I intend to win with our candidate for the presidency in 2016, and we will give them a taste of their own medicine," said Hatch. "And we're going to win. We're going to win. These next two years are extremely important. Maybe the most important two years in our history." 

Hatch also drew laughs from the crowd when he made fun of the left for using the term "progressive." 

"I get a big kick out of them using the word 'progressive,'" he said. "My gosh, they're just straight old dumbass liberals anyway."

Well he seems nice.

By the way Orrin Hatch is the guy who once said, "Capital punishment is our society's recognition of the sanctity of human life."

A quote which I must be too much of a dumbass to understand.

I am not sure which "taste of our own medicine" Hatch is planning to give Democrats, but if it means Republicans are going to lay down and allow the Democrats to roll over them, like our people have done for the last six years, well then that seems fair.

As for being progressives, I think I'll take it. After all it sure beats being a warmongering, anti-science, anti-women's rights, old dried up fossil any fucking day of the week.

But what do I know? After all I'm just a liberal, and all we have are logic and facts on our side.


New study claims it has discovered how to determine who is liberal and who is conservative. Surprisingly it is not through an IQ test.


Courtesy of New Scientist: 

The way your brain reacts to a single disgusting image can be used to predict whether you lean to the left or the right politically. 

A number of studies have probed the emotions of people along the political spectrum, and found that disgust in particular is tightly linked to political orientation. People who are highly sensitive to disgusting images – of bodily waste, gore or animal remains – are more likely to sit on the political right and show concern for what they see as bodily and spiritual purity, so tend to oppose abortion and gay marriage, for example. 

A team led by Read Montague, a neuroscientist at Virginia Tech in Roanoke, recruited 83 volunteers and performed fMRI brain scans on them as they looked at a series of 80 images that were either pleasant, disgusting, threatening or neutral. Participants then rated the images for their emotional impact and completed a series of questionnaires that assessed whether they were liberal, moderate or conservative. 

The brain-imaging results were then fed to a learning algorithm which compared the whole-brain responses of liberals and conservatives when looking at disgusting images versus neutral ones. 

For both political groups, the algorithm was able to pick out distinct patterns of brain activity triggered by the disgusting images. And even though liberals and conservatives consciously reported similar emotional reactions to the images, the specific brain regions involved and their patterns of activation differed consistently between the two groups – so much so that they represented a neural signature of political leaning, the team concludes.

Well now, that explains a lot. 

Possibly including how the conservatives can see this picture...

...and think future President, while most Liberals see it and think where are the Vice cops when you need them?

Personally I am fine with  gross images, but of course I have had a lot of exposure to them over the years.

Oh God, I may have spoken too soon.


Dr. Sarah Palin once again weighs in on the Ebola non-crisis. Prepare to have the crap bugged out of you.


Courtesy of the Facebook page for a woman whose icy disposition kills viruses on contact:

I enjoyed talking On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, and you can catch the replay of it later tonight. In discussing the response to Ebola, I made the point that every crisis will be capitalized on by a liberal federal government as an excuse to expand government authority. (Does she mean like the Bush administration did in response to terrorism? The Right Wing has predicted that Obama would do this since his inauguration, so far nothing.) The Obama administration made clear early on that they abide by the Alinsky tactic to “never let a crisis go to waste.” (Once again, a false allegation.) The latest crisis has been drummed up by their incompetent reaction to the spread of Ebola. The purpose of any crisis for them is to ultimately exert more control over people as more Americans become fearful; the "solution" they'll offer will be another false big government promise: "Hey, little people, just give up more freedom in exchange for our promise of a little security!" Obviously with this Washington liberal M.O. we are losing both. (She does realize that what she is describing above is EXACTLY what Chris Christie did to a nurse,  even though she does NOT fall into the high risk group requiring quarantine, right?)

We do need to keep each level of government accountable. I agree with state governors who are filling this Obama leadership void and setting rules to tackle Ebola because the leader of the country cannot do it (Does she not know that we only have one confirmed case of Ebola in this country? How much better could this be handled?), and the 10th Amendment protects states rights in a case like this. But beware of allowing any level of government (especially the federal government) even an inch more power over the people. Liberals can turn that inch into the LAST mile toward statism. That's why politics must be excised from the Ebola issue, and the medical and scientific community must be listened to by the Obama Administration. They MUST put Americans first, and we must not buy into any hysteria as we calmly yet aggressively keep the Ebola virus out of our country.

 - Sarah Palin

Okay once again the main group of individuals using the Ebola virus for political purposes are the conservatives. 

The CDC has very definite guidelines on how to handle this disease and the reason such a federal agency exists is to fight panic, and to keep local politicians from using fear to manipulate their constituents. Which is exactly what we see some politicians, and Fox News, doing right now.

Besides Palin knows less about this than she does foreign relations, economics, or even parenting. And that is REALLY saying something.

She is simply being used as one more yapping mongrel attempting to fill the air with white noise to keep Americans from hearing any truth which might quiet their fears.

Remember unafraid people are less likely to vote Republican.


 

Public News Network Copyright © 2010 LKart Theme is Designed by Lasantha