Bachman.......blech

JoeFromS.Jersey

Registered User
Apr 25, 2005
5,128
2
283
South Jersey
#1
So...this is the very first bit of Bachman that I've heard/seen on video and I AM NOT impressed. Her very first two answers are total side-step bullshit. I HATE when politicians don't even attempt to answer the actual question. Not to mention I can articulate the proper answers to both of them off the top of my head. I really hope this bitch doesn't get the nomination....

video:

http://nation.foxnews.com/michele-b...will-investigate-bachmanns-23-foster-children
 

Mags

LDAR, bitch.
Donator
Oct 22, 2004
35,619
12,287
763
Ill Repute
#2
Yep she sux. They really have nobody to beat Barry, sadly.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#3
A "journalist" basically threatens to investigate her 23 foster children, and you're worried about how she answered a question?

Let me repeat that. She housed 23 foster children. The media is going to give them the Bristol Palin treatment, and he basically told her that. You don't see a problem here?

Seriously, stop being so pussy whipped by the media. The only reason any candidate can't win is because conservatives have been beaten into submission by being told that we're somehow less intelligent and that our candidates are inferior to the great enlightened liberals like Barney Frank and John Kerry. Enough of this shit. Every single person who is even being mentioned for the Republican nomination would be light years better than what we have now. Shit, Andrew Johnson's corpse with Grant as VP would be better.
 

Pigdango

Silence, you mortal Fuck!
Donator
Jun 22, 2004
77,186
49,672
788
#4
A "journalist" basically threatens to investigate her 23 foster children, and you're worried about how she answered a question?

Let me repeat that. She housed 23 foster children. The media is going to give them the Bristol Palin treatment, and he basically told her that. You don't see a problem here?

Seriously, stop being so pussy whipped by the media. The only reason any candidate can't win is because conservatives have been beaten into submission by being told that we're somehow less intelligent and that our candidates are inferior to the great enlightened liberals like Barney Frank and John Kerry. Enough of this shit. Every single person who is even being mentioned for the Republican nomination would be light years better than what we have now. Shit, Andrew Johnson's corpse with Grant as VP would be better.
Wow, you really set yourself up for this one. You read the Fox News blurb but didn't read or listen to the actual question:

Stephanopoulos: Finally one—one final question. I think one of the most impressive things that people find in your background is the fact that you and your husband have helped raise 23 foster children and I know you want to shield them but are they prepared and are you prepared for the loss of privacy that comes with the presidential campaign? And is that something you are concerned about for them
That's a great and fair question, and honestly, gave her the opportunity to give the best answer of the entire interview.


He's simply asking if she's concerned about what the media will do, not "threatening" anything. Stop being so brainwashed and actually read or listen to something for a change.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#5
The fact that anyone even considers her to be a serious candidate rests solely at the hands of Little Barry. He has fucked things up so bad, that even she would be an improvement over what we have now.

Thanks Barry as if your 20%+ rate unemployment / underemployment wasn't enough.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#6
Foster kids aren't like, really your kids, though. Foster and adopted are two different things.

I could see this being a potential land mine for her as a candidate, unfortunately, since any kid who's been through the system has some issues, and all it would take is some hatchet man to find a few and offer them cash to come out and claim abuse or anything. If she had 23 kids come through her house during her time helping the system, it's almost guaranteed this will happen.

It really is disgusting, since a well off and civic minded person is exactly who we all wish would be that role of foster parent more often. Kids in the system might have a shred of a chance then, but liability like this is why none of them do.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#7
Wow, you really set yourself up for this one. You read the Fox News blurb but didn't read or listen to the actual question:
That's a great and fair question, and honestly, gave her the opportunity to give the best answer of the entire interview.
He's simply asking if she's concerned about what the media will do, not "threatening" anything. Stop being so brainwashed and actually read or listen to something for a change.


If you don't believe that question was nothing more than a threat to investigate the personal lives of everyone of those former foster kids (along with her children by birth) you really are a rube.

At this point the only way Little Barry could be reelected (aside from massive voter fraud) would be if nobody runs against him (including write in candidates) Barry's people are going to do whatever it takes to get all the candidates to drop out of the race. The humiliation of losing to someone like Michele Bachman will be unbearable, these people are going to get desperate and we all know desperate people do desperate things.
 

Pigdango

Silence, you mortal Fuck!
Donator
Jun 22, 2004
77,186
49,672
788
#8
If you don't believe that question was nothing more than a threat to investigate the personal lives of everyone of those former foster kids (along with her children by birth) you really are a rube.

At this point the only way Little Barry could be reelected (aside from massive voter fraud) would be if nobody runs against him (including write in candidates) Barry's people are going to do whatever it takes to get all the candidates to drop out of the race. The humiliation of losing to someone like Michele Bachman will be unbearable, these people are going to get desperate and we all know desperate people do desperate things.
If there's a threat in there at all, it might be "Don't parade your 28 kids out there as a campaign ploy like Palin did", but I'm sorry - I just don't see it. Asking her if she's prepared and concerned for the privacy and wellbeing of such a large, diverse family is a very fair question, and again - it gave her a chance to really shine to close the interview. If you're focused on reality, focus it on the fact that it was the only strong answer she gave, meaning she's better equipped to be a Mom than the President.

Put it this way, if Rush Limbaugh had asked the exact same question:

Finally one—one final question. I think one of the most impressive things that people find in your background is the fact that you and your husband have helped raise 23 foster children and I know you want to shield them but are they prepared and are you prepared for the attacks by the liberal media? And is that something you are concerned about for them
Would you be calling that a "Threat"?

As to your second point - I'm sorry, I don't agree that any old Republican/Tea Party candidate can just waltz in and beat Obama. What scares me is that enough people within the party will believe the "can't lose" mantra and the GOP will settle on a nominee that will alienate the independant vote. Counting on the economy staying this shitty for the next 15 months as your only strategy for winning doesn't seem very sound.
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
18,071
5,481
838
Wilmington, NC
#9
If you don't believe that question was nothing more than a threat to investigate the personal lives of everyone of those former foster kids (along with her children by birth) you really are a rube.

At this point the only way Little Barry could be reelected (aside from massive voter fraud) would be if nobody runs against him (including write in candidates) Barry's people are going to do whatever it takes to get all the candidates to drop out of the race. The humiliation of losing to someone like Michele Bachman will be unbearable, these people are going to get desperate and we all know desperate people do desperate things.
Exactly. Again, I just don't see anyone on the right voting Obama. If anything, they won't vote at all if the GOP candidate is that bad. So, then there's independents and moderates who broke down and voted Obama in 2008. There's no way he's going to get the same amount of turnout from that group in 2012. Some will still vote for him, others won't vote at all...and the rest will vote for the GOP candidate (unless there's a 3rd party candidate). I suspect there are even some liberals and far left America-destroyers that just won't have the motivation to vote at all because Obama didn't pay their bills in 2009.

The economy is the #1 issue. What's Obama's defense? I spent trillions of dollars promising that I'd have the country on the right path in 2 years and instead it's going to take alot longer than I had hoped? Or is he going to try to convince the people that he actually did save/create 3-4 million jobs and continue with the "we're on the right path" nonsense? Good luck with that.

The only way Obama wins is if turnout is really low...or if a 3rd party candidate siphons more votes from the GOP candidate than from Obama.
 

DanaReevesLungs

I can keep rhythm with no metronome...
Donator
Jun 9, 2005
9,134
2,537
681
Louisiana
#10
I can't stand her because she's a politician. I don't give a fuck how many kids she's paraded through her home.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#11
Hey, fucking retards, THEY'RE FOSTER KIDS, NOT ADOPTED KIDS!

Am I understanding this wrong? A foster child might only stay with you for a month while they're transitioning between permanent homes. You don't necessarily take permanent custody.

So for her to have had 23 foster kids, that means that over time there were 23 different kids who spent anywhere form a week to a few years living with her, right?

Too many people are assuming she's running this child ranch with 23 kids running around. That simply can't be the case.
 

MagicBob

Registered User
Dec 2, 2010
2,171
15
88
#12
I spent trillions of dollars promising that I'd have the country on the right path in 2 years and instead it's going to take alot longer than I had hoped?
when did Obama promise a 2 year turn around?
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#13
Wow, you really set yourself up for this one. You read the Fox News blurb but didn't read or listen to the actual question:

That's a great and fair question, and honestly, gave her the opportunity to give the best answer of the entire interview.

He's simply asking if she's concerned about what the media will do, not "threatening" anything. Stop being so brainwashed and actually read or listen to something for a change.
Exactly. A very fair question, and he prefaced it with a compliment, calling it "impressive." And you're right, if Rush or O'Reilly had asked it, it wouldn't have made a blip.

Foster kids aren't like, really your kids, though. Foster and adopted are two different things.

I could see this being a potential land mine for her as a candidate, unfortunately, since any kid who's been through the system has some issues, and all it would take is some hatchet man to find a few and offer them cash to come out and claim abuse or anything. If she had 23 kids come through her house during her time helping the system, it's almost guaranteed this will happen.
I doubt it. Pretty conspiratorial suggesting they'd pull something like that. No wonder you like defending Kirk so much around here...:)

And I think most people will give her a pass on any "problems" those 23 kids might turn out to have, it's her 5 children they might scrutinize. People realize that foster kids come in as damaged goods so you really can't fault the foster parents for stuff they do. Will she parade any of them out there though as trophies of her parenting skills, that's the question.

And for the record people, it's 1 L and 2 N's in Michele Bachmann. :action-sm
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#15
If there's a threat in there at all, it might be "Don't parade your 28 kids out there as a campaign ploy like Palin did", but I'm sorry - I just don't see it. Asking her if she's prepared and concerned for the privacy and wellbeing of such a large, diverse family is a very fair question, and again - it gave her a chance to really shine to close the interview. If you're focused on reality, focus it on the fact that it was the only strong answer she gave, meaning she's better equipped to be a Mom than the President.

Hey I think with the amount of power these politicians are asking for, they should have zero privacy, and if they campaign with their family in any way then their family should have to give up all privacy as well - even minor children. If you want the power to take the property, liberty, and life from another person, then it should cost you.
Put it this way, if Rush Limbaugh had asked the exact same question:
Would you be calling that a "Threat"?
YES! Nobody wants Little Barry reelected more than Rush Limbaugh, his ratings will dop at least by 1/3 if Barry loses


to your second point - I'm sorry, I don't agree that any old Republican/Tea Party candidate can just waltz in and beat Obama. What scares me is that enough people within the party will believe the "can't lose" mantra and the GOP will settle on a nominee that will alienate the independent vote. Counting on the economy staying this shitty for the next 15 months as your only strategy for winning doesn't seem very sound.
Worked for Reagan, worked for Clinton, it'll work in 2012

Are you better off now than you were for years ago? Time is not on Little Barry's side.
 

Pigdango

Silence, you mortal Fuck!
Donator
Jun 22, 2004
77,186
49,672
788
#16
And I think most people will give her a pass on any "problems" those 23 kids might turn out to have, it's her 5 children they might scrutinize.
I really don't know that anyone's going to scrutinize any of her kids any more than the usual. Bristol took an unusual amount of heat but only because of the teen pregnancy.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#17
Hey, fucking retards, THEY'RE FOSTER KIDS, NOT ADOPTED KIDS!

Am I understanding this wrong? A foster child might only stay with you for a month while they're transitioning between permanent homes. You don't necessarily take permanent custody.

So for her to have had 23 foster kids, that means that over time there were 23 different kids who spent anywhere form a week to a few years living with her, right?

Too many people are assuming she's running this child ranch with 23 kids running around. That simply can't be the case.

Yea its like when Opie talks about those kids that stayed at his house, one day they would just be gone and you'd never hear from them again. Of the 23 the media will have no problem getting some of them to cash in and make up some dirt on Bauchmann.

I just want to know how many kids the likes of Hilary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, that ugly joo bitch from Florida that Little Barry said was cute, etc... have actually helped in anyway besides spending the tax payers money.

I agree that Bauchmann is annoying and everything, but she has walked the walk while the people on the other side just talk.
 

Pigdango

Silence, you mortal Fuck!
Donator
Jun 22, 2004
77,186
49,672
788
#19
Worked for Reagan, worked for Clinton, it'll work in 2012
Reagan and Clinton had more than a bad economy on their side - they had an extreme likability factor vs their opponents. I don't know that any of the current GOP candidates is as lovable as the President just yet. There's still time, and I do hope you're right.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#20
And I think most people will give her a pass on any "problems" those 23 kids might turn out to have, it's her 5 children they might scrutinize. People realize that foster kids come in as damaged goods so you really can't fault the foster parents for stuff they do. Will she parade any of them out there though as trophies of her parenting skills, that's the question.


Most people have no concept of what a foster kid is, and when Bauchman says she had 23 of them go through her home, they'll think she raised those kids from infancy to adulthood and the media is not going to tell the public otherwise, but they'll blame the ones who are dead, in prison, on drugs, on welfare, etc... all on Bauchman, they'll probably try and find a way to blame Palin and W too.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#21
I really don't know that anyone's going to scrutinize any of her kids any more than the usual. Bristol took an unusual amount of heat but only because of the teen pregnancy.
HURR DURR!!! BIASED LIBERAL MEDIA ATTACKS MILFY CONSERVATIVE WOMEN!!!

I'd like to think you're right but I wouldn't be surprised if they did if she appears more viable in the coming months.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#22
Reagan and Clinton had more than a bad economy on their side - they had an extreme likability factor vs their opponents. I don't know that any of the current GOP candidates is as lovable as the President just yet. There's still time, and I do hope you're right.
if it were an office other than POTUS and if the economy was bad, but not nearly as bad as it currently is (and its a lot worse than anyone really wants to admit out of fear that alone will make it worse) I'd agree with you, even though the POTUS dosen't have nearly as much affect on the economy as the public thinks with the exception of the confidence factor. The people had confidence in Bill Clinton as a manager even though the guy had no clue about economics in any way, but the public felt he did and acted in a manner in which they thought the economy was strong simply because he was POTUS, which in turn made the economy even stronger, same with Reagan, things got better because the public believed they would get better simply because this guy is the POTUS. The public does not have that confidence in Little Barry and at this point there isn't anything he can do in time for them to have confidence in him.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#23
Most people have no concept of what a foster kid is, and when Bauchman says she had 23 of them go through her home, they'll think she raised those kids from infancy to adulthood and the media is not going to tell the public otherwise, but they'll blame the ones who are dead, in prison, on drugs, on welfare, etc... all on Bauchman, they'll probably try and find a way to blame Palin and W too.
Why do you keep calling her Bauchman? Is this another one of your clever little nicknames like Little Barry? Because I think she's pretty much the anti-debauchery candidate at this point.

The public does not have that confidence in Little Barry and at this point there isn't anything he can do in time for them to have confidence in him.
Doesn't help when you've got the Republicans sabotaging the economy like Nancy and Harry did. :action-sm
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
18,071
5,481
838
Wilmington, NC
#24
when did Obama promise a 2 year turn around?
Well, I stand corrected...ARRA was supposed to put our country on the right path IMMEDIATELY. I'm referring to the White House Council of Economic Advisors projection (the one wholly embraced by the President) that thanks to ARRA, 3.5M jobs would be saved or created by Q4 2010 and growth was expected to continue with nearly 7M jobs saved or created by Q4 2012. That's not including White House Economic Advisor, Christina Romer's rather bold prediction that unemployment won't go above 8% but will climb to near 10%+ if ARRA is not passed.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#25
Anyone who doesn't see what Stephanopolous said as an outright promise that her foster children will be dragged through the mud has obviously never seen a mafia movie.