PDA

View Full Version : Bachmann Gross Hypocrisy!



Gayle in MD
07-29-2011, 10:49 AM
WASHINGTON Rep. Michele Bachmann steadfastly refused Thursday to answer questions about her family's business and finances, saying that she not her husband was the one seeking the White House.

The Minnesota Republican faced queries about Marcus Bachmann's Christian counseling clinic that attempts to convert gay patients as well as her own beliefs on sexuality during a luncheon at the National Press Club. With her husband sitting nearby, Bachmann said she expected scrutiny as a candidate but questions about her family were off-limits.

"I'm running for the presidency of the United States. My husband is not running for the presidency. Neither are my children. Neither is our business," she said.

"I am more than happy to stand for questions on running for the presidency of the United States," she continued. "I have no doubt that every jot and tittle of my life will be fully looked at and inspected prior to November of 2012."

Bachmann, who is campaigning hard ahead of next month's debate and straw poll in Iowa, has steadfastly refused to discuss the family's business that has faced criticism from gay rights groups. When asked to describe her beliefs on gay therapy, Michele Bachmann said she loved her husband of 32 years and then said her husband was not a campaign issue.

She also faced questions about her opposition to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Washington Post reported this week that its analysis of her loan documents suggests her family used those federally subsidized programs in 2008.

"Unlike all of you, who I'm sure paid cash for your homes, there are people out there like myself who actually have to go to a bank to get a mortgage. This is a problem: it's almost impossible to buy a home in this country today without the federal government being involved," she said.

<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 20pt'>BWA HA HA HA! </span> </span>

"We need to get the federal government out of these programs."

Bachmann used her speech to discuss Congress' ongoing effort to increase the limit on the nation's credit card. She downplayed the catastrophic consequences predicted if lawmakers allow the United States to default on its debts.

Bachmann, a darling of the libertarian tea party, has vowed to vote against any increase in the debt ceiling and called the deal being negotiated on Capitol Hill as one based on "illusory" and "counterfeit" savings. She said President Barack Obama has misled the American people on when the government would run out of borrowing authority and has employed "scare tactics" that have needlessly spooked Wall Street.

"The current negotiations over the debt ceiling illustrate exactly what is wrong with Washington, D.C., today," said during her speech. "The lack of a clear plan from our president to substantially reduce our debt is what's scaring the markets. ... The markets know when politicians are serious about spending cuts and the markets know when politicians are not."

The nation faces a Tuesday deadline to increase Washington's borrowing power to pay its bills. Congressional leaders were working to find a compromise that cuts future spending as a trade-off to avoid a government default that could send world markets crashing and could downgrade the United States' credit rating.

Bachmann said that would not happen; she offered no specifics to back up that claim.



<span style="color: #990000">And her district has had unprecedented suicides by gay, and percieved gay teens.

Both she and her husband have been on the government dole their entire adult lives!

Hypocrite extraordinaire!</span>

LWW
07-29-2011, 11:16 AM
So what was the hypocrisy?

ugotda7
07-29-2011, 04:37 PM
Dementia.....a terrible thing.

Soflasnapper
07-29-2011, 04:44 PM
saying that she not her husband was the one seeking the White House.

Since she believes she must 'submit' to her husband, as a Biblical prescription, he will be the real president whenever he choses to tell her what to do.

Or at least, that's the logical conclusion, in my view. In that case, he and his views are of the utmost importance in judging her candidacy.

Unless she details and commits to a carve out exception to the 'submission' rule, where that only applies in her household, and not in her job description.

There is a problem for her to make that claim, because she has already said that she never wanted to be a tax attorney, and only did so because her husband ordered her to do so (perhaps including ordering her to attend law school in the first place).

At a minimum, she should answer if her husband ordered her to seek elective office as a House member, as a Minnesota state legislative member before this, and now, to seek the presidency.

eg8r
07-29-2011, 07:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Or at least, that's the logical conclusion, in my view.</div></div>Why would you waste our time filtering the Bible to meet your purpose? If you know the part about submitting to the husband then surely you have read the rest of the verse and are now ignoring it on purpose.

eg8r

LWW
07-30-2011, 05:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">saying that she not her husband was the one seeking the White House.</div></div>

That was the reason Billy Jeff used to not disclose family assets and not put family wealth into a blind trust.

That was the reason dear leader used to hide mush of Michelle's background.

That was the reason the left slavishly licked from the spoon.

But thanks for pointing out where the hypocrisy is ... on the far left.

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>BRAVO!</span>

Gayle in MD
07-30-2011, 08:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">saying that she not her husband was the one seeking the White House.

Since she believes she must 'submit' to her husband, as a Biblical prescription, he will be the real president whenever he choses to tell her what to do.

Or at least, that's the logical conclusion, in my view. In that case, he and his views are of the utmost importance in judging her candidacy.

Unless she details and commits to a carve out exception to the 'submission' rule, where that only applies in her household, and not in her job description.

There is a problem for her to make that claim, because she has already said that she never wanted to be a tax attorney, and only did so because her husband ordered her to do so (perhaps including ordering her to attend law school in the first place).

At a minimum, she should answer if her husband ordered her to seek elective office as a House member, as a Minnesota state legislative member before this, and now, to seek the presidency. </div></div>

Either way, she's dangerous and a LIAR, and so is he!

Even worse, they are both scam artists, who hide their greed in the same way as most con artists, preying on the religious fundamentalists, and pretending God is telling them what to do!

What a crock!

Both of them are on the government dole, and always have been.

The very fact that the right approves of her by such large numbers, is proof enough for me that the Tea Partiers are nuts.

Stretch
07-30-2011, 10:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">saying that she not her husband was the one seeking the White House.

Since she believes she must 'submit' to her husband, as a Biblical prescription, he will be the real president whenever he choses to tell her what to do.

Or at least, that's the logical conclusion, in my view. In that case, he and his views are of the utmost importance in judging her candidacy.

Unless she details and commits to a carve out exception to the 'submission' rule, where that only applies in her household, and not in her job description.

There is a problem for her to make that claim, because she has already said that she never wanted to be a tax attorney, and only did so because her husband ordered her to do so (perhaps including ordering her to attend law school in the first place).

At a minimum, she should answer if her husband ordered her to seek elective office as a House member, as a Minnesota state legislative member before this, and now, to seek the presidency. </div></div>

Either way, she's dangerous and a LIAR, and so is he!

Even worse, they are both scam artists, who hide their greed in the same way as most con artists, preying on the religious fundamentalists, and pretending God is telling them what to do!

What a crock!

Both of them are on the government dole, and always have been.

The very fact that the right approves of her by such large numbers, is proof enough for me that the Tea Partiers are nuts.

</div></div>

At least they are homogeneous nuts, as mixed nuts are frowned upon. St.

Gayle in MD
07-30-2011, 10:38 AM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

LOL, Bill Maher called Bachmann the indoor Palin. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Stretch
07-30-2011, 11:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

LOL, Bill Maher called Bachmann the indoor Palin. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif </div></div>

I like Conan's line that she is "The Costco of crazy". Have you noticed she never looks directly into the camera when she speaks? It makes it harder for the Tea Baggers to masterbate, so that may be a problem. St.

Soflasnapper
07-30-2011, 12:49 PM
Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper
saying that she not her husband was the one seeking the White House.


[LWW:]That was the reason Billy Jeff used to not disclose family assets and not put family wealth into a blind trust.

Except that he did, you mean?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Clintons Dissolve Blind Financial Trust

By John Solomon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 15, 2007

Bill and Hillary Clinton have dissolved the blind trust that has managed their investments since they entered the White House in 1993, converting all stocks to cash to avoid financial conflicts as she runs for president, according to documents to be filed today with federal ethics officials. </div></div>

Article linked here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/14/AR2007061400474.html)

It is true that these trust documents were not completed until approx. July of his first year, but I've seen no indication that it was because of any assertion of Bill Clinton's that it wasn't required as his wife wasn't president. Those were jointly held assets, and of course, his as well as hers.

Soflasnapper
07-30-2011, 01:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Or at least, that's the logical conclusion, in my view.</div></div>Why would you waste our time filtering the Bible to meet your purpose? If you know the part about submitting to the husband then surely you have read the rest of the verse and are now ignoring it on purpose.

eg8r </div></div>

The commentaries of various Bible versions on Ephesians 5:22, the verse in question. (http://bible.cc/ephesians/5-22.htm)

I read through all of these commentaries, expatiating on the meaning of these whole verses in context.

None offers any wiggle room for a woman to not obey her husband in matters of anything but religion and religious observance or conscience. (A man's authority doesn't extend to requiring his wife to do an immoral act, refuse to train the children in religion, etc.) Everywhere else, his authority is supreme, even as these commentators admit when it gets down to commanding, there is trouble in the relationship.

The man is required to love or cherish his wife, as God loves the church, but as God has dominion over the church, so has a husband dominion over his wife.

Sev
07-30-2011, 01:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">



<span style="color: #990000">And her district has had unprecedented suicides by gay, and percieved gay teens.

</span> </div></div>

So??? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif