Bachmann: Founding fathers ‘worked tirelessly’ to end slavery

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by beezzer
If it is subjective, then anyone can have an opinion. But here we go again. . . sigh. . . . . I subjectively think that my culture is better than those cultures that still stone women, multiple marry, mutilate genitals, pay higher taxes.
Dance all you want, play all the word games you want. MY culture allows me to have my own opinion. And I'm still free to have it.

Yes, here we go again:

eth·no·cen·trism – noun
1. Sociology . the belief in the inherent superiority of one's own ethnic group or culture.
2 .a tendency to view alien groups or cultures from the perspective of one's own.

dictionary.reference.com...

“Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it.”
- George Bernard Shaw (No secret he was a Socialist I added that just to stoke you!)

edit on 27-1-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Thanks for the chuckle.
Ethnocentrism would also explain the progressive movement, but I digress.

My favorite patriotic quotes are these.

Better to fight for something than live for nothing.
George S. Patton

No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
George S. Patton

reply to post by nenothtu


Yeah, let's not trust the specialists at Columbia university, and rather listen to Bachmann...riiiiiiiight

LINK

Originally posted by Janky Red

Who is avoiding???

Folks hammering on about one woman's opinion of ancient history, and hoping no one will notice their stance on current events thereby.

Folks who appear to have nothing else to lay at her doorstep (if they had better, they'd likely have presented it), and so who have to run with what little they've got.

Folks who are trying desperately to promote a political agenda by discrediting their "opposition", all the while avoiding mentioning that they've got no answers to current issues, either.

Folks who MUST dwell in the past in order to mask their disabilities in dealing with the present.

THAT'S who.

Progressives have been forced to look at fiscal concerns,

I looked at a painting once. I neither owned it nor made it, nor did I do anything at all to improve it.

I LOOKED at it, though.

even the Maoist Obama is outwardly addressing valid conservative complaints. I know as an individual and a progressive this is certainly the case for myself.

I've yet to see Obama "address" much of anything at all. I'm open to being shown the errors of my ways, though. Perhaps the discrepancy is what you perceive, or want ME to perceive, as a "VALID" concern?

Clearly you did not read the valid complaints in this thread and the made the choice to ignore a great deal of fact and opinion presented in this thread. Low and Behold, you just embodied the exact method you just tarted on about.

Yeah. I reckon I missed the "valid complaints" in this thread. Educate me. Point 'em out. I don't think I've ignored anything, whether I brought it back up or not as relevant may be another story. Opinions are just that, and one is as valid as another, but facts stand alone. Well, unless they are skewed and half-presented in order to try to support an insupportable opinion, like the CO2 "report". Factually correct, yes, but spin was applied to try to make it say something it didn't.

Then "fact" and "opinion" get sort of blurred together.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Yeah, let's not trust the specialists at Columbia university, and rather listen to Bachmann...riiiiiiiight

LINK

I'll be happy - no, more than "happy", ECSTATIC", to debate this issue ( CO2, man made global warming, whatever you want to call it) with you in a thread on it. Start the thread, U2U an invite, and we'll get right on that.

The Columbia chart shows exactly what I'm saying, in a extremely truncated historical context. Broaden that out, things look a bit different. Pity none have done a study on oxygen, eh? That stuff will eat steel in large enough concentrations, imagine what it can do to soft tissue like lungs!

Yeah, after in-depth investigation, I'll hang with Bachmann on that issue, rather than folks trying to skew pictures to score political points with science. At least Bachmann isn't claiming to be a scientist. I'm a bit stymied with her stance on this issue, though. Jumping on the MMGW bandwagon stands to make a butt load of money for those rich folks that people try to associate her with. I can't see why she'd be against that!

Maybe she's not as firmly in that camp as some would have us believe?

Originally posted by beezzer
Ethnocentrism would also explain the progressive movement, but I digress.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Progressives are known for their tolerance and embracing other cultures. Whether you like it or not, America is a melting pot and home to a diverse mix of foreign cultures. We embody a rich tapestry of immigrants from other countries and progressives welcome that. Those who don't embrace and recognize their contribution to America are relics. That's what miffs the other side.

Our nation was founded on religious tolerance but somehow the Tea Party and extreme Right have done their best to monopolize and polarize those not subscribing to their particular "brand" of religion. I refuse to stand idly by as Bachmann and her ilk attempt to rewrite history. It ain't pretty, but we can learn from our past.

Patton was a great General and I too admire his quotes:

"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking."

"Prepare for the unknown by studying how others in the past have coped with the unforeseeable and the unpredictable."

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Worthy of note.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9f228eb71e02.jpg[/atsimg]

SOURCE
(You have to set chart range date parameters to match above results. Jan 08 - Jan 11)

Yet ANOTHER example of tactics used by those whose intent is to deceive. :shk:

edit on 27-1-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)

Yes. I remember watching her on CNN and when she started about the unemployment spike under Pres. Obama...I squinted and thought...does her chart not have an 08' on it?? Where is 08? What? It wasn't until I was able to pull up transcripts and compared them to an actual unemployment chart that I understood how severly the facts were tortured to make her chart.

From the photo, it appears that the labels on the chart are only under every odd year, but the bars for the even ones are there, not "missing". '08 is the last red bar on her chart.

edit on 2011/1/27 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

She cherry picked stats from each year...for example, she doesn't have 08 under that bar becuase it wasn't the highpoint for 08...08 closed in Dec at 7.3, not the 6.6 in October she shows...look it up...her numbers are cherry picked and squirley through and through.

Originally posted by maybereal11
BTW - I am still trying to make sense of the Iwo Jima visual and what the point of that bizzare segway/imagery was? Any light there?

A head scratcher for me too. Most of us know the backstory in that photo which was staged but they were brave and valiant soldiers nonetheless. (From memory - The hill was taken by enemy after the first flag was raised and then retaken by US and photographed. Only 3 of the 6 soldiers depicted survived. They returned to US as part of a PR tour and the truth was ultimately revealed that one of the 3 soldiers actually wasn't in the shot. Interesting story.) I commend their bravery, honor and courage and supreme sacrifice to our country.

Originally posted by kinda kurious


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9f228eb71e02.jpg[/atsimg]

SOURCE
(You have to set chart range date parameters to match above results. Jan 08 - Jan 11)

Yet ANOTHER example of tactics used by those whose intent is to deceive. :shk:

edit on 27-1-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)

Just to add...

01...Starts at 4.2 (Bush elected) ends at 5.7....
Bachman Shows 5.3 from October 01...the near highest number toward the end of the year. It gives the appearance that GW came in with a 5.3 unemployment rate rather than increasing unemployment 1.5% in 01.

02..starts at 5.7 fluxates up, but never goes lower and ends with 6 in dec. ..what number do you think she has on that chart?

03...starts 5.8, hits a high of 6.3, ends at 5.7...Of course she has 5.7 on her chart

04..starts 5.7 end 5.4 decemeber...wow here she picks the year end numbers December...wonder why.

05...starts 5.3 ends 4.9 in december...yep she goes with 4.9

06...starts 4.7...ends in dec at 4.4..goes again with december...okay, maybe a consistency trend? Decemeber?

nope 07...starts 4.6 in jan ends at 5 in december...this time with unemployment rising again she picks Jan, the most favorable number.

08...5 in january, 7.3 in december...again she doesn't show the december number but scrolls back time.

09...starts at 7.8 (when Pres Obama is elected) grows to a high of 9.9...guess what month she chooses?


Her entire chart is NOT averages...NOT the same year end...NOT even the same month of each year...It is a game of guess where I hid the BS.

Unemployment numbers from the Burau of Labor Stats here
data.bls.gov...

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by maybereal11
BTW - I am still trying to make sense of the Iwo Jima visual and what the point of that bizzare segway/imagery was? Any light there?

A head scratcher for me too.

Most of us know the backstory in that photo which was staged but they were brave and valiant soldiers nonetheless. (From memory - The hill was taken by enemy after the first flag was raised and then retaken by US and photographed. Only 3 of the 6 soldiers depicted survived. They returned to US as part of a PR tour and the truth was ultimately revealed that one of the 3 soldiers actually wasn't in the shot. Interesting story.) I commend their bravery, honor and courage and supreme sacrifice to our country.

edit on 27-1-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)

For me it was a strange segway...a specific visual that I was having a hard time relating to her speech. She commented that the Soldiers prevailed "Against all odds" or something similiar, which of course was not the case according to history.

But it just looked weird as she stepped to one side and did a weatherman's wave of her hand with that monotone voice, like she was telling us that it was raining in the west.

Just weird IMO.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Yeah, let's not trust the specialists at Columbia university, and rather listen to Bachmann...riiiiiiiight

LINK

I'll be happy - no, more than "happy", ECSTATIC", to debate this issue ( CO2, man made global warming, whatever you want to call it) with you in a thread on it. Start the thread, U2U an invite, and we'll get right on that.

The Columbia chart shows exactly what I'm saying, in a extremely truncated historical context.

If we extend the context deep into the past, to the Triassic Extinction Event, we'll see that global warming is in the list of hypotheses to explain that event.

Pity none have done a study on oxygen, eh? That stuff will eat steel in large enough concentrations, imagine what it can do to soft tissue like lungs!

There is no indication that O2 levels are climbing, why do you then engage in demagoguery? Alcohol vapor can also have funny effects on the population at large, but indeed we don't mention that because an ocean full of whiskey simply does not exist on this planet (a pity).

Originally posted by maybereal11

She cherry picked stats from each year...for example, she doesn't have 08 under that bar becuase it wasn't the highpoint for 08...08 closed in Dec at 7.3, not the 6.6 in October she shows...look it up...her numbers are cherry picked and squirley through and through.

A definite possibility, I reckon. Is that also why she hasn't labeled '02, '04, '06, and '10? The similarity that struck me was that they were all consecutive even numbers, and all the consecutive odd ones were labeled... it looks like a systematic labeling convention to me.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Let me apologize to the Mods in advance for the short reply I'm about to post here, but SHAZAM, MrXYZ! That was one of the most valid, skilled, and fantastic quote and rebuttals I have ever seen. MrXYZ FTW!

While we are on the subject of ECONOMICS, it is worth noting this late breaking update. It is IMPORTANT to understand how our country came to find itself in the current situation.

Goldman Sachs Got Billions From AIG For Its Own Account, Crisis Panel Finds

The details underscore the degree to which Goldman--the most profitable securities firm in Wall Street history--benefited directly from the massive emergency bailout of the nation's financial system, a deal crafted on the watch of then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who had previously headed the bank.

"The AIG counterparty bailout, which was spun as necessary to protect the public, seems to have protected the institution at the expense of the public."

SOURCE

Let's not forget Paulson was the Treasury Secretary appointed by G.W. Bush and also that TARP was enacted by Bush.

On December 19, 2008, President Bush used his executive authority to declare that TARP funds may be spent on any program that Secretary of Treasury, Henry Paulson,[20] deems necessary to avert the financial crisis.

SOURCE

I'm sure I will get trounced for bringing up Bush but it is important to remember that an economic collapse of this scale required tremendous momentum and was nearly impossible to avoid. While Bush was steering the Titanic toward the iceberg, Paulson was rearranging the deck chairs. :shk:

Thems the FACTS Michelle.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Gosh darn, that lady sounds like she just escaped from a lunatic asylum, indeed!

Thanks for doing the research.

Originally posted by buddhasystem


If we extend the context deep into the past, to the Triassic Extinction Event, we'll see that global warming is in the list of hypotheses to explain that event.

Yeah, now that's what I'm talking about! Extend it to get a better picture! I'm not willing to stop at the Triassic, though. Still too limited.

Pity none have done a study on oxygen, eh? That stuff will eat steel in large enough concentrations, imagine what it can do to soft tissue like lungs!

There is no indication that O2 levels are climbing, why do you then engage in demagoguery? Alcohol vapor can also have funny effects on the population at large, but indeed we don't mention that because an ocean full of whiskey simply does not exist on this planet (a pity).

Exactly! There is ALSO no evidence to support the demagoguery inherent in using figures like "70,000 to 100,000 ppm" for CO2 to support an argument, since those levels have never occurred "in the wild" during the entire tenure of life on Earth, either! Furthermore, there's no reason to believe they will ever climb to those levels. Currently, CO2 is around 380 ppm... a pretty long way from the 70,000 ppm danger threshold specifically cited at that link.

Give me a ridiculous argument, be not surprised when I give another right back to illustrate the flaws inherent in the original one.

Glad to see I'm not the only one around with a sense of the ridiculous!

Now, if you find a place that has a whiskey ocean, be sure to let me know, OK? I'll bring the beach chairs and umbrellas!

reply to post by nenothtu


You are right about labeleing the odd numbered years. I was confused at first becuase I thought the 05 was an 06. Regardless when the actual numbers are compared to her chart...she picked a month from each year that worked to her advantage...without consistency. Like I mentioned earlier, even though unemployment rose during all of 2001, she gave GW a starting number in October, rather than January...just trimming/adding each year to benefit her rhetoric...12 numbers to choose from for each year...she picked each number to fit the chart she imagined.

It makes for a chart that can't be considered honest or accurae...it is not even internally consistent in the months it chose year to year...those months were cherry picked each year with intent.

My econ teacher from college would have failed me if I ever presented a bogus chart like that. Just offensively dishonest whatever your politics are.

Originally posted by centurion1211
And I will always maintain that it is very foolish to try and hold people of the psst to our moral standards.

Um...excuse the impudence of a foreigner, but I do believe that it is Bachmann who is being held to account, not the founding fathers.

She screwed up...admit it and move on.

reply to post by maybereal11


Which shows just how dumb she thinks her followers are...she doesn't expect them to verify the data

Originally posted by nenothtu
. I'm a bit stymied with her stance on this issue, though. Jumping on the MMGW bandwagon stands to make a butt load of money for those rich folks that people try to associate her with. I can't see why she'd be against that!

Maybe she's not as firmly in that camp as some would have us believe?

Maybe I can help clear up your confusion...I think it is premised in the idea that there is some collection of fictional Billionaires that will profit from addressing global warming.

Maybe you could list these Billionaire forces?

In contrast...I'll offer the Koch Brothers...as well as the entirity of the fossil fuel industry...ya know...REAL people...with REAL money...in the Billions...who have publically financed the MMGW skeptic movement.

Both Exxon Mobil and Koch industries have directly contributed to Michelle Bachman's campaign in both 08 and 10...still confused? You can look it up on Open Secrets.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Exactly! There is ALSO no evidence to support the demagoguery inherent in using figures like "70,000 to 100,000 ppm" for CO2 to support an argument, since those levels have never occurred "in the wild" during the entire tenure of life on Earth, either!

Yes they did, although locally and briefly, in recent history. 1,700 people died. In the wild, as you say.

en.wikipedia.org...

Furthermore, there's no reason to believe they will ever climb to those levels. Currently, CO2 is around 380 ppm... a pretty long way from the 70,000 ppm danger threshold specifically cited at that link.

I grant you that the link presented to you was motivated by sarcasm towards Mrs.Bachmann, who indeed chose words poorly. It's "harmful" in CDC sense alright. But she should have phrased it as "having the potential to cause irreversible and deadly change in climate". She's just a mess. How many Noble Prize Laureates (and she claims multitude) support creationism? I don't know one, but I know that 72 of them went on record to officially state just the opposite:

www.talkorigins.org...

Was it deception or ignorance on her part? At this juncture, I don't care. This coffee is too nutty for my taste.