• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michele Bachmann: John Quincy Adams Was 'One Of Our Founding Fathers'

You sound confused. You say it's no different than the 57 states thing, then criticize her for not backing down.

What I'm saying is that if you make a stupid slip-up like that, the slip-up in and of itself should not be regarded as a sign you're an idiot. When you get caught on something like that, the right answer is, "Aw, ****, I guess I blew that one hur hur hur" or something of the sort. The correct response is not to dig your heels in and try to justify the answer by arguing how, if you squint and turn it on its side and shake it a couple of times, it sorta kinda seems right.

Obama made the 57 states remark after campaigning and traveling around the country nonstop. He was tired and misspoke. You don't honestly believe that Obama thinks there are 57 states, do you? Bachmann actually believes the crap she's selling. Now do you see the difference?

No, I don't think Obama believes there are 57 states. In the same vein, I think it's far more likely that Bachmann was trying to turn a gaffe into a sly win than it is that she believes what she was saying. I think she did the same when she hosed up where John Wayne was born (or something like that).
 
A gaffe and a misreading of history, but not of dramatic importance (for running, anyhow), though when you are running, you want to watch what you say carefully and get the history of the nation mostly solid for the masses.
I will only find it amusing that those who do not read much history themselves will still stroke themselves in superiority to the woman, however.
 
Last edited:
stroke themselves

Stroke themselves? Over Michelle Bachmann?

michele-bachmann-2012.jpg













:mrgreen:
 
And Bachman, a Presidential candidate, doesn't know that J.Q Adams was not only NOT a founding father, but was born LONG after the founding fathers founding this country.

um, no he wasn't. He was born in 1767. When the Constitution was written, he was serving as an aid to his father.

Bachmann is correct to describe the Founders as she does - Washington educated his slaves and emancipated them upon his death. Many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were abolitionists, including Benjamin Rush, John Jay (a president of the Continental Congress), Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr and Benjamin Franklin. Even before there was a Constitution, the Founding Fathers prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territories (Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin). Indeed, of the seven men most commonly named as the "Founding Fathers", five opposed slavery and the two who did own slaves were not very happy with it (those seven are John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and George Washington).


swizz said:
Because Obama is a pretty intelligent person, like his policies or not, so there really isn't much to compare this to because he doesn't make blatantly incorrect statements all that often. You will be able to come up with some other ones, but it is not on a consistent basis.

Should it Matter When Politicians Make History Mistakes?

...During the 2008 campaign Obama claimed that we should meet face-to-face with those we oppose just as Kennedy had met with Khrushchev when "We were on the brink of nuclear war." Except Kennedy's meeting with Khrushchev had occurred more than a year before the Cuban Missile Crisis and was regarded even by JFK as a failure. In fact, Khrushchev concluded from his meeting with JFK at Vienna that the young president would not be a barrier to an increased Soviet hardline as he went on to approve the building of the Berlin Wall and the placement of missiles in Cuba.

Also during the campaign he bragged about his uncle being part of the liberation of Auschwitz when it was the Soviets who liberated the camps in Poland. His uncle helped to liberate a satellite camp of Buchenwald. I would have thought that, if he were truly so proud of his uncle's service, he might have read up on those experiences and learned more about what actually happened.

At his inaugural, he didn't know how many men had been president double-counting Cleveland. That was a small error, of course, but you'd think that for an Inaugural Address he or his speechwriters would get it right.

Obama's aides seem so impressed with the boss that they have lost all historical perspective. Remember Rahm Emanuel telling Obama that he had faced the toughest times that any president has ever faced. Apparently, Obama and his aides only remember Abraham Lincoln when they want to reach for some strained comparison between the two.

Obama's sense of himself seems so grandiose that he can make boneheaded comments like claiming that the reason he was so unpopular in Texas is that "Texas has always been a pretty Republican state, for, you know, historic reasons." Apparently, this man who supposedly learned so much from the civil rights movement was unaware that the Democrats were the party of the solid South and that Texas had been a Democratic state since its admission in 1845 until Nixon's election in 1972. That was the historic gaffe that led Scott Johnson of Powerline to say that "Obama's historical ignorance could be a full time beat for somebody who does this work for a living".

More importantly, his whole approach to the Middle East displays a vast historical ignorance. In that same Inaugural he talked about seeking a "new way forward" for our relations with the Muslim world and a return to the "same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago.". As Charles Krauthammer pointed out at the time, Obama seemed ignorant of the true history of our relationship with the Muslim world....

So historical ignorance can be both embarrassing and crucial for a president. Critics shouldn't ridicule Michele Bachmann's errors unless they've also spent some time on Obama's errors.​

Meanwhile, Bachmann just had a hilarious gaffe YESTERDAY.

funny you should bring this up. Obama yesterday had a rather entertaining gaffe where he screwed up and got his own daughters' age wrong. :)
 
As bolded. Can you see the difference.

Do you think Obama is convinced that automation, such as ATM's, is what is keeping unemployment high?

Do you think that Biden still believes that FDR got on television and talked people through the Great Depression?
 
And he is STILL not a founding father. Which is what she refused to admit. He's not a founding father.

No he wasn't.
 
um, no he wasn't. He was born in 1767. When the Constitution was written, he was serving as an aid to his father.

Yes, that is correct, I misread his DoB... should have realized that it was incorrect, understanding that he was voted President in 1824. Still, doesn't make him a founding father... not at all.

Bachmann is correct to describe the Founders as she does - Washington educated his slaves and emancipated them upon his death. Many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were abolitionists, including Benjamin Rush, John Jay (a president of the Continental Congress), Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr and Benjamin Franklin. Even before there was a Constitution, the Founding Fathers prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territories (Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin). Indeed, of the seven men most commonly named as the "Founding Fathers", five opposed slavery and the two who did own slaves were not very happy with it (those seven are John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and George Washington).

If you take Bachman's comment about JQ and apply it to the founding fathers, it is not accurate. None of them worked "tirelessly" to make sure we one day eradicate slavery. JQ DID work that way, however, and was probably one of the, if not THE most tireless worker towards ending slavery in the legislature, if not of any public figure.
 
Do you think Obama is convinced that automation, such as ATM's, is what is keeping unemployment high?

Do you think that Biden still believes that FDR got on television and talked people through the Great Depression?

And do you think any of this is relevant, including Bachman's error?
 
And do you think any of this is relevant, including Bachman's error?

Only to the point that people criticizing Bachman are hypocrites. Look, this started when Bush took office (actually Reagan but anyway)....the monkey photos, he's stupid, and all that stuff. The left has a high regard for education, but if a conservative is educated, it doesn't matter. They will find gaffes and other things to somehow demonstrate that the conservative is too incompetent to run for or be in office. That's the way it works around here. Bachman has a Masters degree in Law, which Obama doesn't have. But it doesn't matter to the left, because she's a conservative. When Obama came along.....oh he's from Harvard, he's from Columbia......tingle up the leg....
 
Only to the point that people criticizing Bachman are hypocrites. Look, this started when Bush took office (actually Reagan but anyway)....the monkey photos, he's stupid, and all that stuff. The left has a high regard for education, but if a conservative is educated, it doesn't matter. They will find gaffes and other things to somehow demonstrate that the conservative is too incompetent to run for or be in office. That's the way it works around here. Bachman has a Masters degree in Law, which Obama doesn't have. But it doesn't matter to the left, because she's a conservative. When Obama came along.....oh he's from Harvard, he's from Columbia......tingle up the leg....

It works the other way, too. American. Some conservatives do the exact same thing. Personally, and I've said this lots of times before, especially recently, I think folks who do this on either side are hypocrites.
 
It works the other way, too. American. Some conservatives do the exact same thing. Personally, and I've said this lots of times before, especially recently, I think folks who do this on either side are hypocrites.

The only time I do it (and that's often), is to either make a joke or point out hypocrisy. But gaffes will happen, and usually the errors are not the main point anyway.
 
Only to the point that people criticizing Bachman are hypocrites. Look, this started when Bush took office (actually Reagan but anyway)....the monkey photos, he's stupid, and all that stuff. The left has a high regard for education, but if a conservative is educated, it doesn't matter. They will find gaffes and other things to somehow demonstrate that the conservative is too incompetent to run for or be in office. That's the way it works around here. Bachman has a Masters degree in Law, which Obama doesn't have. But it doesn't matter to the left, because she's a conservative. When Obama came along.....oh he's from Harvard, he's from Columbia......tingle up the leg....

If she were a conservative who were not a pentecostal, holy roller who has full intentions of being raptured when the moment finally arrives, I'd have a lot less trouble with her.

She regularly speaks from a place of ignorance. She's not a grace-based Christian, she's a hate-based Christian. She doesn't know how to admit when she's wrong.

That's my starting point. I wouldn't care if she were from Harvard/Columbia if she still had the above going on.
 
A gaffe and a misreading of history, but not of dramatic importance (for running, anyhow), though when you are running, you want to watch what you say carefully and get the history of the nation mostly solid for the masses.
I will only find it amusing that those who do not read much history themselves will still stroke themselves in superiority to the woman, however.

indeedy do.
 
If she were a conservative who were not a pentecostal, holy roller who has full intentions of being raptured when the moment finally arrives, I'dHerman Cain have a lot less trouble with her.

ah. so you look at pentecostals sort of in the way that Cain looks at Muslims?

She regularly speaks from a place of ignorance. She's not a grace-based Christian, she's a hate-based Christian.

I'm sorry, but you have neither the ability nor the authority to make that judgement.

She doesn't know how to admit when she's wrong.

a definite possibility.
 
Only to the point that people criticizing Bachman are hypocrites. Look, this started when Bush took office (actually Reagan but anyway)....the monkey photos, he's stupid, and all that stuff. The left has a high regard for education, but if a conservative is educated, it doesn't matter. They will find gaffes and other things to somehow demonstrate that the conservative is too incompetent to run for or be in office. That's the way it works around here. Bachman has a Masters degree in Law, which Obama doesn't have. But it doesn't matter to the left, because she's a conservative. When Obama came along.....oh he's from Harvard, he's from Columbia......tingle up the leg....

bingo. what that guy said. Conservatives are defined by their gaffes, Liberals get theirs glossed over.
 
Yes, that is correct, I misread his DoB... should have realized that it was incorrect, understanding that he was voted President in 1824. Still, doesn't make him a founding father... not at all.

HAH! too late! by the new rules you've already made a gaffe, making you an utter moron and completely invalidating anything else you say afterwards!!! :mrgreen:

If you take Bachman's comment about JQ and apply it to the founding fathers, it is not accurate. None of them worked "tirelessly" to make sure we one day eradicate slavery. JQ DID work that way, however, and was probably one of the, if not THE most tireless worker towards ending slavery in the legislature, if not of any public figure.

I think you are putting too high a bar on "tirelessly", then; many of the founders did indeed work to end slavery until the end of their public (or actual) lives. Franklin for example. Certainly Bachmann was correct in that she corrected the narrative that the founders were either ambivalent towards or in favor of slavery.

And do you think any of this is relevant, including Bachman's error?

i think it is relevant in discussing those who attack Bachmann on this sort of issue.

generally, no, i don't think this stuff is relevant. I've said it about people from both sides - you don't generally climb this high in a competitive field unless you are above average smarts. some later deteriorate (joe biden, i think, has done so), but you don't get up there unless you're on the ball. People who get Sarah Palin confused with Tina Fey are the fools, not she.
 
I'm sorry, but you have neither the ability nor the authority to make that judgement.



a definite possibility.

"By their fruits you shall know them."
 
and her fruits are.... she disagrees with homosexual marriage? wow, how very unbiblical of her ;)
 
"By their fruits you shall know them."

Wait, you quoted the Bible.....I thought church and state were separate. :lol:
 
Wait, you quoted the Bible.....I thought church and state were separate. :lol:

I'm neither. :)

I know, me being a Christian; such a shocker.
 
ah. so you look at pentecostals sort of in the way that Cain looks at Muslims?

I have a question for you. Do you believe in the rapture. I'm assuming so, based on beliefs as you've posted on the board. If it's true. What would this mean if she goes while she's POTUS?
 
I have a question for you. Do you believe in the rapture. I'm assuming so, based on beliefs as you've posted on the board. If it's true. What would this mean if she goes while she's POTUS?

Well its simple - the order of succession would be followed. I mean we are talking about politicians - just how far down the line of succession do you think we'd have to go before we find someone left behind? My bet - not far at all :)
 
Back
Top Bottom