• 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!

What Did You Think Of This Question?

What did you think of the question?


  • Total voters
    44
It's okay to ask if Obama hates white people or if he's paling around with terrorists. Those are legitimate and honest questions.

Sure, if he's given indications that either of those are true, go ahead and ask.
 
Sure, if he's given indications that either of those are true, go ahead and ask.

The fact is that he has given such indications and he was asked those questions. Bill Ayres, you'll recall, has a history of domestic terrorism, and is one of Obama's friends, campaign contributors, and advisors. Obama was questioned extensively about that relationship. He dodged the questions. Also, Rev. Wright, whom Obama claimed to be the most influential man in his life, has a history of preaching inflammatory, anti-white sermons. Obama was questioned extensively about that relationship as well. He dodged the questions.
 
To get a proper meaningful answer you would have to be more specific as to the nature of the question. Is it about sexuality or is it about the political influence the husband has over Mrs Bachmann.

When it comes to the statement that Hillary would never be asked such a question the answer to that is, it would never come up because if it's sex I don't think most people can imagine Hillary doing the Horizontal Hula and we know that Bill is on the road most of the time and when he's not she is.

Hillary Clinton would not be asked whether she believed that a woman should be "submissive", as the questioner would be laughed out of the auditorium.

Nor would Hillary have to dodge the question. We all know the answer even if the question has not been asked. Hillary, submissive?????
 
Obama was questioned extensively about that relationship as well. He dodged the questions.

Of course he did. He's a politician, after all. Did you know that, when most of us were playing dodge ball in elementary school, the politicians were playing dodge the question?
 
All thats beside the point...she brought the question on herself by making the statement...then she waffled on the answer...

Beside the point? Ive stated it wasnt an unfair question. What didnt you like about her answer? She has been a congressman...do you have concerns that she has been unduly influenced by her husband? Is there some sort of indication that he would violate HIS role in the relationship and expect to exert dominance? Wouldnt that be 'unrighteous dominion' and therefore not subject to submission?

The silly **** you people pretend to be outraged over... :lamo
 
I think it was entirely appropriate. Yes, I can see why people would want to know if the person they were considering entrusting the nuclear launch codes is taking orders from somebody who is running a de-gayification center... But, more importantly, I think it is an issue because it reveals how profoundly sexist Bachmann is. She actually believes that it is the woman's role to submit to her husband. Think about that. In 2011 she still thinks a woman is more or less the property of her husband. The implications a view of women that wildly sexist would have for the policies she might support are huge. Imagine if a man had said that about women. Well, it works out to the same thing. She's just as likely to support policies which are oppressive to women as a man with similar ideas about their role in society.
 
I think it was entirely appropriate. Yes, I can see why people would want to know if the person they were considering entrusting the nuclear launch codes is taking orders from somebody who is running a de-gayification center... But, more importantly, I think it is an issue because it reveals how profoundly sexist Bachmann is. She actually believes that it is the woman's role to submit to her husband. Think about that. In 2011 she still thinks a woman is more or less the property of her husband. The implications a view of women that wildly sexist would have for the policies she might support are huge. Imagine if a man had said that about women. Well, it works out to the same thing. She's just as likely to support policies which are oppressive to women as a man with similar ideas about their role in society.

Think about how stupid your comments are. A womans personal belief regarding her relationship with her husband (and of course ignoring the second part where the husband so reveres the wife that he is willing to respect and protect and if necessary die for the woman) causes you SUCH consternation...regardless of the fact they have been married what...33 years? had a very successful family, reached out and helped others, the 'subservient' woman isnt 'just' a college graduate but is also a tax lawyer, a state representative, and a candidate for president of the country. And you REALLY are fearful that she is 'subservient'?

Like I said...the stupid **** some of you people feign outrage over... :lamo
 
Think about how stupid your comments are. A womans personal belief regarding her relationship with her husband (and of course ignoring the second part where the husband so reveres the wife that he is willing to respect and protect and if necessary die for the woman) causes you SUCH consternation...regardless of the fact they have been married what...33 years? had a very successful family, reached out and helped others, the 'subservient' woman isnt 'just' a college graduate but is also a tax lawyer, a state representative, and a candidate for president of the country. And you REALLY are fearful that she is 'subservient'?

Like I said...the stupid **** some of you people feign outrage over... :lamo

Funny you bring up that she is a tax lawyer... You heard her statement about how she hated the idea of becoming a tax lawyer, but her husband ordered her to do it, so she went to law school to study to be one anyways? Her husband that runs the de-gayification camp? This is the kind of person you would put in charge of the most powerful country in the world? A woman who believes women have a duty to be subservient to their husbands who is married to an insane anti-gay religious nut bigot? Not only is she herself an insane anti-gay religious nut bigot, but she is "obeying" another anit-gay religious nut bigot? For president of the United States? I wouldn't even think we could entrust somebody that low functioning with even like an officer position in the PTA unless it was out of pity...

It's just ridiculous. It's like her earlier comments about how slavery times were a period where "race didn't matter"... We just can't possibly believe she is for real. She's so openly backwards and ignorant. Literally maybe 80+ years behind the rest of the world intellectually and morally, but still you guys seem to actually take her seriously.... If my 92 year old grandmother said some of this stuff Bachmann says we'd all roll our eyes and gently scold her, but not make too big of a deal about it because she's got alzheimers and you can't really hold her to too strict of a standard because of it... But a presidential candidate?

I dunno. There is just this absurdly huge gap between the world in which teabaggers live and the real world where the rest of us live. In the real world, views like those Bachmann expresses are just beyond the pale. Real declaration of war on rationality type stuff. She's obviously dumb, morally stunted and ridiculously ignorant and the fact that a sizable block on the right aparently can't tell that is very alarming.
 
Last edited:
Funny you bring up that she is a tax lawyer... You heard her statement about how she hated the idea of becoming a tax lawyer, but her husband ordered her to do it, so she went to law school to study to be one anyways? Her husband that runs the de-gayification camp? This is the kind of person you would put in charge of the most powerful country in the world? A woman who believes women have a duty to be subservient to their husbands who is married to an insane anti-gay religious nut bigot? Not only is she herself an insane anti-gay religious nut bigot, but she is "obeying" another anit-gay religious nut bigot? For president of the United States? I wouldn't even think we could entrust somebody that low functioning with even like an officer position in the PTA unless it was out of pity...

It's just ridiculous. It's like her earlier comments about how slavery times were a period where "race didn't matter"... We just can't possibly believe she is for real. She's so openly backwards and ignorant. Literally maybe 80+ years behind the rest of the world intellectually and morally, but still you guys seem to actually take her seriously.... If my 92 year old grandmother said some of this stuff Bachmann says we'd all roll our eyes and gently scold her, but not make too big of a deal about it because she's got alzheimers and you can't really hold her to too strict of a standard because of it... But a presidential candidate?

I dunno. There is just this absurdly huge gap between the world in which teabaggers live and the real world where the rest of us live. In the real world, views like those Bachmann expresses are just beyond the pale. Real declaration of war on rationality type stuff. She's obviously dumb, morally stunted and ridiculously ignorant and the fact that a sizable block on the right aparently can't tell that is very alarming.

"Ordered"... :lamo

When my wife graduated with her bachelors in English I told her "now you need to take it to the next level'. She is a college professor today. I didnt force her to go to graduate school but as her husband I counseled with her and pointed out that here current degree provided little if any real employment opportunities. Yeah...Im evil too.

That Teabagger you ridicule has had more success in the real world, in family, and in life in general than you will likely ever know. Option between her life as an example and others? Yours?
 
"Ordered"... :lamo

When my wife graduated with her bachelors in English I told her "now you need to take it to the next level'. She is a college professor today. I didnt force her to go to graduate school but as her husband I counseled with her and pointed out that here current degree provided little if any real employment opportunities. Yeah...Im evil too.

No, she openly said that she thought it was a terrible idea to study tax law and that she hated it, but that she did it because it was her duty to submit to her husband... This chick is a real nut case. A throwback to the 1800s...

That Teabagger you ridicule has had more success in the real world, in family, and in life in general than you will likely ever know. Option between her life as an example and others? Yours?

Excluding her political "accomplishments", my life has been waaaaay more successful than hers. In fact, if you take the ranking of my current law school and you multiply it by 50, you get a number pretty close to the ranking of the law school she went to... About the same for my undergrad school too- multiply the ranking by 50 and you get her undergrad school's ranking... The only real job she has ever had was working as an entry level bureaucrat at the IRS. Checking through paperwork and flagging ones where information was missing for the higher ups. That is far less intellectually demanding and far less well paying than the last job I had before law school. Like it pays about 1/3 of what I made at my last job. Where I managed a team of 12, she would have been negotiating with her manager to see if she took only 30 minutes for lunch whether she could leave work at 4:30 instead of 5:00... The "family business" she talks about a lot turned out to be a scam her husband is running. I'm not really seeing the success you are here... Everything about her screams "below average". She hasn't accomplished anything at all as far as I can see except getting elected to the house. That is, no doubt, a big accomplishment, but not really "success in the real world"...
 
Last edited:
During the republican debate this week, Michelle Bachmann was asked the following:



Her answer, in part:



This question has raised a firestorm over whether it was fair or appropriate. It came about from this comment she made where she said that she finished her degree because her husband told her so and women are supposed to be submissive to their husbands(can't find quote at the moment, if any one else can, will edit it in and give credit).

So, we the question fair? Was it appropriate? Was it sexist? You can choose more than one.

Since this is something she had said publicly, I think it was a fair question.
 
Hillary never claimed to be submissive to her husband. Michelle made a stupid statement and she was called on it, fairly I think.
 
Funny you bring up that she is a tax lawyer... You heard her statement about how she hated the idea of becoming a tax lawyer, but her husband ordered her to do it, so she went to law school to study to be one anyways? Her husband that runs the de-gayification camp? This is the kind of person you would put in charge of the most powerful country in the world? A woman who believes women have a duty to be subservient to their husbands who is married to an insane anti-gay religious nut bigot? Not only is she herself an insane anti-gay religious nut bigot, but she is "obeying" another anit-gay religious nut bigot? For president of the United States? I wouldn't even think we could entrust somebody that low functioning with even like an officer position in the PTA unless it was out of pity...

It's just ridiculous. It's like her earlier comments about how slavery times were a period where "race didn't matter"... We just can't possibly believe she is for real. She's so openly backwards and ignorant. Literally maybe 80+ years behind the rest of the world intellectually and morally, but still you guys seem to actually take her seriously.... If my 92 year old grandmother said some of this stuff Bachmann says we'd all roll our eyes and gently scold her, but not make too big of a deal about it because she's got alzheimers and you can't really hold her to too strict of a standard because of it... But a presidential candidate?

I dunno. There is just this absurdly huge gap between the world in which teabaggers live and the real world where the rest of us live. In the real world, views like those Bachmann expresses are just beyond the pale. Real declaration of war on rationality type stuff. She's obviously dumb, morally stunted and ridiculously ignorant and the fact that a sizable block on the right aparently can't tell that is very alarming.


No! I would choose someone who: did coke in college; hides his college transcripts; hides his legal opinion papers (maybe he never wrote any) hangs out with unrepentent terrorist Ayers and co.; calls everyone who disgrees with him a racist; thinks there's 57 states; blames everyone and everything for his failures; tells us how much better things are now than in 2008 (5% unemployment then 9% now); is trying to make the USA a socialist coumtry; has supporters like you who find it necessary to use a vulgar term (teabagger) to refer to those with opposing view points.
 
No! I would choose someone who: did coke in college; hides his college transcripts; hides his legal opinion papers (maybe he never wrote any) hangs out with unrepentent terrorist Ayers and co.; calls everyone who disgrees with him a racist; thinks there's 57 states; blames everyone and everything for his failures; tells us how much better things are now than in 2008 (5% unemployment then 9% now); is trying to make the USA a socialist coumtry; has supporters like you who find it necessary to use a vulgar term (teabagger) to refer to those with opposing view points.

Hides his legal opinion papers? I'm not sure what that means. Do you mean briefs he filed when he was a lawyer? Or like law review articles or something? You realize I assume that Bush2 did coke in college too, right? The stuff about 57 states is obviously just misspeaking. 5% unemployment at the end up Bush's term... You're smoking some whacky stuff on that obviously... That was why McCain lost, remember? The economy collapsed under Republican rule. Trying to make the US a socialist country... Seriously man. Blurting out that kind of stuff is no different than wearing a big sign that says "I am stupid"... Learn what socialism is or stop saying it every few sentences.

But most importantly, we didn't name them teabaggers, they did. They chose that name. And I think they did a really great job of picking a name. It emphasizes how out of touch they are that the literally seem to have all been unaware of the term...
 
One of my mother's favorite jokes when Clinton was President was referring to "President Hilary," the inference being that she was the power. In essence, saying Bill was submissive to her. I guess when the shoe's on the other foot, Cons suddenly think it's not funny.

"Submissive" could mean different things to different people. To some it means total subservience. To some it may mean taking your partner's feelings into account when making a decision. (To Sen. Vitter, it's something you pay extra for....sorry, couldn't resist). Inasmuch as she has made the statement that she was "submissive" to her husband, it's appropriate to ask her to clarify exactly what she means by that. Does anybody want a President who does whatever their spouse tells them to do? Most of us probably don't, but if she meant taking his thoughts into account on matters related to their marriage...well, I don't have a problem with that.
 
No, she openly said that she thought it was a terrible idea to study tax law and that she hated it, but that she did it because it was her duty to submit to her husband... This chick is a real nut case. A throwback to the 1800s...



Excluding her political "accomplishments", my life has been waaaaay more successful than hers. In fact, if you take the ranking of my current law school and you multiply it by 50, you get a number pretty close to the ranking of the law school she went to... About the same for my undergrad school too- multiply the ranking by 50 and you get her undergrad school's ranking... The only real job she has ever had was working as an entry level bureaucrat at the IRS. Checking through paperwork and flagging ones where information was missing for the higher ups. That is far less intellectually demanding and far less well paying than the last job I had before law school. Like it pays about 1/3 of what I made at my last job. Where I managed a team of 12, she would have been negotiating with her manager to see if she took only 30 minutes for lunch whether she could leave work at 4:30 instead of 5:00... The "family business" she talks about a lot turned out to be a scam her husband is running. I'm not really seeing the success you are here... Everything about her screams "below average". She hasn't accomplished anything at all as far as I can see except getting elected to the house. That is, no doubt, a big accomplishment, but not really "success in the real world"...

Heh...

and here you are...on a blog...whining about her. And she is...oh yeah...a candidate for president.

Riiight. WAY more successful. :roll:
 
No! I would choose someone who: did coke in college; hides his college transcripts; hides his legal opinion papers (maybe he never wrote any) hangs out with unrepentent terrorist Ayers and co.; calls everyone who disgrees with him a racist; thinks there's 57 states; blames everyone and everything for his failures; tells us how much better things are now than in 2008 (5% unemployment then 9% now); is trying to make the USA a socialist coumtry; has supporters like you who find it necessary to use a vulgar term (teabagger) to refer to those with opposing view points.

Assuming you voted for Bush, you did vote for someone who did coke in college (and after that by many accounts), has associations with people that are less than upstanding characters, and "calls everyone who disagrees with him a terroist." (Bush didn't do that, but Obama hasn't called everyone a racist either)

To some of your other "points" I want proof. Prove that Obama really thinks there's 57 States (and prove that Michele Bachmann's grasp on history is completely accurate). Prove that Obama has actually called anybody who disagrees with him a racist. Have you heard him call Boehner a racist? I haven't. Prove that he's trying to make the USA a socialist country. Concrete examples of what a socialist country is, and steps that Obama's taken to make this a socialist country.

As far as "teabagger." The Tea Party called their actions "Teabagging." I can only assume that in the same way that someone who is driving is a "driver," someone who is "teabagging" is a "teabagger." Tea Partiers came up with it first. They may feel stupid about it now, but that ship's sailed.
 
Heh...

and here you are...on a blog...whining about her. And she is...oh yeah...a candidate for president.

Riiight. WAY more successful. :roll:

So your position is that she is a good presidential candidate because of the accomplishment of becoming a presidential candidate? So, like if I put Gaddafi forward as a presidential candidate, you would back him too?
 
So your position is that she is a good presidential candidate because of the accomplishment of becoming a presidential candidate? So, like if I put Gaddafi forward as a presidential candidate, you would back him too?

I dont back her. I'm simply pointing out how stupid people are for making some of the idiotic arguments they make against her. Attack her agenda. Attack her qualifications. Fine. You people are afraid of her shadow for gods sake. Thats pathetic.
 
I dont back her. I'm simply pointing out how stupid people are for making some of the idiotic arguments they make against her. Attack her agenda. Attack her qualifications. Fine. You people are afraid of her shadow for gods sake. Thats pathetic.

We are attacking her agenda... Her position on women, for example, appears to be that they are duty bound to obey their husbands. That means setting back the cause of women's rights decades. What does she think of spousal rape for example? Or her position on race, if she thinks slavery was a time when people were "color blind"?!
 
We are attacking her agenda... Her position on women, for example, appears to be that they are duty bound to obey their husbands. That means setting back the cause of women's rights decades. What does she think of spousal rape for example? Or her position on race, if she thinks slavery was a time when people were "color blind"?!

More stupidity. Dood...is THAT what you got your degree in? SHE has HER faith. Do you see her telling other women what to do? In her situation it has contributed to a successful marriage, family and career. And you are stupid enough to continue to attack that? Are you also such a moron that you dont get the second part of her belief...where the husband reveres protects and is willing even to die for the family..or do you just continue to ignore it? Her personal beliefs...thats an 'agenda'? I thought at first you were just a contrarian...but you arent...you are more stupid than the Petes, Sanga, and Thunder combined.
 
More stupidity. Dood...is THAT what you got your degree in? SHE has HER faith. Do you see her telling other women what to do? In her situation it has contributed to a successful marriage, family and career. And you are stupid enough to continue to attack that? Are you also such a moron that you dont get the second part of her belief...where the husband reveres protects and is willing even to die for the family..or do you just continue to ignore it? Her personal beliefs...thats an 'agenda'? I thought at first you were just a contrarian...but you arent...you are more stupid than the Petes, Sanga, and Thunder combined.

Ease off the personal attack throttle there kiddo.

Are you contending that her views on the role of women wouldn't be relevant to how she would conduct herself as president? Like she believes women should be subservient to their husbands, but when issues came up around whether women should be subservient to their husbands, like spousal rape laws for example, she would actually come down on the opposite side from what she is professing now? Or what exactly are you contending?
 
I dont back her. I'm simply pointing out how stupid people are for making some of the idiotic arguments they make against her. Attack her agenda. Attack her qualifications. Fine. You people are afraid of her shadow for gods sake. Thats pathetic.

"you people"?? Are "you people" the Republicans? If so, then you people should be afraid of her shadow. If she gets the nomination, "you people" are toast.
 
Back
Top Bottom