Michelle Bauchman

[Jaime]

Pawlenty is correct. Her record is non existent.




(and she's crazy)

[kujo]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1310532797' post='2266734']
Pawlenty is correct. Her record is non existent.




(and she's crazy)
[/quote]

She's a slightly-less qualified candidate than Obama was back in 2008--she's been a Congresswoman since '06 and she served in the Minnesota Senate from 2000 until that time.

And really, that's what it boils down to--inexperience. Aside from any policy disagreements that I had with Obama, I simply could not make peace with voting for some with ZERO executive experience, virtually ZERO legislative experience and ZERO military experience. Bachmann, despite her cute face and conservative bona fides, is pretty much the exact same candidate, who has next to nothing in the way of experience in governance. And aside from running her "pray the gay away" counseling center with her husband, she's got nothing in the way of executive experience either. She's Obama 2.0 without the pesky policy issues. She'd be the exact same sort of disaster that Obama has been, for virtually the same reasons. IMO, most/all of Obama's mistakes and blunders can be attributed to his lack of experience in a leadership position. How would this n00b be any different?

[rkwright]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1310563249' post='2266865']
She's a slightly-less qualified candidate than Obama was back in 2008--she's been a Congresswoman since '06 and she served in the Minnesota Senate from 2000 until that time.

And really, that's what it boils down to--inexperience. Aside from any policy disagreements that I had with Obama, I simply could not make peace with voting for some with ZERO executive experience, virtually ZERO legislative experience and ZERO military experience. Bachmann, despite her cute face and conservative bona fides, is pretty much the exact same candidate, who has next to nothing in the way of experience in governance. And aside from running her "pray the gay away" counseling center with her husband, she's got nothing in the way of executive experience either. She's Obama 2.0 without the pesky policy issues. She'd be the exact same sort of disaster that Obama has been, for virtually the same reasons. IMO, most/all of Obama's mistakes and blunders can be attributed to his lack of experience in a leadership position. How would this n00b be any different?
[/quote]


lol n00b^win

[BG45]

[quote name='tgoldson' timestamp='1310526206' post='2266669']
Her too? I thought that was O'Donnell's bag. IMHO, no public school should be allowed to teach 6-day creation. If parents want their kids to believe that, they can teach it themselves at home! My public school taught me all about the science of procreation, but I still believe that a virgin had a baby that one time. Why aren't folks like her insisting that the virgin birth be taught? Or transubstatiation?
[/quote]



The only place I was taught 6 day Creationism (well two places) was my Baptist church at a seminar on why evolution was the Devil's lie (no joke) and my first undergraduate biology class. Apparently the adjunct teaching it was really into the "evolution isn't the answer" stuff and our book included evolution, Creationism, and half a dozen creation myths from around the world...in the chapter explaining what evolution was.

[Socrates]

[quote name='tgoldson' timestamp='1310526206' post='2266669']
Her too? I thought that was O'Donnell's bag. IMHO, no public school should be allowed to teach 6-day creation. If parents want their kids to believe that, they can teach it themselves at home! My public school taught me all about the science of procreation, but I still believe that a virgin had a baby that one time. Why aren't folks like her insisting that the virgin birth be taught? Or transubstatiation?
[/quote]
I personally find the whole idea of the federal government dictating that certain ideas are not allowed to be taught in any public school on a religious basis somewhat disturbing.

While this may come as a shock to some people, the fact is that American public schools were not always secularist. The public school curriculum used to be generically protestant Christian, rather than secularist-atheist. If you look at typical texts commonly used in public schools during the 1800s, such as the McGuffy Readers, you'll note, besides the explicitly Christian and heavily moralistic content, the advanced reading level and intellectual content for the grade level compared with today. By sixth grade, kids were already reading great works of literature, and reading at a level higher than many of today's college students.

And all that provoked no screaming about "separation of Church and State" either.

But while many of today's public school students may be illiterate at old-fashioned subjects like reading and math, at least they know how to use a condom and learn nothing about God, so we can congratulate ourselves on our Progress.


And while I tend to personally disagree with the whole six-day literalism thing, i also disagree with the darwinistic evolution-by-random-chance account of life's origins commonly taught in public schools, and I know plenty of believers in six-day creationism who are highly-intelligent, well-educated, successful people. Contrary to popular belief, they're not all knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers.
I've known plenty of intelligent people who have come from Christian schools and home-school programs that teach creationism, while in the town I grew up in, it was the local public school that was famous for churning out know-nothing functional illiterates.

The point of this digression is that religiously influenced curriculum in public schools is not the horrific threat to literacy and American freedom that many today seem to see it as.
If people in a heavily-Christian school district agreed to include teaching about Christ's virgin birth in the curriculum, that would be perfectly fine by me. It's not the place of the federal government to step in and tell them otherwise.

I'd be for entirely privatizing the school system, and getting the federal government out altogether, though I realize there are issues because for many parents it is the only educational option they can afford. Maybe a voucher system.


Okay, back to the regularly-scheduled Bachman bashing. (Though it would be helpful if somebody provided an actual first-hand quote of what she actually in fact said regarding creationism in public schools.)

Edited July 13, 2011 by Socrates

[Winchester]

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1310426824' post='2265991']
I think Michelle Bauchman is right on some of the issues, but beyond that, she's a danger to the Republican Party. She's not electable, and I think the media is running a pump and dump scheme with her. Someone who believes in teaching 6 day creationism in public schools can't make it through the general election.
[/quote]
Anyone who believes in public schools at all [i]shouldn't[/i] make it through the general election.

That said, since public schools are funded by the public, it should teach what the public wants it to teach, and not simply give in to tyranny of the majority in doing that. Public schools are funded by money that is [i]taken[/i] from people. There is no agreement, no voluntarism. You might willingly give up that money, but your willingness is immaterial.

Public schools have no right to not teach creationism. That said, Bachmann is a typical neocon and will only increase government power, her lip service to liberty aside.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1310583407' post='2267021']
Public schools have no right to not teach creationism. That said, Bachmann is a typical neocon and will only increase government power, her lip service to liberty aside.
[/quote]
This.

[Jesus_lol]

edit:probably not necessary

Edited July 13, 2011 by Jesus_lol

[kujo]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1310583407' post='2267021']
Public schools have no right to not teach creationism. That said, Bachmann is a typical neocon and will only increase government power, her lip service to liberty aside.
[/quote]

Yup.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1310513526' post='2266598']Wow, what a doosh![/quote]
[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1310532797' post='2266734'](and she's crazy)[/quote]

i hope you're both joking. (i'll be honest, i can usually not tell when you two are joking around.)

[ThePenciledOne]

Glad this topic has been so fruitful, though I know that was never the intention of this thread.

[katholikkid]

Absolutely not...


[url="http://www.youtube.com/user/ABCTheView#p/c/1B48A0EFCF54A270/2/UhyjWBjDnhE"]Bachmann pledge...[/url]

Edited July 14, 2011 by katholikkid

[Vincent Vega]

Man you really love the lefty stuff, huh?

[katholikkid]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1310603806' post='2267165']
Man you really love the lefty stuff, huh?
[/quote]

she did sign it. I just couldn't find a news source that discussed it. I HATE the view by the way HATE HATE HATE it. here is a cnn report from AC360 [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEqWtCz87t0"]pledge: cnn[/url] I mean if it is the very first thing written and you just sign it not sure if I want you as my president.

Edited July 14, 2011 by katholikkid

[Vincent Vega]

CNN's not much better, but I'll take it over the View any day.