Monday, June 27, 2011

Michelle Bachmann for President


Michele Bachmann expressed skepticism of evolution at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Friday.

"I support intelligent design," Bachmann told reporters following her speech at the conference, CNN reports. "What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide. I don't think it's a good idea for government to come down on one side of scientific issue or another, when there is reasonable doubt on both sides."

"I would prefer that students have the ability to learn all aspects of an issue," Bachmann said. "And that's why I believe the federal government should not be involved in local education to the most minimal possible process."

11 comments:

  1. Missy Bachman makes Dan Quayle look like a Rhodes Scholar by comparison.

    She says:

    "What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide. I don't think it's a good idea for government to come down on one side of scientific issue or another, when there is reasonable doubt on both sides"

    Well, Missy, all of the SCIENCE is on the table. It's the KKKreationist nonsense that braindead KKKristianist morons like you want to put there that is not.

    It is not a surprise that Bachmann is a supporter of and supported by the NRA.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm all for Bachmann!!

    Too bad she's running about 25 years too late. I could have gotten an 'A' in Calculus IV if she were President way back when; I could have argued my answer to that last differential equation was my decision.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I saw Bachman on Face the Nation yesterday and she is fantastic on camera (evil fantastic, but fantastic).

    ReplyDelete
  4. We don't teach real American history and Palin's version of Paul Revere, and then give kids the option to decide which version they like best.

    We test them on the best available facts we have to date.

    Until they HAVE a decent education under their belt, including a degree of critical thinking which far too few students receive by way of lessons in logic and deductive and inductive reasoning, those students aren't in a position to make such a conclusion. They don't have the scope of background necessary and they lack other skills - that is why they are in school in the first place.

    Bachmann consistently places ideology over knowledge and over facts. Her record of revisionist history and science is categorically even worse than Palin's. What is worse is she appears to make a calculated effort to appeal to those on the right who are anti-science, anti-intellect, who wish to be persuaded that the world is simple and uncomplicated, and who delight in the most superficial approach to any problem.

    Because if they had to admit that conclusions need to be fact based, it would make them uncomfortable in comparing their beliefs to reality. It would over stimulate their amygdala's with fear that they might have to expend some skull sweat by working their brains harder to understand the world around them.

    Bachmann's supporters clearly don't want to do that, and she plays to that every damn chance she gets. It wouldn't surprise me if that were deliberate manipulation on her part to gain political support.

    Bachmann has a long and very well documented history as a liar and a hypocrite. She is modeling herself in some ways on Palin, going for self-promotion to make herself some big money; any claim she has to being only devoted to public service is crap. She's out for herself; period.

    Not unlike Newt Gingrich, a man who is praised as some big thinking intellectual on the right.

    Not that I can see; I don't think he deserves that description at all.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, so far the republican line up has been the flavor of the week...in a lot of ways, I would like to see Bachmann be the "one"...but I really don't think her popularity will last through the scrutiny she is now going to receive. Her appeal is a fanaticism kind of thing and there are only so many "true believers" out there....
    The important thing is to never look into her eyes!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't get the Sarah Pali--Paul Revere reference???

    ReplyDelete
  7. 9.1%,$4.00, gunwalker,June 27, 2011 at 8:01 PM

    Jug ears' is going to lose it is a matter of who we get in the primarys.......

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jug ears' is going to lose it is a matter of who we get in the primarys.......

    Ah, this is what passes for "reason" in the ranks of the Teatards.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You don't?

    Sarah Palin blew the history of Paul Revere in front of the public; and then she tried to cover up when it was painfully clear she didn't have a clue.

    She's incredibly inarticulate, and couldn't be presidential if her life depended on it, and she had a prepared speech, or crib notes on her hand. Palin is stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree with Andy. Michelle is a pretty slick talker. She'd give Obama a run for his money except that only Neanderthals and fanatics will support her and there aren't quite enough of those to make a win.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I hadn't heard about that DogGone, what did she say?

    ReplyDelete