There are others who get a hoot from side stepping the issues and lactching onto human error rather than understanding what it is that motivates individuals to succeed. Instead it's all about catching an error and running with it, quickly unraveling your own character and revealing shallowness. Not you, of course my dear X.First of, this better be a chick.
Secondly, I believe I've been clear that there's a difference between "human error" and clinging to untruths because you know that's what your base wants. One is perfectly human and benign, the other is potentially dangerous. Meanwhile, one's character being questioned for pointing out someone's determined looseness with facts is becoming the new "CALLING someone a racist is worse than actually BEING a racist."
As long as she is running for President of the United States, I feel perfectly fine wondering why she wants to insist on John Quincy Adams being a Founding Father, even after it's pointed out to her that he was 9 years old. If this makes anyone upset because it feels like I'm picking on the sweet little retarded kid in the room, then you should wonder why she's running in the first place.
With this incredible GOP field before us, and Sniffy floating around, our only hope is that they get all of their incredibly stupid shit outta the way early, so it's forgotten by this time next year. Or, of course, we'll be worn down to the nubs, and it'll become like trying to keep all of Bush's fuckups in the closet.
Bachmann should take one from my playbook:
So why not get the shit the fuck over with? It is inevitable - you WILL be humiliated with each misspoken word, so why not get it over with early in the season? Like college football: a loss in September means you have plenty of time to come back and win the championship, but a late loss? Fatal. So if I was Candidate John Doe, here's what I would say today as I announce my candidacy:
"Thank you, thank you for coming. First of all, let me be clear: I hate the troops, do not support them - they fight for the very freedom that I despise. I hate niggers and hey, if the spics wanna come over and sell tomatoes so that my gay son doesn't have to, then hey, Allah Bless 'em. Yes, I know I voted for the war, but only after I didn't vote for voting for the war, thereby giving the President the power to go to war, which I voted for before I voted for the right to voting. Fool me once, won't get fooled again, fool me twice, well, who cares since the Holocaust never happened anyway. Speaking of knishes, there are in fact 2 "e"s in "potatoees." Anyways, I gotta go fuck my 14-year old poolboy before hitting an abortion pep rally. Those abortion doctors aren't gonna applaud for themselves!!! Again, thank you and I look forward to leading this loser country, and I'm pronouncing that as "cunt-ry" cause I hate women. Peace and chicken grease!"
There. All your possible gaffes, out within 30 seconds. Year from now no one even remembers, and there's only one way to go: up.
15 comments:
It's your suggestion that such 'looseness of facts' is the norm which I find annoying. Not that historical data is unimportant... On the contrary, both Buchanan and Palin lean heavily on historical truth for the accurate interpretation of the constitution. Naturally. So you believe that having confused the names of father and son to be serious enough an oversight to deserve disqualification from the running? Fact is, you cannot directly criticize the intelligence or political saavy of either one of these women. The question which remains is why you take issue with a politician having basic ideals/ beliefs (supported by historical facts) by which are compelled to govern? Patriotic folks would raise an eyebrow or two, at least this old bird.
not at all. as i said: "I mean, for chrissake. Again, just like with Sniffy and her Paul Revere shit, why can't Bachmann simply say it was a verbal slip? Of all names, "John Adams" and "John Quincy Adams" ARE VERY EASY TO MIX UP - they're almost the same fucking name! She didn't confuse "John Adams" with "Ava Devine," for fuck's sake."
Instead, Bachmann MONTHS LATER is STILL insisting JQ was a "founding father." that's not an "oversight." youre saying it was a verbal slip, but you know who isnt? Michelle Bachmann. and you're defending this. you're defending her being misleading to the public, all so she can become the most powerful person in the world. think of how much misleading she could do THEN.
and that's your right. but it's also my right to question her motives for doing such a thing, without having my "character" being called into question.
oh oh oh oh oh...i get it now. So she defines Founding Fathers as the first 10 or so guys to get the ball rolling. I get it...hence the changing of the Wikiword. I actually did a change to Wikiword once and it's really not a huge thing so long as you have evidence to back what you are writing. I guess technically there can be more than one definition in Wikiland. Ahhhh....Okay so I'm sorry. You are obviously hurt by what I said regarding the shades of your character. I take it back then since you are so funny about it. Clearly there is nothing here to argue with. Carry on, my wayward punk. ;)
I'm not "hurt." believe me, there's been far worse things written about me here, and youre more than welcome to call me a godless, dumb asshole. my point is Bachmann is demanding you flat-out lie and act ignorant in order to defend her. thats not fair to you. we're not talking about motives, or character, or faith, or opinions. sometimes, 2+2=4, and if someone asks you to say 2+2=5 so they can gain power, it shouldnt be beyond the pale to wonder why.
Ava Devine. you are killin me! so wait... whoever wins the presidency is like, the most important person on Earth? You mean.... like this?
ttp://youtu.be/hQauP3VizI0
cant open. but yes, if Ava Devine runs for president, i will campaign for her ;)
She has an opinion which differs from yours. This does not make her ignorant or cause me to LIE or ACT ignorant. If I make a mistake that makes me ignorant of that particular fact, at least in the light in which you have presented it. That's it. I owe Buchanan nothing but respect until I have been fully persuaded otherwise. I do not wish to opine on this matter any further. Have a nice evening.
again, thats my point - whether or not John Quincy Adams was a Founding Father is not an opinion. if I say Mike Tyson was a Founding Father, is that an "opinion", or wrong?
Franklin Roosevelt's service in the Spanish American War was exceptionally admirable.
Additionally, I think Coolidge should be held as a national hero for his economic policies that led us out of the Depression.
My opinions my differ from some people's, but I believe in them. And that shows character.
so it's character clues we are playing here. can we at least agree that the one with the homey name is a founding fathers son? Yes? Yes or no and then we can move on...your turn. I don't have all night.
http://youtu.be/netnoiE6fq8
PS there is a woman I work with whose mother actually calls her PORKY as a nickname. She actually LOOKS like a little pig. Can you imagine...your own mother? talk about social injustice. PORKY.
the girl is fifty years old and responds to Porky.
of course we can agree that he is a Founding Father's son. He is! And that's my point - he's not a Founding Father. Is Stella McCartney a Beatle?
but again, that's not what Michelle Bachmann is saying. She's trying to make you say he IS a Founding Father. She knows you'll simply parrot what she says, because that's how little she thinks of you.
Personally, I'd be offended by this - again, to us the same example since I'm too lazy to think of another one - Obama never asked me to argue that there are 57 states, simply because he misspoke.
you can root for Bachmann. hell, i LIKE Bachmann! but you need to be comfortable with accepting when she fucks up in front of a camera. Obama does it all the time, and at no point do I worry about his competence. Do you feel the same about Bachmann?
the Porky thing, I'm gonna need more time on that one
I love WIKI.
"MOST historians define the "Founding Fathers" to mean a larger group, including not only the Signers and the Framers but also all those who, whether as politicians, jurists, statesmen, soldiers, diplomats, or ordinary citizens, took part in winning American independence and creating the United States of America." -Wiki Founding Fathers.
SOME will include JQA among founding fathers because "as a diplomat, Adams was involved in many international negotiations, and, as Secretary of State, helped formulate the Monroe Doctrine. Historians agree he was one of the great diplomats in American history. Wiki goes on to note that as a president, JQA "shaped foriegn policy" and "served for the last 17 years of his life with far greater success than he had achieved in the presidency. Animated by his growing revulsion against slavery,[4] Adams became a leading opponent of the Slave Power."
It may have been a steeeretch but Buchanann is no less competent because of it. It's quite debatable. Don't you think, broad vs. narrow definitions?
Henry Kissinger was a great diplomat. Is he a Founding Father?
If you concede that Zack Starkey was a Beatle, I'll concede that John Quincy Adams was a Founding Father.
Tomorrow: were the Olsen twins the funniest Cosby kids?
Post a Comment