By replaying them?

She cited Quincy as a forebearer, not a founding father. Which he was. Just like you CAN actually see Russia from parts of Alaska. Saying that a factual statement is a gaffe is more than exaggerating. It’s just lying.

I look forward to the update that adds this fact to her Wikipedia page later tonight.

If it is on there, it makes it true.

Why is it sexist to let Bachmann know that John Quincy Adams is not a “founding father”?

Thelonious Funk said:
By replaying them?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/michele-bachmann-kicks-off-campaign-but-john-wayne-gacy-gaffe-mars-speech/2011/06/27/AGDYNjpH_story.html

By the way, Michele….. Tom Petty doesn’t like you. Sorry.

Hillbilly says “57 states” in 5…4…3….2….

White Ninja said:
She cited Quincy as a forebearer, not a founding father. Which he was. Just like you CAN actually see Russia from parts of Alaska. Saying that a factual statement is a gaffe is more than exaggerating. It’s just lying.

Transcript:

Stephanopoulos: But that’s not what you said. You said that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery.

Bachmann: Well if you look at one of our Founding Fathers, John Quincy Adams, that’s absolutely true. He was a very young boy when he was with his father serving essentially as his father’s secretary. He tirelessly worked throughout his life to make sure that we did in fact one day eradicate slavery….

I don’t know what else to tell you … I mean you can see the video AND read the transcript …

And by Quincy I mean John Quincy Adams. Dang it.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
Why is it sexist to let Bachmann know that John Quincy Adams is not a “founding father”?

I dunno man…must be an “evil liberal mob” thing or whatever…who the fu$% knows?…

White Ninja said:
And by Quincy I mean John Quincy Adams. Dang it.

See the transcript, she did say John Quincy Adams was a “Founding Father”. I’m not sure what you are talking about.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
Transcript:

I don’t know what else to tell you … I mean you can see the video AND read the transcript …

This was the original mention if John Quincy Adams that she got crap for though: “And I think it is high time that we recognize the contribution of our forebears, who worked tirelessly, men like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country.” Factual statement.

Yeah, let’s stop talking about the gaffes and start talking about the MOUNTAINS OF GOVT SUBSIDIES BACHMAN HAS RECIEVED

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Tea Party? Is this your nominee? The gal who’s been living off the guvmit TEAt?

Yeah! Let’s stop talking about how stupid she is and start talking about her being a WELFARE BABY

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

I’d be interested to know how many people who are calling her stupid could’ve rattled off ANY facts about John Quincy Adams, even the time period he lived in, prior to this story though.

White Ninja said:
I’d be interested to know how many people who are calling her stupid could’ve rattled off ANY facts about John Quincy Adams, even the time period he lived in, prior to this story though.

Duh. He was a beloved medical examiner played by Jack Klugman.

Everyone knows that.

So seanie continues on with his crybaby sessions! Never heard a male whine as much as he does.

catfishjuggling show said:
Duh. He was a beloved medical examiner played by Jack Klugman. Everyone knows that.

lol

catfishjuggling show said:
Duh. He was a beloved medical examiner played by Jack Klugman.

Everyone knows that.

Ha ha ok YOU get a pass.

If Bachmann gets in front of the camera daily, she’s going to make an ass of herself daily.

Time to stop blaming the media and start blaming the Flake.

azgrandma said:
So seanie continues on with his crybaby sessions! Never heard a male whine as much as he does.

I seriously don’t get who can stand to watch him. He’s such an idiot. I wish Fox would just dump him and fill his spot with Red Eye.

White Ninja said:
I’d be interested to know how many people who are calling her stupid could’ve rattled off ANY facts about John Quincy Adams, even the time period he lived in, prior to this story though.

Ha! Good point. This place is crawling with presidential candidates…..

I am never going to be an NFL quarterback……. but Rex Grossman still sucks.

White Ninja said:
This was the original mention if John Quincy Adams that she got crap for though: “And I think it is high time that we recognize the contribution of our forebears, who worked tirelessly, men like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country.” Factual statement.

So you don’t see the irony of her getting it wrong when she tried to clarify it?

Stephanopoulos didn’t ask her about John Quincy Adams, she brought his name up.

Her original statement that was mocked, was this;

“But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States,”

That’s not a factually accurate at all, and her clarification with John Quincy Adams who was not a founder actually makes things worse!!!

ElCapitanAmerica said:
That’s not a factually accurate at all, and her clarification with John Quincy Adams who was not a founder actually makes things worse!!!

did you know that austrian was a language, elbruce?

Jaurez said:
did you know that austrian was a language, elbruce?

No but I’d like to know if the president doubles down on gaffes when asked about them, like Bachmann did in that ABC News interview.

Sure, the media has a right to cover Bachmann’s gaffes. I’ve got no problem with that. But when they NEVER say anything about her positions on the issues…well, that is a very obvious sign of intellectual dishonesty.

And just watch, some liberal will pipe in with the argument that Bachmann has NO position on any issue. Well, if that is the case — which it isn’t; it’s a stupid assertion — then the media ought to force Bachmann to talk about the issues. Force her to articulate positions, and then let the public decide what they think about them.

But the liberal media won’t EVER ask Michele Bachmann to talk about the issues, and I’ll tell you why. Bachmann would demand a more fiscally responsible, smaller and more accountable government — and the liberal media doesn’t want people to hear this, since the vast majority of Americans would agree with Bachmann.

And that’s why the mainstream media will continue to focus on Bachmann’s gaffes — for the simple reason that liberal journalists are afraid of offering more honest, substantive coverage. See, they know in their heart of hearts that looking at REALITY and ACTUAL ISSUES makes Obama look bad.

elbruce, did you know europe is a country?

ElCapitanAmerica said:
No but I’d like to know if the president doubles down on gaffes when asked about them

wouldn’t he have to be questioned, first?

She’s a nut!! Hopefully she’ll get the nomination and Obama will win in a landslide. Huntsman is the only person that can beat Obama.

felixw said:
Sure, the media has a right to cover Bachmann’s gaffes. I’ve got no problem with that. But when they NEVER say anything about her positions on the issues…well, that is a very obvious sign of intellectual dishonesty.

And just watch, some liberal will pipe in with the argument that Bachmann has NO position on any issue. Well, if that is the case — which it isn’t; it’s a stupid assertion — then the media ought to force Bachmann to talk about the issues. Force her to articulate positions, and then let the public decide what they think about them.

But the liberal media won’t EVER ask Michele Bachmann to talk about the issues, and I’ll tell you why. Bachmann would demand a more fiscally responsible, smaller and more accountable government — and the liberal media doesn’t want people to hear this, since the vast majority of Americans would agree with Bachmann.

And that’s why the mainstream media will continue to focus on Bachmann’s gaffes — for the simple reason that liberal journalists are afraid of offering more honest, substantive coverage. See, they know in their heart of hearts that looking at REALITY and ACTUAL ISSUES makes Obama look bad.

Let’s talk about this issue…..

Gay Marriage. Biggest issue in 30 years?

Eric said:
Huntsman is the only person that can beat Obama.

ROFLMBAO!!!!!! Put your puny sock-head back in the sand.

felixw said:
Sure, the media has a right to cover Bachmann’s gaffes. I’ve got no problem with that. But when they NEVER say anything about her positions on the issues…well, that is a very obvious sign of intellectual dishonesty.

And just watch, some liberal will pipe in with the argument that Bachmann has NO position on any issue. Well, if that is the case — which it isn’t; it’s a stupid assertion — then the media ought to force Bachmann to talk about the issues. Force her to articulate positions, and then let the public decide what they think about them.

But the liberal media won’t EVER ask Michele Bachmann to talk about the issues, and I’ll tell you why. Bachmann would demand a more fiscally responsible, smaller and more accountable government — and the liberal media doesn’t want people to hear this, since the vast majority of Americans would agree with Bachmann.

And that’s why the mainstream media will continue to focus on Bachmann’s gaffes — for the simple reason that liberal journalists are afraid of offering more honest, substantive coverage. See, they know in their heart of hearts that looking at REALITY and ACTUAL ISSUES makes Obama look bad.

He asked her about her position on eliminating the minimum wage on the same interview, doesn’t that count as a policy question?

Jaurez said:
wouldn’t he have to be questioned, first?

Good point, have somebody ask him. I would be surprised if he tried to say there are actually 57 states, which is what Bachmann is sort of doing here.

-Something unexpected surprise–

Hello. My friend

=== {{w w w }} {{be tter whole saler }} {{ u s }} ====

Dedi cated service, the new style, believing you will love it!!!

WE ACCEPT PYA PAL PAY MENT

YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

thank you!!!

– w w w . jordan forworld . c o m -

I am thinking about enlisting in the marine corpse.

Gaffes are one thing, the issue is more that Bachmann refuses to back down from them at times (about John Quincy Adams for instance). However, the debate made it clear that she isn’t stupid and shouldn’t be underestimated as a campaigner. But Bachmann does seem sometimes too proud to admit she’s wrong or to listen to others. That’s not a good quality for a leader in my opinion.

And I’m still astonished that Wallace went so far as to apologize to her just for asking a question. He’s a journalist, there’s nothing wrong with what he asked her. It’s not like he was making comments when she was off the air. I wonder if he apologized due to getting lots of hate mail.

Skippy3000 said:
I am thinking about enlisting in the marine corpse.

Don’t do it. I think Osama Bin Laden is in that branch of the service…

Funny how the Minister of Propoganda didn’t bring up anything about her lies regarding subsidies, government money, etc……she’s cooked already…..all that will come out in the laundry…typical plutocrat hypocrit.

Eric said:
Huntsman is the only person that can beat Obama.

Maybe for the Democrat nomination.

Jaurez said:
wouldn’t he have to be questioned, first?

Therein lies the problem! You’re on a roll, Juarez. Don’t stop now.

Oh my! These deranged far-right tools are hilarious clowns.

what can one possibly expect from a “hannity panel”?

CRW said:
Maybe for the Democrat nomination.

it’s “Democratic”, not “Democrat”

what amazes me is how many people are actually *defending* bachmann, at all costs

only in america can someone like bachmann get as far as she has, considering
her complete lack of intellectual awareness

On Planet Wingnuttia if you ask a question about a past statement it’s unfair. LOL

im_lovin_it said:
Let’s talk about this issue…..

Gay Marriage. Biggest issue in 30 years?

Sure, ask Bachmann about gay marriage. But also ask her about unemployment, the deficit, the war fronts, taxes. Ask her about any issue.

But the mainstream media doesn’t want a political campaign that focuses on the issues. Even on gay marriage, my friend, which has lost every time it has gone up for a ballot initiative in the United States — more than 30 times, and it lost in Red States and Blues States, lost in EVERY state. The honchos at CNN, CBS, etc. know that this is just one more issue in which the Democrats are out of touch with average voters.

The sad truth for liberals is that almost any discussion on the issues leaves them looking bad — and the media knows it and engages in these trivial discussions about John Wayne’s birthplace in sheer desperation.

That said, don’t expect any discussion of the issues with Bachmann coming out of the mainstream press. All the liberal journalists know about is character attacks, ridicule and gotcha.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
He asked her about her position on eliminating the minimum wage on the same interview, doesn’t that count as a policy question?

Yawn. Sure talk about minimum wage, but this needs to be handled in the context of a real debate on how to solve the unemployment problem in America. And the liberal media doesn’t even want to admit there is an unemployment problem in America. They will never allow a honest debate on employment on the airwaves — that is too toxic for Obama. So they use the minimum wage question as one more gotcha moment in an unending stream of gotcha moments.

felixw;

Once again, when in the same interview he asked her about her stance on the minimum wage … you don’t consider that a “policy question”?

felixw said:
Yawn. Sure talk about minimum wage, but this needs to be handled in the context of a real debate on how to solve the unemployment problem in America. And the liberal media doesn’t even want to admit there is an unemployment problem in America. They will never allow a honest debate on employment on the airwaves — that is too toxic for Obama. So they use the minimum wage question as one more gotcha moment in an unending stream of gotcha moments.

He asked her about it because she recently made a comment about eliminating the minimum wage. Now you’re moving the goalpost, because it is a “policy question”. It is a question based on her comments that reflects her policies.

Geez.

The moderators at Wikipedia hopefully have locked the John Quincy Adams page before the wingnut cons crash the page trying to update JQA into being a founding father. How long can the cons whip out 57 states to cover Bachmann’s DAILY ignorant comments. How long ago was 57 states….yet it is used to cover every Bachmann / Palin idiot statement from Palin and Paul Revere to Bachmann and the investigate congress for anti Americans McCarthyesque rant and every stupid statement in between. Every day and every time Bachmann is in front of a microphone she proves she is a flake and every time cons bring up the same old 57 states. Your comparing a Mountain to a mole hill and every day Bachmann’s Mountain gets bigger and bigger.

darladoon said:
it’s “Democratic”, not “Democrat”

I’m sure you realize, that was no accident, typo, or misspelling.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
He asked her about it because she recently made a comment about eliminating the minimum wage. Now you’re moving the goalpost, because it is a “policy question”. It is a question based on her comments that reflects her policies.

Geez.

Yawn…I repeat: grill Bachmann on the issues. I have no problem with it. But let me explain reality to you: Bachmann has a following because she is demanding a smaller, more accountable, fiscally responsible government.

Let me repeat that, so it sinks in. Bachmann has a following because she is demanding a SMALLER, MORE ACCOUNTABLE, FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT.

If the media runs a thousand stories on her, but refuses to talk about her position on these issues, they are being intellectually dishonest. And dishonest to their viewers. The minimum wage question is valid, but it needs to be part a real exploration of Bachmann’s position on the issues. And the liberal media is afraid of allowing that…because they know most Americans agree with Bachmann. This is painfully obvious to all onlookers, my friend.

So this is why you get all the stupid coverage on Bachmann by Chris Matthews. Or Rachel Maddow’s segment on Bachmann last night, that was all smug ridicule without a single attempt to address a policy issue. Or just look at the last 100 articles on Michele Bachmann and count how many have to do with the size and scope of government. Probably none. And don’t think people don’t notice this.

So go ahead…show people that Bachmann shouldn’t be President — if that’s what you think. But do it by showing what she actually believes on substantive issues. And stop wasting our time with the stupid gotcha games that smug liberals play to make themselves feel good.

The MSM double standard is blatant and shameless.

felixw said:
Yawn…I repeat: grill Bachmann on the issues. I have no problem with it. But let me explain reality to you: Bachmann has a following because she is demanding a smaller, more accountable, fiscally responsible government.

Let me repeat that, so it sinks in. Bachmann has a following because she is demanding a SMALLER, MORE ACCOUNTABLE, FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT.

the problem is that bachmann can’t explain what that entails.

does she want to cut the EPA? the FDA? the military?

what/how does she want to cut?

she can’t actually explain that because she’ll never win…..

CRW said:
I’m sure you realize, that was no accident, typo, or misspelling.

ah, i get it. you’re just an ass*ole, just like every republican who deliberately
misspells the Democratic Party

but i can play your game

i’ll simply call them the Republic Party

how’s that?

One way Bachmann can stop the media from asking about her stupid comments is to stop making stupid comments. The problem is every day she has a microphone in her face and every day she says something stupid.

qualifications for hannity’s panel?

short skirt
empty head

darladoon said:
ah, i get it. you’re just an ass*ole, just like every republican who deliberately
misspells the Democratic Party

but i can play your game

i’ll simply call them the Republic Party

how’s that?

Kind of sensitive about what you’re called, huh? You won’t find me nitpicking about a couple of letters being dropped off of “Republican,” when most of you sickos are trying to drop a couple of nuts in our faces with your favorite disparagement of the Tea Party attendees.

felixw said:
Let me repeat that, so it sinks in. Bachmann has a following because she is demanding a SMALLER, MORE ACCOUNTABLE, FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT.

Sure but so is the entire Tea Party and most of the Republicans, or at least they say they are. This is not unique to Bachmann. But she has a following because she has a lot of charisma and is an effective speaker, and because she is willing to say provocative things. The thing about a primary election these days is, the differences between the candidates on the big issues are quite small, so the small differences and personality quirks and gaffes get blown out of proportion. Otherwise there would be nothing to cover on a daily basis, it’s the same people giving the same stump speeches over and over.

darladoon said:
qualifications for hannity’s panel?

short skirt
empty head

Yeah, Bob Beckel looks great in a short skirt.

darladoon said:
it’s “Democratic”, not “Democrat”

Yeah, you mean the PRO-slavery party of Jefferson, Jackson, Buchanan, and pro-KKK/JimCrow party of Wilson? The party of Bull Connor(-D) that demanded segregation in the South with firehoses? Or with burned-out school buses in Boston? the Party that hands out welfare checks to generation after generation (creating a dependency has done more to destroy the Black family that 200yrs of slavery couldn’t do)?

How about those wonderful New Orleans Democrats that would rather herd Black families (voters) like cattle into an unsuitable Super Dome, (while entire fleets of school buses that could evacuate them to safety are left unused)?

Until the leaders of today’s Democrat Party are ready to publicly admit to their own Party’s unforgivable past(& present sins), and beg forgiveness from the Black Community for their own historic “gaffes” (rather than simply scream “Rascist! 24/7), the rest of America will dismiss offhand anything you have to say.

CRW said:
Kind of sensitive about what you’re called, huh? You won’t find me nitpicking about a couple of letters being dropped off of “Republican,” when most of you sickos are trying to drop a couple of nuts in our faces with your favorite disparagement of the Tea Party attendees.

you see, there’s this thing called History. kind of important.

we people who respect History, like to spell people’s names correctly.

we like to get the dates and times right. the locations right.

we like to make sure that Jesus is always spelled Jesus.

in my mind, accuracy serves an important function.

you, on the other hand, just like to be a dick, and i understand that.

auzerais310 said:
Yeah, you mean the PRO-slavery party of Jefferson, Jackson, Buchanan, and pro-KKK/JimCrow party of Wilson? The party of Bull Connor(-D) that demanded segregation in the South with firehoses? Or with burned-out school buses in Boston? the Party that hands out welfare checks to generation after generation (creating a dependency has done more to destroy the Black family that 200yrs of slavery couldn’t do)?

This has always been the single stupidest thing about the two parties that anyone ever throws out. So, by your stupid logic, one should demand every Republican candidiate own the Teapot Dome Scandal and Hawley-Smoot Tariff.

Just brain dead.

darladoon said:
you see, there’s this thing called History. kind of important.

we people who respect History, like to spell people’s names correctly.

we like to get the dates and times right. the locations right.

we like to make sure that Jesus is always spelled Jesus.

in my mind, accuracy serves an important function.

you, on the other hand, just like to be a dick, and i understand that.

Have you considered counseling for your anger issues? (And typing lessons, since you claim that accuracy is so important to you?)

auzerais310 said:
Yeah, you mean the PRO-slavery party of Jefferson, Jackson, Buchanan, and pro-KKK/JimCrow party of Wilson? The party of Bull Connor(-D) that demanded segregation in the South with firehoses? Or with burned-out school buses in Boston? the Party that hands out welfare checks to generation after generation (creating a dependency has done more to destroy the Black family that 200yrs of slavery couldn’t do)? How about those wonderful New Orleans Democrats that would rather herd Black families (voters) like cattle into an unsuitable Super Dome, (while entire fleets of school buses that could evacuate them to safety are left unused)? Until the leaders of today’s Democrat Party are ready to publicly admit to their own Party’s unforgivable past(& present sins), and beg forgiveness from the Black Community for their own historic “gaffes” (rather than simply scream “Rascist! 24/7), the rest of America will dismiss offhand anything you have to say.

Well said and it bears repeating. Unfortunately younger people have been thoroughly indoctrinated to reject these facts as though they are propaganda by our liberal public education. To them it is heresy and not the revised liberal history they learned. There have been many generations lost to liberal education.

There’s a reason the media doesn’t treat Democratic women as they do Bachmann, there is no equivilant in the Democratic party.

NonElite said:
Well said and it bears repeating. Unfortunately younger people have been thoroughly indoctrinated to reject these facts as though they are propaganda by our liberal public education. To them it is heresy and not the revised liberal history they learned. There have been many generations lost to liberal education.

You planning on covering the rise of the Dixiecrats or the splits within the party that occured? Is it possible that a party changes over time?

Or does every Republican today hold the exact same views as Warren Harding?

Because, the entire history of politics has been a simple linear left and right, right?

CRW said:
Have you considered counseling for your anger issues? (And typing lessons, since you claim that accuracy is so important to you?)

if you want to talk about typing, speak for yourself

it’s “Democratic Party”

that’s the correct ‘typing’

///in my mind, accuracy serves an important function.

you, on the other hand, just like to be a dick, and i understand that.///

OOPS… you forgot to capitalize the i…. I guess that blows your argument.

I watched this last night and especially enjoyed the series of serious gaffes made by hehimself that the media ignored and continues to ignore. Listening to the lib on the panel defend Obama and the media made me laugh out loud, and then reading this article made me laugh even more.

There is a serious double standard – hehimself is allowed to get away with anything; anyone who is a conservative is slandered, picked apart, yelled at, called dumb, etc., especiallyconservative women.

I’m surprised you are not calling for NOW to put an end to it Frances – if you keep up ignoring the fact that conservative women are slandered regularly by the left wing media, pretty soon that slander will move into liberal womanhood as well, and NOW will be even more meaningless than it is today.

You can’t stay silent on the “bitch, whore, c–t” terminology when directed at conservative women and then expect that liberal women deserve respect…it just doesn’t work tht way. I think NOW is a waste of time and space, I think the leaders of NOW have become a joke in and of themselves, and ahve been jokes since they stood with Bill and allowsed him to play hide the cigar with an INTERN. That was their end, and now, their continued ignorance is disgraceful.

The double-standard is palpable!

Want yet more proof?
Google the Democratic Media Establishment’s coverage of the “57 state” gaffe from their messiah, and compare it to ANY mis-statement by Palin or Bachmann, or just about any conservative.

The dishonesty & corruption of today’s Democratic Media would make the Nazi’s proud!

Where is the video of Obama’s massive gaffes? how about lots of articles on

Corpse men (three times in one speech)
57 states
Getting the MOH recipients messed up, showing complete disrespect for our troops
the acknowledgement yesterday by our military that Presiden Obama lied about troop withdrawals, and the military DOES NOT support what he is doing; he ignores his experts on this topic
I see dead people
etc
etc
etc

Why do you continue to want to look stupid by ignoring all of these while focusing on others mistakes and protecting hehimself?

Do you never get tired or embarrassed about being used so much that you make yourselves look like ignoramuses? Do you never get tired or embarrassed by your inability to seek truth and fact over lies and misrepresntations presented to you by team Obama?

Honestly, bring back some honesty to the board and stop making asses of yourselves.

felixw said:
Yawn…I repeat: grill Bachmann on the issues. I have no problem with it. But let me explain reality to you: Bachmann has a following because she is demanding a smaller, more accountable, fiscally responsible government.

Let me repeat that, so it sinks in. Bachmann has a following because she is demanding a SMALLER, MORE ACCOUNTABLE, FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT.

If the media runs a thousand stories on her, but refuses to talk about her position on these issues, they are being intellectually dishonest. And dishonest to their viewers. The minimum wage question is valid, but it needs to be part a real exploration of Bachmann’s position on the issues. And the liberal media is afraid of allowing that…because they know most Americans agree with Bachmann. This is painfully obvious to all onlookers, my friend.

darladoon said:
the problem is that bachmann can’t explain what that entails.

does she want to cut the EPA? the FDA? the military?

what/how does she want to cut?

she can’t actually explain that because she’ll never win…..

Oh, you make me laugh, my friend. If Bachmann really can’t explain her views…well, that’s precisely the reason why the media should ask her questions about them. Now, that would be a much more important news story than the birthplace of John Wayne. Wouldn’t it?

But what do we conclude from the total unwillingness of the liberal media to ask those questions? Why don’t they probe her views on the very issues that she is relying on for her campaign? They don’t ask her, because they are actually afraid of the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claim. They know that most Americans would agree with her positions on government accountability and fiscal responsibility, and want to do everything possible to prevent their audiences from hearing these views. If what you said was true, the media wouldn’t be so fearful of policy discussions. But they are, and so they play mindless gotcha games and make their whole coverage of this woman as trivial and meaningless as possible.

NonElite said:
Well said and it bears repeating. Unfortunately younger people have been thoroughly indoctrinated to reject these facts as though they are propaganda by our liberal public education. To them it is heresy and not the revised liberal history they learned. There have been many generations lost to liberal education.

Indoctrinated
propaganda
public education

me thinks someone wawches Fox News and is a Freeper. And it’s not the liberals currently revising history. See Texas, Board of Education for examples. At least liberals educate, my friend. RWers go to Regents, Bob Jones, etc. See, Bachmann, Marcus. See Goodling, Monica.

m_mayhem said:
One way Bachmann can stop the media from asking about her stupid comments is to stop making stupid comments. The problem is every day she has a microphone in her face and every day she says something stupid.

Word. So simple, yet so many cannot grasp it.

And yet others on this thread think the media is “afraid” of Bachmann. ((rolls eyes)) They can’t understand that Bachmann’s positions on accountability fall flat in the face when she starts giving some details because (shock! gasp!) they aren’t based in actual reality.

I will agree that our media is sorely lacking in any journalism, is pathetic and allows people to spew whatever, regardless of whether it’s factually correct. Corporate interests and all prevent such integrity. But that is wholly different than classifying it as “afraid”. It’s not fear. Just being lazy.

Hannity’s whole show consist of either what the “main stream media” did not do or its double standard or attempting to do character assassination of the current president. So why is this a surprise to any one? He is a puppet and the Fox is CEO is the Puppeteer.