Extremely White Michele Bachman Tells Michael Steele He Be Da Man
Posted by Andrew Tobolowsky on 02.28.2009
Steele's CPAC speech receives props from one corner
If you've ever wondered where the first fans of Michael Steele's hip-hop transformation of the right are going to come from, wonder no more.
The answer is none other than Michele Bachman, the Republican rep who so recently suggested that democrats in congress should be federally investigated for anti-American sentiment.
The extremely white Minnesotan Republican Rep who moderated a recent CPAC speech from Michael Steele and expressed her approval thusly
"Michael Steele! You be da man! You be da man!"
IT'S ALREADY WORKING. THE GOP IS HIP HOP NOW.
Of course, one might even wonder why exactly Bachman was the moderator for CPAC in this particular case. Her long, star-studded resume includes
Helped create the first K-12 Charter School in the Country!---and then home-schooled her own kids—after blaming all the problems she was having raising them on their schooling.
Helped use public tax money to shoe-horn Christianity into the K-12 Charter School, attempting to teach things like the "12 Christian Principles" and "creationism". When called to account for this fiduciary misconduct responded "are you questioning my integrity?" as if that were a relevant point.
At one point, said this: "God then called me to run for the United States Congress, and I thought 'What in the world will that be for?' and my husband said 'You need to do this,' and I wasn't so sure, and we took 3 days and we fasted and we prayed and ...he made that calling sure"
Wants to nuke Iran.
Said this (she might be right here, I just think it's really funny), while introducing the(I'm not kidding) Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act: "By 2012, incandescent light bulbs will be no more," Bachmann said. "Fluorescent bulbs are more polluting because of their mercury content. We are working on a light bulb bill. If the Democrats can hose up a light bulb, don't trust them with the country."
Has believed, since 2001 (hey, who was president then!) that the United States is trying to phase out the free-market economy for a centralized, state-controlled economy. Way ahead of her time!
Believes that gay people suffer from sexual dysfunction, are specifically "targeting" children, and must be stopped.
Still thinks there should be an investigation of congressmen for anti-American activity.
Look, there's nothing wrong with being personally religious, and I am certainly not one of those who believes that you can't be religious and have it make you a better person.
And there'd be nothing wrong with trying to bring religion into government except that it is EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN BY SEVERAL OF THE MOST FOUNDATIONAL LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY.
And mostly, as in the case, of Michele Bachman, there's something deeply, deeply wrong with identifying religious views EXACTLY with what you personally believe. I have not met you, but I will tell you the odds that you are God are very slim. And if you can be dumb enough to look at history and think what any government needs is a healthy dose of more fundamentalism from our government—well, maybe it's the home-schooling.
Anyhow, she thinks Michael Steele be da man. So that's cool.
So it seems, Andrew, that you haven't attacked Christians in a while so you needed an excuse, ie Michele Bachman, to do it.
And just for your information, atheism is a religion that is also ignoring the separation of church (of darwinism) and state.
Posted By: Mikel (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 12:25 AM
Michele Bachman = crazy.
This chick is nuts. If I'm not mistaken she claimed that drilling for oil and subsequently a proposed pipeline through ANWAR would provide enough heat that would draw migrating moose and keep them warm.
Posted By: Rob Schneider is "The Carrot" (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 03:36 AM
Mikel, atheism is NOT a religion. Its an idea, nothing else. It ceases to be a religion when faith is taken out of the equation.
Posted By: Weston Smith (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 03:51 AM
Loo loo loo I got some apples, loo loo loo this bitch is bat-shit nuts.
Posted By: Leopold Butters Stoch (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 05:00 AM
"So it seems, Andrew, that you haven't attacked Christians in a while so you needed an excuse, ie Michele Bachman, to do it.
And just for your information, atheism is a religion that is also ignoring the separation of church (of darwinism) and state.
Posted By: Mikel (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 12:25 AM"
There is a difference between a widely believed and accepted theory (at least in most of the civilised world) and the teachings of a religion, which whilst it is not my attention to attack, cannot be proven. Christianity isn't exactly under threat in the US, and polls imply that a huge number of people still don't accept evolution, so obviously children's minds aren't entirely moulded by it. It is also true that many Christians accept evolution themselves and work it into their religion. Furthermore to infer that Darwinism is a part of atheism betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism is. I am an atheist: I believe in Darwins theory of evolution. However, you could also be and atheist and believe in any number of theories. It is not one singular unified system or ideology.
As for the Iran thing, I was a little shocked and decided to check it out. Here is a link for a radio interview where you can here what she says about it. Whilst not outright saying it, I think it betrays a fair bit of ignorance on the subject. More shocking for me was the throwaway attitude to "leaving any option on the table" towards Venezuela.
Posted By: Guest#1538 (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 05:51 AM
Atheism is a religion? Wow talk about not seeing nuance. I am not an atheist but materialist atheists have a different POV from existentialist/absurdist atheists etc. Throw in the fact that evolutionary biology is widely accepted in Jewish, Catholic, Anglican and other religious circles and you have yet another non-nuanced position.
Posted By: Guest (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 06:49 AM
So when can we officially label the Republican party as "Fringe"? When they nominate Palin or 2012 or before? More importantly who will take their place? I know the Libertarians membership role when up since the election...
Posted By: Eric (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 07:50 AM
Oh..and Mikel...You are an idiot...Athiesm is the abscense of religion..course rather than know the truth you spout of Mike Savage's talking points
Posted By: Eric (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 07:52 AM
MY GOD SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Posted By: Ron Mexico (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 08:19 AM
this nutball almost makes me embarrassed to be a minnesotan
Posted By: mndude (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 08:50 AM
Man, "atheism is a religion" seems to be the new hot catchphrase among Christians, like "evolution is just a theory" or "god hates fags" before it.
Look, if you want to believe in an invisible man in the sky taking checks and balances on six billion people then that's your prerogative. Just leave our fucking schools out of it, okay?
Posted By: Vallejo (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 10:51 AM
Mikel,
There isn't even one way in which atheism is a religious belief that ignores the separation of church and state. Darwinism is what you call "science" which is distinct from religion by the very obvious fact that, even when you don't agree with it, it involves actual investigation and science. Observation and an attempt to make sense from fact. That's just a TEENSY bit different from postulating something with absolutely no proof. You don't have to find Darwinism convincing. That doesn't make it a religion. I'm pretty confident there are a lot of christians who believe in darwinism too--the ones brave enough to move out of the 17th century.
Oh, and I'm not an atheist, but that's not really your business. And if you can't understand why someone who believes differently from you would have just as much problem with you thinking everyone else MUST or else, you know, burn in hell, you've failed most of the Christian tests of understanding and compassion.
So lets recap. Darwinism isn't a religion. People who do believe in Darwinism aren't necessarily irreligious. Evangelical, Medieval, Intolerant Christianity isn't the only religious belief out there--only the dumbest one.
if anyone else is interested, I got made love for rational Christianity, the kind that's interested in letting other people be what they want to be, as I do for all other kinds of religious belief that admits the presence of a world, LOVES its brothers rather than hopes intensely for the conversion or else punishment of its neighbors, and has moved slightly past the Inquisition.
Intolerant Christianity: Because it worked so well for Galileo!
(who cares, really? No one so dumb that they might actually fall for this schtick hasn't already done so. Separation of Darwinism and state indeed....)
Posted By: Andytobo (Registered) on February 28, 2009 at 12:00 PM
I'm still looking for the supposed attack on Christians. Did I miss it?
Posted By: jsn (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Mikel, do you even read the article before you go spouting off? Or do you just happily seize any opportunity to act like an ass and flaunt your ignorance?
There was not a single attack on Christianity in the article. There were facts about how someone is using Christianity in a method totally different than what Christ taught. There is a statement that says there is nothing wrong with being religious, as long as you don't violate the founding principles of this country and use its governmental system to force that religion on others. You seem to ignore these in your rush to act the fool once again. And even if your ridiculous claim of atheism being a church that is ignoring separation of church & state were true, all it would amount to is a child's excuse of "well that person is doing something wrong so it's OK for me to do something wrong." Maybe I'm mistaken in thinking that you're an adult and not a child? Maybe you just have a child's mentality? It certainly seems that way in every post you make - childish, illogical, devoid of facts and completely ignorant of the real world.
Posted By: Scott B (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Actually, it's caribou, and they do gather near the pipelines in the winter to keep warm.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 01:42 PM
I also gather near pipelines to keep warm.
(Ron Mexico still has herpes)
Posted By: Andrew Tobolowsky (Registered) on February 28, 2009 at 03:14 PM
I think the Democrats should be left alone. If anyone needs to be investigated, it's the assholes that say "Happy Holidays!" to me instead of "Merry Christmas!" when it's the holiday season. One is clearly the spoutings of a godless, depraved heathen while the other is a well-wishing from a moral, upstanding individual. I'm sure Michele Bachman would have my back on this one. She sounds smart to me.
Michele Bachman is a fucking moron, plain and simple.
Posted By: Zingy (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 03:17 PM
All,
Why the attempt to provide some kind of logical counter to Mikel? There's no need. His own argument that atheism is somehow a religion is counter and example enough.
Really, some times, it's best to let far out, far-fetched ideas speak for themselves.
Crazy is crazy; no need to point out its craziness.
Posted By: Brandon Crow (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 03:51 PM
Whilst I have serious misgivings about Michele, let me point out that the "separation of church from state" in government is specifically that Government shall make no law that will impede or infringe on the free practice of religion. It is not the idea that religion has no place in government, nor is it the idea of keeping church and state separate.
Many people like to quote a letter by Jefferson as a way to support this idea. He not only did NOT practice any idea like that in his dealings with government, and NEVER introduced such ideas into the US constitution or any law, he also later recanted that idea in a later letter.
Please do not confuse government not being allowed to impede on the practice of religion with religion not being able to be a part of religion.
Oh, and as a side comment, while I do not believe in any way, shape or form that my homosexual freinds are targeting children for ANYTHING, if you look at the homosexual movement that is fighting for the rights of homosexuals, there is a very definite targeting of the traditional idea of family, and of making homsexuality acceptable to children.
Look it up. It's there.
The biggest problem with that is that I don't want a group or a special interest group trying to "educate" my children. That's MY responsiblity as a parent.
Thanks for reading. Thanks for listening. Plesae don't misrepresent history.
Posted By: Stephen (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 03:57 PM
Hey Rob Schneider is carrot, your a idiot.The carribu do hang out around the pipeline to keep warm in the winter months.Want to know how I know this?Well its becuase I have been there dozens of times and have seen it with my own eyes.You just read it on a left wing hack site and thought it not to be true.Your stupid..........and wrong.
Oh and Andrew,I saw your concern about "Da man" comment.Should you not be more concered about the racist generaiztions made by Jenneane Garofalo and Fat ass Keith Olbermann about Mr.Steele?
Posted By: John (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 05:52 PM
"if you look at the homosexual movement that is fighting for the rights of homosexuals, there is a very definite targeting of the traditional idea of family, and of making homsexuality acceptable to children.
Look it up. It's there.
The biggest problem with that is that I don't want a group or a special interest group trying to "educate" my children. That's MY responsiblity as a parent."
Please enlighten me, go ahead, show me where this gay propaganda resides.
Posted By: Pete Thorn (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 08:21 PM
Mikel,
Atheism is not a religion. Atheism isn't really a thing - it's not an organization. There aren't atheist worship gatherings. It's a label. And no, atheism doesn't ignore anything because it's not an entity.
Also, Andrew didn't attack Christianity. He attacked a stupid woman who really ought to be run over by a bus.
Posted By: JD (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 11:14 PM
If you check any of the writers from the homosexual movement of the late 70's, early 80's (Michael Swift for one), they outlined a pretty staunch anti-family stand. In fact, they outlined a stand that, while born of anger due to ridicule and scorn (No person should be ridiculed or scorned or be made the target of hate crimes), was very anti family.
I am not talking about your average homosexual. I have homosexual friends who, when they started reading some of the literature, were just as outraged and disgusted by it. However, just as in our government, a very vocal minority made up the agenda and continue to push it, even today.
As I said - look it up on the internet...you'll find it, even if you don't like the sites it is on.
Stephen
Posted By: Stephen (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 12:53 AM
"Oh, and as a side comment, while I do not believe in any way, shape or form that my homosexual freinds are targeting children for ANYTHING, if you look at the homosexual movement that is fighting for the rights of homosexuals, there is a very definite targeting of the traditional idea of family, and of making homsexuality acceptable to children. "
What? So you're gay friends aren't, but other gay people are?
Posted By: DSJ (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 12:59 AM
Mikel, how many times do I have to get involved with how mind-blowingly ignorant you are? Look up the word atheism for me. In a dictionary if you own one. Or on wikipedia. An atheist is someone who does not subscribe to a religion. Our country does not enforce its citizens to believe anything. That is the freedom our nation is founded upon. And if you still stand by your statement then you ARE an un-american, and under your ideals you would be imprisoned for treason.
But have a nice day =)
PS You really have the balls to say "just for your information" like you have any fucking CLUE what you're talking about? Bravo.
Posted By: James (Registered) (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 01:40 AM
Besides me ranting all over Mikel, why isn't there video of her saying this?! If there is, my god (if I had one) someone send it to me!
Posted By: James (Registered) (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 02:59 AM
Stephen, I appreciate your attempt to bring your point of view in respectfully and politely--and appreciate very much that you draw several good lines between how you feel and hate. Of course, for many of us, the "traditional idea" of the family is flawed because it doesn't involve room for people who love each other and have a healthy relationship, but happen to be of the same gender. Nevertheless, in terms of civil discourse in this country we could all be well served by bringing in adversarial points of view as cautiously and thoughtfully as you have done. I disagree, but if we're to have this discussion I would much rather it be with you than with many others.
Posted By: Andytobo (Registered) on March 01, 2009 at 10:21 AM
"What? So you're gay friends aren't, but other gay people are?"
Unfortunately, yes. The very vocal minority on both sides of this issue set the agenda for the "pro-homosexual movement" and the "anti-homosexual" movement. Unfortunately, there are many who refuse to see that.
BTW, I am NOT commenting on the morality of homosexuality. I AM commenting on the tactics used.
Posted By: Stephen (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 11:57 AM
haha This kinda reminds me of when Romney did that photo opp with that group of black kids and then said "who let the dogs out? who who"
I mean this just makes me think of white republicans as being a bunch of out of touch cornballs
Posted By: peteyy (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 02:47 PM
Stephen, I appreciate your attempt to bring your point of view in respectfully and politely--and appreciate very much that you draw several good lines between how you feel and hate. Of course, for many of us, the "traditional idea" of the family is flawed because it doesn't involve room for people who love each other and have a healthy relationship, but happen to be of the same gender. Nevertheless, in terms of civil discourse in this country we could all be well served by bringing in adversarial points of view as cautiously and thoughtfully as you have done. I disagree, but if we're to have this discussion I would much rather it be with you than with many others.
Posted By: Andytobo (Registered) on March 01, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Andy -
I have a ton of respect for you just from your response. You seem to understand that I am questioning the tactics that I've seen employed, and in no way wish to limit anyone's right to choose how they wish to live their life or whom they wish to live it with.
That is neither my right nor would I want that responsibility.
Thanks
Posted By: Stephen (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 09:07 PM
i'm glad you get all your "newsworthy" information from keith uber-douche.
pathetic.
Posted By: anti-messiah (Guest) on March 02, 2009 at 08:40 AM
As far as being civil and all that jazz, to the two of you guys, that's why I even bother looking at the comments. And then Mikel, and usually only Mikel, just blows my mind. And since I know I can't change his mind because he is who he is, I rip him with as little profanity as I can manage to make myself feel better. Fire with fire? Maybe. But it's all he understands.
Posted By: James (Registered) (Guest) on March 06, 2009 at 06:25 AM
STAY CURRENT