That's So Bachmann!

 

First, Michele Bachmann gets handed an idiotic "pledge" from some Iowa-based Family-Something organization and she actually signs the damn thing! Completely what you'd expect from our Ms. Bachmann.

The pledge requires candidates to vow to not cheat on their spouses (mysteriously, Newt Gingrich declined to sign the pledge), to do everything possible to make life harder for the gays, and defend us against the imaginary threat of Sharia law.

 

So, of course she signs it, of course she does! But either she didn't really read what she was signing all that closely, or she didn't realize that some people (decent people) might take some offense at this statement in the vow's preamble:

(yes, it has a preamble, of course it has a preamble. That's how you know it's good, like the Constitution)

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA‟s first African-American President.

That line is probably not meant as an endorsement of slavery, but any candidate with any sense would realize that it kinda sounds like the "they were better off as slaves" argument that you sometimes hear from racist assholes. Michele Bachmann is Not one of those politicians.

 

Then, as only she can do, our Ms. Bachmann finds a way to make it worse.

A Bachmann spokeswoman said earlier Saturday that reports the congresswoman had signed a vow that contained the slavery language was wrong, noting it was not in the “vow” portion.
“She signed the ‘candidate vow,’ ” campaign spokeswoman Alice Stewart said. . .

Okay, you could just stop there. Admit that your candidate didn't really know what she was signing, but pretend that that isn't one of her many disqualifications for public office. It's a pretty weak argument to claim that she only signed the "vow" part, not the adjoining text, but whatever. You work with what you got.

“She signed the ‘candidate vow,’ ” campaign spokeswoman Alice Stewart said, and distanced Bachmann from the preamble language, saying, “In no uncertain terms, Congresswoman Bachmann believes that slavery was horrible. . .

 Okay. You really shouldn't need to state that your candidate is anti-slavery, but considering the current political atmosphere, it probably is a good idea to get that on the record. Show your candidate's sensitive side, she understands that slavery is horrible. That actually might come a s a surprise to some observers. Okay, you're probably going to want to stop there.


But, no. This is Michele Bachmann we're talking about. Of course she won't stop there.

“In no uncertain terms, Congresswoman Bachmann believes that slavery was horrible
and economic enslavement is also horrible.”

Economic enslavement? Really? By which you mean what, having to pay taxes? Having a government that runs a deficit? I'm not sure what she considers "economic enslavement" but did she really just equate it to actual slavery? Actual manacles whips and human auction slavery?

Of course she did! What the hell else would you expect from Michele Bachmann?

You can read the entire text of the "vow" here: http://www.thefamilyleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/themarriagevow.final_.7.7.111.pdf
It's actually pretty short, and fairly entertaining in a freakshow kind of way. Even the footnotes which state things like:

No peer-reviewed empirical science or rational demonstration has ever definitively proven, nor even has shown an overwhelming probability, that homosexual preference or behavior is irresistible as a function of genetic determinism or other forms of fatalism.

No studies have ever proven that gay folks don't purposely choose to be gay, therefore, we can only conclude that they do!

That's so Bachmann!

Solos in Order of Bad-Assedness

1. Hope







2. Han






3. Guitar







4. Cup







Wait, this could change things:

Getting Rid of Herpes

Right Way

 

Wrong Way

Is Eric Cantor Merely Corrupt,Or Actually Treasonous?

Via Salon:

Last year the Wall Street Journal reported that Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House, had between $1,000 and $15,000 invested in ProShares Trust Ultrashort 20+ Year Treasury EFT. The fund aggressively "shorts" long-term U.S. Treasury bonds, meaning that it performs well when U.S. debt is undesirable. (A short is when the trader hopes to profit from the decline in the value of an asset.)

Eric Cantor will personally profit if the US defaults on its debts. He may profit just from the uncertainty surrounding the debt ceiling negotiations if that uncertainty causes US Treasury bonds to become less desirable investments.
 
So when he storms out of the debt ceiling negotiations, one has to wonder, is it just a childish snit, or is he purposely trying to scare investors off of T-bills?
 
Either way, the sonofabitch is betting against the US of A. When Pete Rose got kicked out of baseball for betting, his one saving grace, the one thing that made it possible that he might be re-instated someday, is that he never bet against his own team. Eric Cantor is betting against his own team. It may be legal, but it's wrong. It's wrong and he should be given the Pete Rose treatment.
 

 

Including being forced to wear the haircut.

Why we Rarely Venture Outside the City Limits of Atlanta

Because in much of the rest of Georgia, they vote for people like this:


Rep. Tom Price (R-Roswell)

Speaking to the crowd, U.S. Rep. Tom Price (R-Roswell) noted that 87 new Republicans had joined the House, changing the entire dynamic of Washington.


Yet Price warned that President Obama would use "every demagogic tool in his box" to turn the public against Republicans.

"And the way that that happens is as we approach this debt ceiling challenge that we've got right now Congress can say, 'no,' and then the president decides who gets paid," Price said. "And if the president says 'OK, that's all right with me, but the troops won't get paid, the senior citizens won't get their Social Security check and the docs taking care of Medicare patients won't get paid,' that's what we're looking at. The only way for us to prevail is for you to stand strong, recruit your friends, your neighbors, everybody else to the cause."

Yeah, he's really up there in public implying that Barack Obama will withhold payment from our troops, our elderly and Medicare. Really. the guy who's supposed to be such a raging socialist is going to fuck over Social Security and Medicare. Besides, Social Security payments don't come out of the general fund anyway, so they would not even be on the table for these imaginary cuts. With someone like Price, it's hard to tell whether he's lying or just actually that ridiculously ignorant.

 

Then there's Rep. Paul Broun (R-Athens)

U.S. Rep. Paul Broun (R-Athens), who delivered the invocation, warned about the future of the U.S.

"We're standing on the precipice, staring down in the deep chasm of socialism and total government control," Broun said.

Broun called on the audience to reflect on the principles provided by the Founding Fathers

"You know, principles like slavery," he did not add.

Nice invocation, by the way. Isn't an invocation supposed to be something like "Lord on this the Fourth of July, we thank Thee for the many blessings that Thou hast  bestowed upon this great nation, etc. . . ."  (Yeah, I know how how to invocate!)

But seriously, this is part of the opening prayer?

"Father, there are many who want to destroy us from outside this nation," Broun said. "Folks like al-Qaeda and the radical Islamists. But there are folks that want to destroy us from inside, the progressives and the socialists, who want to make this nation a nation that's no longer under you, under God, but a nation that's ruled by man."

 

I don't know if that's more insane or just dickish.  Progressives want to destroy the nation from within? Really? Wanting a more progressive tax code and a more equitable distribution of wealth, that's the same thing as wanting to destroy the nation?

Of course, there's Phil Gingery

U.S. Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Marietta) said when Obama was first elected he went on a world tour and proceeded to apologize "for all the sins of U.S."

"And when he was asked about American exceptionalism, his comment was something to the effect that, 'well, all countries are exceptional,'" Gingrey said. "Well, many countries are special, but only one is exceptional, and that is the United State of America. And we need never apologize for that."

No, I'm no fancy big-city theologian, but I'm pretty sure that apologizing for one's sins is one of the things that the Good Book recommends. Also, "American Exceptionalism" is a pernicious fallacy. (Yeah, I know some fancy big-city words!)

Anyone who believes that only one country is exceptional and it's us is thinking like a child. Like a child who thinks that my daddy is the biggest, strongest, smartest person in the whole wide world. Usually, most children eventually grow up and realize that okay, my dad's pretty strong, and he's pretty smart, but really he's but a mere mortal. The "American Exceptionalism" crowd never matures to this level. It's pathetic.

And State Representatives aren't any better. See Exhibit A: Chip Rogers

State Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock) said if Republicans want to win in the next election, the message must be one of freedom. That's why he supports the Fair Tax and healthcare that allows medical choices to take place between him and his doctor rather than between him and the president.

Right, because when I think of freedom, I think of the freedom to pay my taxes in the form of a National sales tax rather than an income tax.  That's just another word for freedom, which is, I believe, just another word for nothin' left to lose. (Thank you, Kris Kristofferson!)

Also, I would like healthcare that allows decisions to be made by me and my doctor, not my doctor's office staff and some asshole at Aetna. I would sooooo much rather have Barack Obama in the examination room with me than Healthnet McBlue Shield.

Moreover, "I support a parent's right to choose how their child is educated because the next generation of Americans are the ones that are going to keep us free, and they ought not have to be dictated by government," Rogers said. "It ought to be the parents who run education in this country. Not the government. You should not have to go to a school based on your United States postal mailing address."

Yeah, the reason your kids' school is decided by your adress is because that's the school that your property taxes support. If you live over in Affluent Valley, and you're paying a million dollars in property taxes, you're not going to be too happy when my imaginary son from here in Pothole Grove shows up at the fancy school you're paying for. It's not some crazy government scheme to control what your kids are learning, it's just the shitty system we have for funding schools. You're getting the better end of that deal, so I wouldn't bitch too much about it, genius!

Anyway, that's why we prefer to stay inside the 285 peremiter, where we can be proud to be represented by civil rights legend John Lewis.

Read more: The Marietta Daily Journal - Herman Cain wins straw poll at Cobb GOP get together