surprise_i'm_armed wrote:TAM:
Regarding my source for Bachman's law school advocating that the Bible should supercede the Constitition?
This was discused in the New Yorker article. That reporter had personal interviews with Bachman and travelled with her entourage.
I know that you want to dismiss the above 2 articles, but they contain kernels of knowledge into her thought process, and hence give the voters who dig a chance to see where she may go. It seems to me that you may not have read the articles since you have given them the 527 label.
Is Faux News to be trusted after one of their top execs admitted to starting the "Obama is a Muslim" rumor?
Someone discussed Kennedy's Catholicism and how stories were woven about his alleged subservience to the Pope, if elected. But Kennedy did not trumpet his faith beliefs. Where Ms. Bachman differs is that she claims her faith is the driving force in her life.
I think part of the core problem that we have with any news media today is that everyone has an agenda and we have had outright lies from some sources, and endless spin from everyone.
Speaking of spin, did you notice that Ron Paul was a strong 2nd to Bachman, but was ignored in the commentary that says the Big 3 are now Mitt Romney, Bachman, and Rick Perry?
SIA
First off, yes, I noticed that about Ron Paul, and although I think he's nuttier than an outhouse rat, shame on the legacy media for not reporting.................
EXCEPT for Fox News, which DID report it, and which also made it a story that Paul was being ignored by the other media. Good for them. So you can call them "Faux News" if you want (most libs do), but the fact is that they did a better job on this story than anybody else. Period. And you can't take that away from them.
Secondly, I don't think that Fox is perfect. Ask my wife some day how many shoes I've nearly launched at the TV because some chowderhead on the Fox payroll was spouting inanities.
Third, I actually
do read Rolling Stone on occasion (I'm a musician, and it comes with the territory), and yesterday, I just finished reading Adam Gopnik's article "Dog Story" from last week's issue of The New Yorker. Please notice that I don't descend to childish name calling of news sources like those who call Fox News "Faux News." It's like saying, "well you're a poopy head." I mean,
really? Because I read these publications, and because I also read and watch conservative news sources, I have a well-tuned understanding of their political agendas.
So what if the New Yorker reporter interviewed and traveled with Bachman. So what? You and I have met before. That wouldn't stop me from posting lies about you on the Internet if I were so inclined. I am not so inclinded....because I have integrity. I don't believe that political reporters from either the Stone or the New Yorker have any because they fundamentally don't know how to keep their own opinions out of their reporting. That makes what they report
opinion, not fact.
BTW, you haven't addressed my response to their assertion—that we
should work to change the Constitution if we are inspired (for
whatever reason, whether it be religious
or secular) to do so. Examples? How about the 18th and 21st Amendments? The Founders included the mechanism for changing it. They wouldn't have done so if they had not believed that, at some point in the future, Americans in large enough numbers to make it happen might want to effect some change or other.
As for Francis Schaeffer's belief shortly before his death that, unless
Roe v. Wade is overturned, evangelicals ought to violently overthrow the government.....well that's just poppycock. Even Rolex watches don't keep perfect time. I think that if you parse ever word uttered by every politician in this race, you'll find enough scary stuff on each of them, Ron Paul included, to keep you awake at night for months.
I am a deeply religious person. I cannot help but to see the world through the filter of my faith. I think that Bachman is no different. That does not mean that I do not intend to hitch my rope to the Constitution. My guess is that neither does Bachman. My guess is that, if you were to question her about whether or not she agreed with Francis Schaeffer that violent overthrow of the government is called for, she would strongly disagree. She may not be
your cup of tea, but she's not a
complete idiot. In any case, because I am a deeply religious person, I take great offense when otherwise seemingly rational people try to gut somebody because of their religion. Speaking of the debates....Chris Wallace's question to Bachman about submission to her husband (and all that might imply about some alleged sinister plot in which she would be her husband's puppet as he secretly ran the country) was a cheap shot and extremely cheesy journalism. Ditto the crap that the press gave JFK over his catholicism.
It's just not called for. As a person whose religious beliefs cause him to be ridiculed in the public culture, I deeply resent it when muckrakers do it under the guise of "journalism," which is really nothing more than "yellow journalism."
Frankly, politics is outside the realm of expertise of Rolling Stone. They treat it like they were making a music video..... all hype, heavy breathing, and hip gyrations, but very little substance. They sent Hunter S. Thomson to cover the Nixon White House, for heaven's sake. I loved reading
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and Hunter S. Thompson was a brilliant satirist, but he was not qualified as a political reporter. To him, it was all theater. Well, that's the kind of political coverage you get out of Rolling Stone. If you want to know about what guitar effects Mark Knopfler likes to use, or how much J-Lo loves sunset walks on the beach, the Rolling Stone is the perfect rag. But it not exactly a hotbed of good political reportage. That article is NOT reporting. It's an opinion piece, and a character assassination at that.
Now, all of the above said, I repeat.....I am NOT a fan of Michelle Bachman's. I don't
hate her either. I suspect that almost any one of the other candidates in the race—Ron Paul excepted—are better
qualified than she is, having nothing to do with any of her particular religious views. I
don't think she is the most intelligent of the candidates. I don't think she is stupid either. You don't get elected to Congress by being a complete retard. I just think that some of the others are smarter and have better experience and qualifications for an executive. If I can choose between a conservative of average intelligence, and a conservative of higher than average intelligence, I'll take the smarter one, please.
But I have reacted strongly here because I despise that lefty smugness that automatically discounts fundamentally decent and qualified people simply because lefties don't understand the mind of a person of faith......and being ultimately provincial in their outlook, lefties try to destroy what they don't understand. It's cretinous. And Rolling Stone is a hotbed of the cretinous....The New Yorker is less so, but they can be insufferably smug too, and particularly dismissive of anything that originates from outside the Big Apple, viewing themselves as the only legitimate guardians of the culture. They're very French that way. When I used to live in NYC back in the 1970s, one of my friends was an illustrator for The New Yorker. Nice guy, but he was steeped in it. Ever since then, I can't abide by it.
I seek clarity. The majority of political reporting, particularly from
non-political publications only muddies the waters further.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT
