It's okay to ask if Obama hates white people or if he's paling around with terrorists. Those are legitimate and honest questions.
Sure, if he's given indications that either of those are true, go ahead and ask.
To get a proper meaningful answer you would have to be more specific as to the nature of the question. Is it about sexuality or is it about the political influence the husband has over Mrs Bachmann.
When it comes to the statement that Hillary would never be asked such a question the answer to that is, it would never come up because if it's sex I don't think most people can imagine Hillary doing the Horizontal Hula and we know that Bill is on the road most of the time and when he's not she is.
Obama was questioned extensively about that relationship as well. He dodged the questions.
All thats beside the point...she brought the question on herself by making the statement...then she waffled on the answer...
I think it was entirely appropriate. Yes, I can see why people would want to know if the person they were considering entrusting the nuclear launch codes is taking orders from somebody who is running a de-gayification center... But, more importantly, I think it is an issue because it reveals how profoundly sexist Bachmann is. She actually believes that it is the woman's role to submit to her husband. Think about that. In 2011 she still thinks a woman is more or less the property of her husband. The implications a view of women that wildly sexist would have for the policies she might support are huge. Imagine if a man had said that about women. Well, it works out to the same thing. She's just as likely to support policies which are oppressive to women as a man with similar ideas about their role in society.
Think about how stupid your comments are. A womans personal belief regarding her relationship with her husband (and of course ignoring the second part where the husband so reveres the wife that he is willing to respect and protect and if necessary die for the woman) causes you SUCH consternation...regardless of the fact they have been married what...33 years? had a very successful family, reached out and helped others, the 'subservient' woman isnt 'just' a college graduate but is also a tax lawyer, a state representative, and a candidate for president of the country. And you REALLY are fearful that she is 'subservient'?
Like I said...the stupid **** some of you people feign outrage over... :lamo
Funny you bring up that she is a tax lawyer... You heard her statement about how she hated the idea of becoming a tax lawyer, but her husband ordered her to do it, so she went to law school to study to be one anyways? Her husband that runs the de-gayification camp? This is the kind of person you would put in charge of the most powerful country in the world? A woman who believes women have a duty to be subservient to their husbands who is married to an insane anti-gay religious nut bigot? Not only is she herself an insane anti-gay religious nut bigot, but she is "obeying" another anit-gay religious nut bigot? For president of the United States? I wouldn't even think we could entrust somebody that low functioning with even like an officer position in the PTA unless it was out of pity...
It's just ridiculous. It's like her earlier comments about how slavery times were a period where "race didn't matter"... We just can't possibly believe she is for real. She's so openly backwards and ignorant. Literally maybe 80+ years behind the rest of the world intellectually and morally, but still you guys seem to actually take her seriously.... If my 92 year old grandmother said some of this stuff Bachmann says we'd all roll our eyes and gently scold her, but not make too big of a deal about it because she's got alzheimers and you can't really hold her to too strict of a standard because of it... But a presidential candidate?
I dunno. There is just this absurdly huge gap between the world in which teabaggers live and the real world where the rest of us live. In the real world, views like those Bachmann expresses are just beyond the pale. Real declaration of war on rationality type stuff. She's obviously dumb, morally stunted and ridiculously ignorant and the fact that a sizable block on the right aparently can't tell that is very alarming.
"Ordered"... :lamo
When my wife graduated with her bachelors in English I told her "now you need to take it to the next level'. She is a college professor today. I didnt force her to go to graduate school but as her husband I counseled with her and pointed out that here current degree provided little if any real employment opportunities. Yeah...Im evil too.
That Teabagger you ridicule has had more success in the real world, in family, and in life in general than you will likely ever know. Option between her life as an example and others? Yours?
During the republican debate this week, Michelle Bachmann was asked the following:
Her answer, in part:
This question has raised a firestorm over whether it was fair or appropriate. It came about from this comment she made where she said that she finished her degree because her husband told her so and women are supposed to be submissive to their husbands(can't find quote at the moment, if any one else can, will edit it in and give credit).
So, we the question fair? Was it appropriate? Was it sexist? You can choose more than one.
Funny you bring up that she is a tax lawyer... You heard her statement about how she hated the idea of becoming a tax lawyer, but her husband ordered her to do it, so she went to law school to study to be one anyways? Her husband that runs the de-gayification camp? This is the kind of person you would put in charge of the most powerful country in the world? A woman who believes women have a duty to be subservient to their husbands who is married to an insane anti-gay religious nut bigot? Not only is she herself an insane anti-gay religious nut bigot, but she is "obeying" another anit-gay religious nut bigot? For president of the United States? I wouldn't even think we could entrust somebody that low functioning with even like an officer position in the PTA unless it was out of pity...
It's just ridiculous. It's like her earlier comments about how slavery times were a period where "race didn't matter"... We just can't possibly believe she is for real. She's so openly backwards and ignorant. Literally maybe 80+ years behind the rest of the world intellectually and morally, but still you guys seem to actually take her seriously.... If my 92 year old grandmother said some of this stuff Bachmann says we'd all roll our eyes and gently scold her, but not make too big of a deal about it because she's got alzheimers and you can't really hold her to too strict of a standard because of it... But a presidential candidate?
I dunno. There is just this absurdly huge gap between the world in which teabaggers live and the real world where the rest of us live. In the real world, views like those Bachmann expresses are just beyond the pale. Real declaration of war on rationality type stuff. She's obviously dumb, morally stunted and ridiculously ignorant and the fact that a sizable block on the right aparently can't tell that is very alarming.
No! I would choose someone who: did coke in college; hides his college transcripts; hides his legal opinion papers (maybe he never wrote any) hangs out with unrepentent terrorist Ayers and co.; calls everyone who disgrees with him a racist; thinks there's 57 states; blames everyone and everything for his failures; tells us how much better things are now than in 2008 (5% unemployment then 9% now); is trying to make the USA a socialist coumtry; has supporters like you who find it necessary to use a vulgar term (teabagger) to refer to those with opposing view points.
No, she openly said that she thought it was a terrible idea to study tax law and that she hated it, but that she did it because it was her duty to submit to her husband... This chick is a real nut case. A throwback to the 1800s...
Excluding her political "accomplishments", my life has been waaaaay more successful than hers. In fact, if you take the ranking of my current law school and you multiply it by 50, you get a number pretty close to the ranking of the law school she went to... About the same for my undergrad school too- multiply the ranking by 50 and you get her undergrad school's ranking... The only real job she has ever had was working as an entry level bureaucrat at the IRS. Checking through paperwork and flagging ones where information was missing for the higher ups. That is far less intellectually demanding and far less well paying than the last job I had before law school. Like it pays about 1/3 of what I made at my last job. Where I managed a team of 12, she would have been negotiating with her manager to see if she took only 30 minutes for lunch whether she could leave work at 4:30 instead of 5:00... The "family business" she talks about a lot turned out to be a scam her husband is running. I'm not really seeing the success you are here... Everything about her screams "below average". She hasn't accomplished anything at all as far as I can see except getting elected to the house. That is, no doubt, a big accomplishment, but not really "success in the real world"...
No! I would choose someone who: did coke in college; hides his college transcripts; hides his legal opinion papers (maybe he never wrote any) hangs out with unrepentent terrorist Ayers and co.; calls everyone who disgrees with him a racist; thinks there's 57 states; blames everyone and everything for his failures; tells us how much better things are now than in 2008 (5% unemployment then 9% now); is trying to make the USA a socialist coumtry; has supporters like you who find it necessary to use a vulgar term (teabagger) to refer to those with opposing view points.
Heh...
and here you are...on a blog...whining about her. And she is...oh yeah...a candidate for president.
Riiight. WAY more successful. :roll:
So your position is that she is a good presidential candidate because of the accomplishment of becoming a presidential candidate? So, like if I put Gaddafi forward as a presidential candidate, you would back him too?
I dont back her. I'm simply pointing out how stupid people are for making some of the idiotic arguments they make against her. Attack her agenda. Attack her qualifications. Fine. You people are afraid of her shadow for gods sake. Thats pathetic.
We are attacking her agenda... Her position on women, for example, appears to be that they are duty bound to obey their husbands. That means setting back the cause of women's rights decades. What does she think of spousal rape for example? Or her position on race, if she thinks slavery was a time when people were "color blind"?!
More stupidity. Dood...is THAT what you got your degree in? SHE has HER faith. Do you see her telling other women what to do? In her situation it has contributed to a successful marriage, family and career. And you are stupid enough to continue to attack that? Are you also such a moron that you dont get the second part of her belief...where the husband reveres protects and is willing even to die for the family..or do you just continue to ignore it? Her personal beliefs...thats an 'agenda'? I thought at first you were just a contrarian...but you arent...you are more stupid than the Petes, Sanga, and Thunder combined.
I dont back her. I'm simply pointing out how stupid people are for making some of the idiotic arguments they make against her. Attack her agenda. Attack her qualifications. Fine. You people are afraid of her shadow for gods sake. Thats pathetic.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?