[Toshi]

I saw this comment in another thread:

That was the prevaling mindset of Bachmann, DeMint, Rand Paul and Mike Lee........don't raise the debt limit and just simply cut spending by half overnight.............WTF. It's quite clear these folks have zero grasp on reality.

It just so happens that I read an article today that explains the craziness quite well:

Inside Bachmann's Brain (summary and commentary link on FrumForum, original profile is by The New Yorker)

As Lizza points out, Bachmann regards even the most mundane political facts through the prism of a worldview that would probably seem extremely strange to most Americans.

... It emerges from a religious philosophy that rejects the federal government as an alien instrument of destruction, ripping apart a Christian society. Bachmann’s religiously grounded rejection of the American state finds a hearing with many more conventional conservatives radicalized by today’s hard economic times.

Frum's conclusion on the Tea Party is much the same as mine. The Tea Party isn't about liberty or libertarianism--it's clearly not internally consistent and there's that nagging fact about many of the Tea Partiers being on the dole in some way. Instead it, like Bachmann, is all about the world view, the splitting of "us" and "them":

The Tea Party is not exactly a libertarian movement – otherwise it would not so passionately defend Medicare for those over 55. It’s a movement of relatively older and relatively affluent Americans whose expectations have been disrupted by the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. They are looking for an explanation of the catastrophe – and a villain to blame. They are finding it in the same place that Bachmann and her co-religionists located it 30 years ago: a deeply hostile national government controlled by alien and suspect forces, with Barack Obama as their leader and symbol.

 

[jonKranked]

i'm posting this. saw it over the weekend. very related in a sort of roundabout way, how the GOP has gotten their userbase to vote against their own interests. very NSFW language, but not used for the sake of being vulgar.

http://alstefanelli.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/about-people-who-vote-against-their-own-interests/

 

[Toshi]

i'm posting this. saw it over the weekend. very related in a sort of roundabout way, how the GOP has gotten their userbase to vote against their own interests. very NSFW language, but not used for the sake of being vulgar.

http://alstefanelli.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/about-people-who-vote-against-their-own-interests/

It's nostalgia sweetened by selective forgetfulness, latent or not so latent racism, and the undeniably changing demographics of the nation.

Because somehow – be it by gender identity, racial identity, national identity, he thinks his class, his type belongs at the top. He’s the top dog! But he’s not.

Yup.

 

[Silver]

I don't think it's that latent: It's like when people tee off on immigrants to me. I'll let them go nuts, and then mention that I'm an immigrant. The usual response? "Oh, I don't mean GOOD immigrants like you!"

All of a sudden my leftist ass is in the "good" column. I have no idea what causes that, and neither do my blue eyes or fair skin...

 

[$tinkle]

srsly, another "they must be crazy b/c they have different & defensible opinions" thread? when are we going to have a comprehensive one to cover all manner of "mental illness as it relates to political persuasion" thread?

can we start w/ greenies, freegans, & or animal rights activists?

e: bachman*

 

[kidwoo]

srsly, another "they must be crazy b/c they have defensible opinions"

Let me know when that happens.

 

[Toshi]

srsly, another "they must be crazy b/c they have different & defensible opinions" thread?

"Defensible" implies that the facts are in accordance with one's stated views. Bachmann's views are internally consistent in that they're all implanted in her straight from teh Jeebus-voice in her head, but they are also patently false.

 

[$tinkle]

"Defensible" implies that the facts are in accordance with one's stated views. Bachmann's views are internally consistent in that they're all implanted in her straight from teh Jeebus-voice in her head, but they are also patently false.

which ones in particular? choice of beard/husband -- sure

 

[Toshi]

which ones in particular? choice of beard/husband -- sure

Did you even click on my link?

 

[$tinkle]

Did you even click on my link?

i did.

that's when i added the corrected spelling of her last name

 

[Pesqueeb]

srsly, another "they must be crazy b/c they have different & defensible opinions" thread? when are we going to have a comprehensive one to cover all manner of "mental illness as it relates to political persuasion" thread?

can we start w/ greenies, freegans, & or animal rights activists?

e: bachman*

Stop Trolling. Even your not crazy enough to actually think Bachman is a viable candidate and/or President.

 

[$tinkle]

Stop Trolling. Even your not crazy enough to actually think Bachman is a viable candidate and/or President.

ron paul
lyndon larouche
ralph nader
dennis kucinich
sarah palin
newt gingrich


it's not about the crazy
it's about the freedoms to find truth

 

[zdubyadubya]

hehehehe... i will just leave this here..

 

[$tinkle]

you've obviously never had a migraine during a photoshoot

 

[jonKranked]

hehehehe... i will just leave this here..

supposedly people are complaining that picture makes her look crazy. I don't quite get what they're upset over, it is an accurate depiction.

 

[$tinkle]

 

[Fool]

She's peering into my third eye.

 

[jimmydean]

Yes, it's the picture that makes her look crazy. I'm so glad they cleared that up. All this time I thought she might actually be a bit nuts.

 

[stoney]

hehehehe... i will just leave this here..

How do they make her hair stay perfectly puffed up, while the clothes pin pulls her face and neck skin pulled so taught?

They must take pointers from Pelosi

 

[Silver]

How do they make her hair stay perfectly puffed up, while the clothes pin pulls her face and neck skin pulled so taught?

They must take pointers from Pelosi

Hairspray and makeup. Lots and lots of both.

 

[jimmydean]

Bitch be crazy.

 

[stoney]

Hairspray and makeup. Lots and lots of both.

Oh, I get it. They use the makeup like a sediment to fill in the creases in her worn ass face...

 

[Silver]

Imagine her with cropped hair...looks like Lance to me.

 

[stevew]

how can you be inside something that isn't there?

 

[AngryMetalsmith]

fixed

A rather handsome couple they would make.

 

[johnbryanpeters]

She's peeing into my third eye.

That's just nasty.

 

[stevew]

prefers being choked during sex so she can see jesus more often.

 

[Fool]

That's just nasty.

 

[$tinkle]

That's just nasty.

/approves

 

[Andyman_1970]

Part 1

Ok, so I’ve been vexed by this Tea Party thing for several weeks now. On a recent visit with my parents my dad and I were enjoying our long time tradition of enjoying a beer and watching the world news when a segment about the debt crisis came on. Now mind you this man is (was) a staunch Republican, donated money for the last several presidential campaigns, etc. He lost it and exclaimed “I will never F’ing vote Republican again……….and those Tea Party Neanderthals need to pull their heads out of their asses”.

So this got me pondering on the whole Tea Party thing, and I’ve dug into it a bit over the past few days and share some observations I’ve found. As much as I dislike them I’m going to refrain from using my earlier rhetoric of referring to them as Tea Tards.

From what I’ve researched about Mrs. Bachmann I’ve been able to draw some comparisons to what I’ve seen in my own experiences with Evangelical Christianity. If you haven’t found out by now from my posts, I’m a firm believer that there is a strain/sect/group in Evangelical Christianity that seems very comfortable with doing what they want with the Bible to fit whatever message/agenda they have. For example: My family and I attended in February a gathering of a local very popular Evangelical church to celebrate their 10 year anniversary. They are particularly noteworthy here in central AR as Kris Allen (of American Idol fame) regularly attends and performs, as he did this morning. The pastor, you’re typical white 50 something LSU fan is a very passionate speaker. At one point he promotes his upcoming sermon series on the Gospel of Luke. He adds that Luke wrote more of the New Testament than any other author. I immediately look at my wife with the WTF look. Here is a seminary educated pastor making such a blatant error………..and the crowd loved it, ate it up with a spoon.

That is not unlike what we have with Mrs. Bachmann, an Evangelical Christian who either knowingly or unknowlingly throws facts/context/history out the window to suit whatever agenda they are espousing all in the name of God.

Excerpts from the NY Times article………….

In the films, Schaeffer—who has a white goatee and is dressed in a shearling coat and mountain climber’s knickers—condemns the influence of the Italian Renaissance, the Enlightenment, Darwin, secular humanism, and postmodernism. He repeatedly reminds viewers of the “inerrancy” of the Bible and the necessity of a Biblical world view. “There is only one real solution, and that’s right back where the early church was,” Schaeffer tells his audience. “The early church believed that only the Bible was the final authority. What these people really believed and what gave them their whole strength was in the truth of the Bible as the absolute infallible word of God.”

I won’t digress into an analysis of this only to say the “early church” was COMPLETELY JEWISH, and their “Bible” was the Hebrew Scriptures (aka the Old Testament). They actually believed that GOD was the final authority, to believe that the Scriptures were would be idolatry.

Francis Schaeffer instructed his followers and students at L’Abri that the Bible was not just a book but “the total truth.” He was a major contributor to the school of thought now known as Dominionism, which relies on Genesis 1:26, where man is urged to “have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” Sara Diamond, who has written several books about evangelical movements in America, has succinctly defined the philosophy that resulted from Schaeffer’s interpretation: “Christians, and Christians alone, are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns.”

Which is interesting because Jesus clearly states that His followers should not chase after power like the Gentiles do………..instead they should seek to be a “slave” (Matthew 20:20-28).

When Biblical law conflicted with American law, Eidsmoe said, O.R.U. students were generally taught that “the first thing you should try to do is work through legal means and political means to get it changed.”

Stinkle, explain to me how this is any different than the Taliban in intent? This is a religious group that desires to turn the US into a Theocracy. Also please explain to me where in the Scriptures Jesus teaches His followers to establish their own country? If her position is defensible, please defend.

“Christianity and the Constitution” is ostensibly a scholarly work about the religious beliefs of the Founders, but it is really a brief for political activism. Eidsmoe writes that America “was and to a large extent still is a Christian nation,” and that “our culture should be permeated with a distinctively Christian flavoring.” When I asked him if he believed that Bachmann’s views were fully consistent with the prevailing ideology at O.R.U. and the themes of his book, he said, “Yes.” Later, he added, “I do not know of any way in which they are not.”

Eidsmoe has stirred controversy. In 2005, he spoke at the national convention of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a defiantly pro-white, and anti-black, organization. (Eidsmoe says that he deeply despises racism, but that he will speak “to anyone.”) In Alabama last year, he addressed an event commemorating Secession Day and told an interviewer that it was the state’s “constitutional right to secede,” and that “Jefferson Davis and John C. Calhoun understood the Constitution better than did Abraham Lincoln and Daniel Webster.” In April, 2010, he was disinvited from a Tea Party rally in Wausau, Wisconsin, because of these statements and appearances.
Bachmann has not, however, distanced herself, and she has long described her work for Eidsmoe as an important part of her résumé. This spring, she told a church audience in Iowa, “I went down to Oral Roberts University, and one of the professors that had a great influence on me was an Iowan named John Eidsmoe. He’s from Iowa, and he’s a wonderful man. He has theology degrees, he has law degrees, he’s absolutely brilliant. He taught me about so many aspects of our godly heritage.”

If as this would assert Bachmann believes as Eidmoe does, and the US is still a “Christian Nation”, then why the frak hasn’t she spoken up about the tragedy in Somolia? I’m pretty freaking sure that God’s heart is breaking about those 29,000 kids under 5 that have died preventable deaths………….not so much about our economy……….but I digress. (Granted this is a bit off topic and rhetorical on my part, but pisses me off none the less).

 

[Andyman_1970]

Part 2

After the birth of her fourth child, in 1992, Bachmann left the I.R.S. to be a stay-at-home mother. The Bachmanns also began taking in foster children, all of whom were teen-age girls and many of whom had eating disorders. Bachmann’s motivation seems to have been to save the girls, in the same way that she had been saved. “In my heart, God put something in me toward young people that I wanted to make sure the Gospel would go out to young people,” she said, in 2006. “So that young people could come to know Jesus at an early age, the earlier the better, so that they wouldn’t have to go through those pitfalls.”

In total, the Bachmanns took in twenty-three girls; I spoke with one of them (she did not want her name used), who stayed with the Bachmanns for three and a half years and now lives in Colorado. She said, “I owe the Bachmanns everything. They offered me the structure I needed and taught me how to figure out goals. They really encouraged me to figure out who I was rather than who I was becoming. I turned my life around one hundred and eighty degrees.”

I will say that is a very commendable thing the Bachmanns did taking in those girls.

In the late nineteen-nineties, William Cooper, a wealthy bank executive and conservative activist, became chairman of the Minnesota Republican Party, and started to demand more ideological purity. “He began a purge of people like me,” Laidig said. “No abortion, so if your daughter is raped or if you find out your child is going to be permanently a vegetable you have the kid. Not every abortion is birth control, O.K.? So really hard-core stuff.” He ticked off a long list of local pro-choice and moderate Republicans who were targeted for defeat. “We became persona-non-grata.”
Again, Taliban anyone?

Around this time, Bachmann became interested in the writings of David A. Noebel, the founder and director of Summit Ministries, an educational organization founded to reverse the harmful effects of what it calls “our current post-Christian culture.” He was a longtime John Birch Society member, whose pamphlets include “The Homosexual Revolution: End Time Abomination,” and “Communism, Hypnotism, and the Beatles,” in which Noebel argued that the band was being used by Communists to infiltrate the minds of young Americans. Bachmann once gave a speech touting her relationship with Noebel’s organization. “I went on to serve on the board of directors with Summit Ministries,” she said, adding that Summit’s message is “wonderful and worthwhile.” She has also recommended to supporters Noebel’s “Understanding the Times,” a book that is popular in the Christian homeschooling movement. In it, he explains that the “Secular Humanist worldview” is one of America’s greatest threats. Bachmann’s analysis of education law similarly veered off into conspiratorial warnings. “Government now will be controlling people,” she said during one lecture on education, at a church in Minnesota. “What has history shown us about planned, state economies in the last one hundred years? Think Fascism, think Communism, think socialism. Think, the state-planned economies, totalitarianism. Think Cuba! Do you want Cuba’s economy or do you want the United States of America’s economy?”

Notice the blurring of the lines between their understanding of Christianity and their desire to eradicate their perception of communism, socialism, etc?

Stinkle, where does the Bible teach that Christians should be capitalists (as opposed to socialists, etc)? Also keep in mind there are huge sections of the Torah that discuss redistributing wealth from those who are rich to those who are poor.

While looking over Bachmann’s State Senate campaign Web site, I stumbled upon a list of book recommendations. The third book on the list, which appeared just before the Declaration of Independence and George Washington’s Farewell Address, is a 1997 biography of Robert E. Lee by J. Steven Wilkins.

Wilkins is the leading proponent of the theory that the South was an orthodox Christian nation unjustly attacked by the godless North. This revisionist take on the Civil War, known as the “theological war” thesis, had little resonance outside a small group of Southern historians until the mid-twentieth century, when Rushdoony and others began to popularize it in evangelical circles. In the book, Wilkins condemns “the radical abolitionists of New England” and writes that “most southerners strove to treat their slaves with respect and provide them with a sufficiency of goods for a comfortable, though—by modern standards—spare existence.”

African slaves brought to America, he argues, were essentially lucky: “Africa, like any other pagan country, was permeated by the cruelty and barbarism typical of unbelieving cultures.” Echoing Eidsmoe, Wilkins also approvingly cites Lee’s insistence that abolition could not come until “the sanctifying effects of Christianity” had time “to work in the black race and fit its people for freedom.”

In his chapter on race relations in the antebellum South, Wilkins writes:

Slavery, as it operated in the pervasively Christian society which was the old South, was not an adversarial relationship founded upon racial animosity. In fact, it bred on the whole, not contempt, but, over time, mutual respect. This produced a mutual esteem of the sort that always results when men give themselves to a common cause. The credit for this startling reality must go to the Christian faith. . . . The unity and companionship that existed between the races in the South prior to the war was the fruit of a common faith.
For several years, the book, which Bachmann’s campaign declined to discuss with me, was listed on her Web site, under the heading “Michele’s Must Read List.”

Some more defending please. Please tell me how someone who claims to be a follower of Jesus can affirm a fundamental idea that treats a human, an Image bearing creation of God, like a product to be bought and sold? By listing that book is she not affirming that concept?

The two wings are now united by the simplest and most enduring strain of conservative ideology: a dislike and distrust of government. Religious and fiscal conservatives have been moving toward this kind of unity for decades, and Bachmann, in her crusades against abortion, education standards, gay marriage—as well as in her passionate opposition to raising the debt ceiling—has always cast government as the villain, often using terms that echo Schaeffer’s post-Roe warning that America risked falling into the hands of “a manipulative and authoritarian élite.”

As she flies from place to place in a multi million dollar Falcon 900…………..

Is Bachmann herself not wanting to place herself in the position as an authoritarian and impose her own unique views on others?

 

[stoney]

Andy - As much and you and I disagree about secular issues, you really are an example of what a proper Christian should be. One who believes, but with an open mind about science and other facts that can be proven. You also have a very critical thought process and inherent ability to critique hypocrisy within the multiple faiths.

 

[Silver]

Some more defending please. Please tell me how someone who claims to be a follower of Jesus can affirm a fundamental idea that treats a human, an Image bearing creation of God, like a product to be bought and sold? By listing that book is she not affirming that concept?

Where in the Bible does God have a problem with slavery? The Israelites in Egypt, maybe? That was God asserting his property rights, not an anti-slavery campaign.

 

[Pesqueeb]

As much as I dislike them I’m going to refrain from using my earlier rhetoric of referring to them as Tea Tards.

I'll quit calling them Tea Tards (or Tea Baggers) when they learn the difference between the words "socialism" and "fascism". They also need to stop calling health care reform "Obama Care".

 

[Silver]

I'll quit calling them Tea Tards (or Tea Baggers) when they learn the difference between the words "socialism" and "fascism". They also need to stop calling health care reform "Obama Care".

It's offensive to people who are actually retarded, I think.

 

[dante]

Part 1

Ok, so I’ve been vexed by this Tea Party thing for several weeks now. On a recent visit with my parents my dad and I were enjoying our long time tradition of enjoying a beer and watching the world news when a segment about the debt crisis came on. Now mind you this man is (was) a staunch Republican, donated money for the last several presidential campaigns, etc. He lost it and exclaimed “I will never F’ing vote Republican again……….and those Tea Party Neanderthals need to pull their heads out of their asses”.

Can I live vicariously through you? I don't think that my parents have had that epiphany yet......

 

[Silver]

Can I live vicariously through you? I don't think that my parents have come to that epiphany yet......

To be fair, why would Andy's Dad have to vote Republican? He just vote Democrat, and get a Republican minus some of the insanity.

 

[$tinkle]

Part 1

i'm going to hit the pause button here until i re-watch the lovely & infallible francis schaeffer's "early church" series, thankfully available on u2b. when i had last viewed it (dozen+ yrs ago), i was a member of the church of christ (liberal arm: chicks could wear jeans & adult baptism wasn't mandatory for salvation), where of course "early church" was essential for their doctrine. point is: i'm not sure (yet) schaeffer intended to be a cheerleader for the CoC, or that what the NYT author wrote was a terse & accurate summary, or cherry pickings spoon fed by his [prodigal] son. i'll get back to you on that, hopefully later today if i can isolate a block of time.

Stinkle, explain to me how this is any different than the Taliban in intent? This is a religious group that desires to turn the US into a Theocracy. Also please explain to me where in the Scriptures Jesus teaches His followers to establish their own country? If her position is defensible, please defend.

i see i have successfully/unintentionally trolled you. let's be clear: bachmann, while doing what i would call good deeds in her personal life, is less-than-qualified to be a serious contender for high office, imho. "better than palin" isn't quite good enough for me. add to that her husband's creepy pussification as a liability. you'd think she'd land a man's man, like -- i'm going to need a shower after writing this -- todd palin

 

[jimmydean]

"Obama Care".

it's just easier to remember, that's all. They have NO IDEA what it actually refers to other than something to get worked up over.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Where in the Bible does God have a problem with slavery? The Israelites in Egypt, maybe? That was God asserting his property rights, not an anti-slavery campaign.

I’m not going to go into an indepth analysis on this but I’ll hit the highlights:

I’m not going to “bend” the Text and proclaim that God directly condemns slavery, it’s not in there.

However:

Multiple places in the Torah where slaves are allowed to go free after 6 years of service. From what I’ve researched this was revolutionary for it’s time.

Isaiah 65 talks about what a “New Heaven and a New Earth” will be like, it’s not a stretch to see that slavery won’t be a part of that. One could infer that slavery is thus not how God intends earth to be.

Jesus never really addresses the subject.

Paul in the letter to Philemon encourages him to free his slave that is returning to him Onesemus. Paul also addresses the church at Galatia indicating there is no “slave or free” in the community of followers of Jesus.

I understand the Text as “moving”. You have passages in the OT that discuss all sorts of stuff about slaves, and then it “moves” to where Paul is with his letter to Philemon. I would argue the culmination of this “movement” is when Heaven and Earth become one and things are as God intends them to be.