Saw this article posted on CNN... http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/19/boehner-calls-bachmann-accusations-pretty-dangerous/ Curious to see what the thoughts around the group are about this. While I think the potential exists for a threat to exist along these lines, I cringe at the potential "solutions" from a civil liberty point of view. Obviously, security clearance screening would address most of this, but for those not subject to that screening...
When both Sens. Boehner and McCain are telling a member of their own party they're full of it, they're probably full of it. aside: "Islamic infiltrators" - the new Red Scare, anyone?
She'd be the first Islamist I know of to be married to a Jewish New Yorker.... The whole thing stinks of xenophobia and fearmongering.
I think it is both absurd and disgusting. That good enough for you? It is another dog whistle for those who don't buy that President Obama and the folks who work for him are somehow un-American. So you post a link with "some more details on the matter" from an online magazine published by a guy who sees the Muslim Brotherhood behind every bush. You need better sources.
Bachmann may be smart, but nearly everything that comes out of her mouth is ridiculous. Some people are going to have to get used to the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood, whatever nefarious dealings it has had in the past, is now legit political party who is for all intents and purposes is running Egypt. As one of our most important partners in the region, we're going to have to stop implying that their president and his party are defacto terrorists.
So first you say "she appears to be a nut on the surface", implying she's not really. Then you post an article from a crazy dude and say it's the same train of thought that she is probably using...implying she's fucking nuts. So which is it? Because I know where I think she falls on the scale.
A paragraph starting with an oxymoron, is bound to be confusing. Say whaaat...?? BzB, scratching head...
Not supporting the Senator's call for a broad blanket investigation of the entire government based on religion. But let's not put our heads in the sand. Consider this. Half way through this article about a routine government fraud case worth $500,000 we get to the real news. An ICE intelligence chief named Ahmed Abdallat made unauthorized trips to Jordan, had multiple Jordanian passports, sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to the middle east and has well over $1M in overseas accounts. All this on a government salary. Minimum, this guy had a TS clearance and access to anti terror investigations. He has since pled guilty to the fraud. But where is the investigation regarding the multiple passports, unauthorized travel, money transfers and overseas accounts? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/01/top-ice-figure-expected-to-plead-guilty-to-brazen-500g-scam/
Presumably, your reason for posting was to convince us that we should adopt your opinion as our own. I'm not sure you're doing a great job of selling it to us. If you know Bachmann personally, convince us her positions on things aren't as insane as they seem.
It's hard to determine a persons intelligence, but, what they say generally gives us a clue. Some people are just best left ignored. "I will tell you that I had a mother last night come up to me here in Tampa, Florida, after the debate. She told me that her little daughter took that vaccine, that injection, and she suffered from mental retardation thereafter." "Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas." "If we took away the minimum wage -- if conceivably it was gone -- we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level."
I honestly don't see this as any indication of Bachmann's un-intelligence. No need to agree with her. No need to approve of her tactics or strategy. But honestly... Quote #1. All she was doing was repeating what some one else represented to her. I am not familiar with that statement but she has spoken about certain mandatory vaccines in the context of religious and personal liberty Quote # 2. This is in regards to the EPA calling carbon dioxide a harmful pollutant. Will carbon dioxide kill ya, sure, in excessive qualities just like nitrogen and oxygen (in certain conditions) But it is hardly poisonous or inherently harmful. As to it's harmful effect on the environment, we know her position on that and it is becoming more debatable by the month. Losts of people even you would consider smart would agree with her on carbon dioxids effect on global warming. Quote# 3. Theoretically true. A completely free labor market means there is a job for everyone at a price they would do the job at. Sorry, I just feel that calling someone stupid for their positions and opinions indicates a lack of intellectual ammunition to do battle in the arena of ideas. I bet you are better than that.
Well, how's this for ammunition? tox·ic (tksk) adj. 1. Of, relating to, or caused by a toxin or other poison. 2. Capable of causing injury or death, especially by chemical means; poisonous. n. A toxic chemical or other substance. By the way, CO2 kills you by acidosis, the same mechanism as cyanide. As for CO2's role in temperature rise, the United States is the only place in the world where a community of people believe that higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations doesn't cause an increase in global temperature. The scientific community is also in consensus. What are we, the only people in the world smart enough to see the evidence? Has science been wrong before? Sure, but saying that its becoming "more debatable" by the month is, frankly, wrong. It isn't. The trend is in the opposite direction. As for quote 3, as an economics major, I'll leave it at this: Both you and Congresswoman Bachmann need to take an economics class. An unrestricted labor market does not result in universal employment...at any wage level.
First, please go to the issue at hand. Do you believe Sen Bachmann, who earned a LLM from William and Mary, one of the best law schools in the country, and worked as an attorney for the IRS, is not intelligent based on the statements provided above? If so, I have a few quotes from Al Gore, President Obama, Bill Clinton and Joe Biden for you to review. I would expect you to find them imbeciles. Now if you want to claim its the quotes are not intellectually supportable, I'll burn some band width and parry just for fun. Don't wish to debate global warming in this thread as it is beyond a thread jack even for me. Moreover, I know I won't change your mind. On your statements however, I'll challange you. Would please quote a Chemistry text book that defines Carbon Dioxide as inherently toxic or poisonous? Nearly every substance and element is harmful to humans if taken in extreme quantities or in unnatural conditions Oxygen is a good eexample. By your definition nitrogen, oxygen, helium, and hydrogen, nearly anything could be poisonous or toxic. That is why this designation was bad policy. It clearly was not science. CO2 was designated a harmful pollutant for the purposes of global warming regulations and it took the help of a sympathetic Federal judge to get to that point. Because it was solely in the realm of global warming it became political. America is not the only country where you find global warming skeptics. It is where the greatest number are and the most vocal. That is because we are a big country with a large media. Our press is also among the most free and investigative. Our citizens are some of the most distrustful of authority, especially the government. That is a good thing. Because Europe, or South America do something does not make it worthy of emulation by the US. Thousands of scientists publicly do not agree with the predominate gobal warming theory. Thousands more must hold the same opinion but don't vocalize it. If your final comment regarding my statement that doubt is building by the month simply refers to the current surface temps we have seen in the US over the summer, well then... I am shocked. On the unemployment comment, remember I said theoretically and the Senator said "virtually". I also never said "universal". If you have a degree in economics then you must also know that there is some debate on this subject. It appears in every basic econ text. So your absolutist comment is without authority. You just chose what you want to believe. I, and I suspect Sen. Bachmann, chose to believe the theory that is most supported by reality, and that is minminimum wage increases almost always result in higher unemployment in the low wage unskilled sectors. And that is where futrure higher wage workers get groomed, trained, and promote from. If there is no minimum wage workers, who provide their labor in a market place, and employers, who "consume" labor, will make continuous adjustments the labor supplied to the market according to price paid for the labor (wage) until the quantity of labor demanded is equal to the labor supplied. It is simply the same supply and demand curves I hope you learned in 4 years of economics. Minimum wage laws act like price controls. Those old enough remember what gas price controls did in the 70s and New Yorkers know what price controls have done to housing. All that said, there will always be some small number of people uneunemployed. They move from job to job with in the labor market and some decide that they want to remove themselves from the market. There are also some sectors where wage increases are very easily transfered on to the consumer. But by and large, I subsubscribe the theory stated above, as do a very large (majority, I think) number of economists. You can chose to believe the alternative theories on this if you wish. To say anyone that holds my view, Sen. Bachmann's, Thomas Sowell's and numerous text book authors lacks intelligence is outrageous. I am willing to accept that there is one other theory regarding minimum wage that smart people have advanced. I have looked at both and reject the other theory. I don't think the people that embrace that theory are stupid, unscholorly or politically partisan. They just have to work harder to convince me they are right. That would be the same for global warming theory and the proposition that Sen. Bachmann lacks intelligence, except most folks that call Sen Bachmann un-intelligent are partisan.
Thanks. The last thing I wanted to do was promote her. My bad! Hope no one minds me not going back over the last few long winded posts to correct it.
Ok...I'll try to keep my response short since NONE of what we are talking about is really what the thread is about. No, I don't believe Congresswoman Bachmann is stupid. However, I do think that as a politician, she puts her first priority on the implications of the position she is taking, whether or not they make sense to her intellect. Politicians say things to continue being politicians, not necessarily because they are true, intelligent, or otherwise useful. Every one of the Bachmann quotes we've talked about is a position that she has calculated will curry her favor with a demographic that will get her elected. I don't think she's stupid but I think that she, even more than most politicians, cares less about what is true/right/"intelligent" than what is politically expedient. CO2? Not a lot of chemistry texts available online...however... http://www.uigi.com/carbondioxide.html This really isn't the point though. I agree with you that the designation of CO2 by the EPA was a political, not scientific act, designed to allow increased regulation of its emission. As to CO2's role in global warming...I did overstate the point that the US was "the only place in the world..." where climate change was significantly doubted. I apologize. I was hungover. We aren't here to debate climate change... Finally, as to the economic point...yes, I am aware that you said "theoretically". However, you said this: And it is not true. A completely free labor market does not mean there is a job for everyone. That it's theoretical is a given since there has never been a macro-scale "free" market. If you don't believe this, try Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith or The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by JM Keynes or Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman. There is healthy debate as to whether the minimum wage increases or decreases unemployment in our economy...I tend to think it does increase it slightly...but your statement was, and is, patently false.
The money transfers and overseas accounts were likely part of the fraud and thus wrapped up with that. Multiple passports and unauthorized travel would likely be part of a counterintelligence investigation and those are classified. As for being an 'ICE intelligence supervisor' at the El Paso office, probably nowhere near as impressive as it sounds.
