Michelle Bachmann says "Gays have bullied the American people"

[Reeve]

Socially liberal is not about "social programs". Although, I guess it may depend on what you mean by social programs. Social [insert political affiliation here]isms are about how much control and what type of control the government should have the rights of people.

Yes I'm aware. I'm really talking more about the fiscally conservative thing, which people who are socially conservative rarely say. They usually just say, "I'm conservative."

The problem is that it's very easy to say "I'm fiscally conservative," because very few people in any position will just say, "Hey, let's be irresponsible with our money!!!" It's like saying, "I'm for peace on Earth and goodwill towards men!" There's no real definition of how to get there, but peace on Earth would be awfully nice, right? They usually want to be responsible with their money, but there are enough important things to spend that money on that they have no idea where to cut. It's exacerbated here, often, because people often have very little understanding of what's actually in the budget in the first place.

I guess it's just a phrase that's come to annoy me, because I used to use it myself, before I realized how vague and meaningless it was when confronted with other people that say the same thing and have completely different meanings.

[Dendrek]

I've experienced gay bullying first hand. A group of buff gay men cornered me and ridiculed the way I dressed. It was horrible.

My god! Don't tell me they gave you a makeover...

[belfpala]

After reading the OP, and what Michelle actually said, she said those things in a respectful way, although she was still stating what she believed to be facts.

The difference between any of us and her is that she has actual power to make those beliefs become law (for now).

[Sky High]

who gives a fuck what she thinks. she's A grade nuts.

[Deleted]

She's completely right.

[Dendrek]

Yes I'm aware. I'm really talking more about the fiscally conservative thing, which people who are socially conservative rarely say. They usually just say, "I'm conservative."

The problem is that it's very easy to say "I'm fiscally conservative," because very few people in any position will just say, "Hey, let's be irresponsible with our money!!!" It's like saying, "I'm for peace on Earth and goodwill towards men!" There's no real definition of how to get there, but peace on Earth would be awfully nice, right? They usually want to be responsible with their money, but there are enough important things to spend that money on that they have no idea where to cut. It's exacerbated here, often, because people often have very little understanding of what's actually in the budget in the first place.

I guess it's just a phrase that's come to annoy me, because I used to use it myself, before I realized how vague and meaningless it was when confronted with other people that say the same thing and have completely different meanings.

Pretty good points. I'd say though that just calling oneself "conservative" (if you aren't socially conservative) does not imply the same meaning as it did 20 years go. It can be a dubious title considering the impact social conservatives are having on the party's image.

It's unfortunate too. A lot of rational conservatives do not support the stuff their party has been doing lately. But it's not easy to just jump ship, especially when the only other ship out there is going in the opposite direction. I fear, and sometimes see evidence of it, that a compulsion to support their camp combined with the harsh backlash that they witness and experience makes it more and more easy to accept that the crazy things some in their party are spouting... might have some grain of truth.

Is my slippery-slope fear unjustified? I suspect in 10-20 years, we'll know for sure.

Example:
- Day 1 fiscal conservative: "I support gay rights."
- Days 2-286 he sees a lot of vitriol thrown at conservatives who are against gay rights and sees targeted conservatives throw out the victim card at every possible occasion.
- Day 287 fiscal conservative: "I used to support gay rights."

[lizon]

Best way to handle people like Bachmann are to simply ignore them.

[spinner981]

It's funny how people think we should be tolerant of intolerance and bullying, or we're intolerant and bullies for "not accepting their views".

It's like a playground bully getting mad and saying "Why are you fighting back?! You hit me back, why are you bullying ME?!"

Doesn't matter if the bully hits someone, hitting the bully is still against the rules and will get you sent to the principles office. Although this case is drastically different, rather than it being a bully who is actually physically attacking you, it's more like a 'bully' saying "Pfff, CoD is so lame and is only for wussies!" and then you attack him, because you viewed what he said as wrong. This has nothing to do with facts and everything to do with opinions.

There is NO POINT in claiming that you are tolerant when you just define 'everything you agree with' as toleration worthy and 'everything you disagree with' as not worthy of tolerance. The point of tolerance is that you tolerate things you don't agree with, not that you are just accepting of whatever is viewed as being 'politically correct' at the time.

You don't get to just label anyone you want as a 'bully' (based on your own biased opinion) and then say that its ok to bully those 'bullies'. That's not how it works. Well... maybe that's how it works in upside down crazy town.

[Aurimas]

I would hope that the reason it was vetoed is because of the realization that a bill encouraging discrimination was morally bankrupt.

I would accept the reason that is was vetoed was to save the time and money it would take just to watch the bill get tossed on its ass in court.

More likely it was just some people were worried about an election somewhere, and figure they will just double down on bigotry in a year or two.

[spinner981]

The difference between any of us and her is that she has actual power to make those beliefs become law (for now).

What beliefs? I thought that this thread was about gays 'bullying' politicians and the country? Is that what she is trying to make law? Or are you referring to something else that she wasn't talking about?

[GennGreymane]

I've experienced gay bullying first hand. A group of buff gay men cornered me and ridiculed the way I dressed. It was horrible.

Pfft just learn how to dress

*stride of pride's away* now back to making Dose Equis commercials..... (For I Genn Greymane, am awesome)

on a serious note. Shes nuts, we know this, her voters are likely very nuts, and I am glad she is retiring.

[Wells]

Doesn't matter if the bully hits someone, hitting the bully is still against the rules and will get you sent to the principles office. Although this case is drastically different, rather than it being a bully who is actually physically attacking you, it's more like a 'bully' saying "Pfff, CoD is so lame and is only for wussies!" and then you attack him, because you viewed what he said as wrong. This has nothing to do with facts and everything to do with opinions.

There is NO POINT in claiming that you are tolerant when you just define 'everything you agree with' as toleration worthy and 'everything you disagree with' as not worthy of tolerance. The point of tolerance is that you tolerate things you don't agree with, not that you are just accepting of whatever is viewed as being 'politically correct' at the time.

You don't get to just label anyone you want as a 'bully' (based on your own biased opinion) and then say that its ok to bully those 'bullies'. That's not how it works. Well... maybe that's how it works in upside down crazy town.

Equating people who want equal rights with people who want to restrict rights is pretty stupid.

[spinner981]

Equating people who want equal rights with people who want to restrict rights is pretty stupid.

Gays have equal rights. Also, why would it matter?

[belfpala]

What beliefs? I thought that this thread was about gays 'bullying' politicians and the country? Is that what she is trying to make law? Or are you referring to something else that she wasn't talking about?

Perhaps I pay more attention to her because she's one of my neighbors. Her views on gay people are entirely based on her beliefs.

Edit: If you think I'm being intolerant, try this: my beliefs on this issue don't involve trampling on anyone. Hers do. If my beliefs win, which they will, it affects her beliefs in no way at all. If her beliefs win, if affects many.

[Kaleredar]

To hell with what Michelle Bachmann says. This is giving her more media attention than she deserves.

These tea party republicans are like grease fires. It's best to let them just burn themselves out. Pouring water on them just makes them flare higher because then they can say that you're "not respecting their views" and push their agenda even further.

[Dendrek]

Gays have equal rights. Also, why would it matter?

Oh. I must have missed when gays were given the right to marry in every state of the Union. Can you point out which day that happened on?

[Cthulhu 2020]

Doesn't matter if the bully hits someone, hitting the bully is still against the rules and will get you sent to the principles office. Although this case is drastically different, rather than it being a bully who is actually physically attacking you, it's more like a 'bully' saying "Pfff, CoD is so lame and is only for wussies!" and then you attack him, because you viewed what he said as wrong. This has nothing to do with facts and everything to do with opinions.

There is NO POINT in claiming that you are tolerant when you just define 'everything you agree with' as toleration worthy and 'everything you disagree with' as not worthy of tolerance. The point of tolerance is that you tolerate things you don't agree with, not that you are just accepting of whatever is viewed as being 'politically correct' at the time.

You don't get to just label anyone you want as a 'bully' (based on your own biased opinion) and then say that its ok to bully those 'bullies'. That's not how it works. Well... maybe that's how it works in upside down crazy town.

You do realize that the right as well as judeo-christianity has been not only violently persecuting gays for... hundreds of years, but here in the US, it's not just calling their way of life lame, it's actively using the power of government to persecute them, or stop them from living the life they want which harms no one.

If you believe that anti-gay legislation is in any way harmful to no one, you are so far removed from reality, it may not even be worth trying to explain it to you, because your mental block will clearly prevent you from ever even acknowledging anything.

People vote for these jokes of politicians. These politicians push for anti-gay legislation, which hurts people. That is bullying. These people want equal rights. Giving them equal rights does not hurt anyone in any way, other than the hyper religious zealots who think it's their right to persecute other people, and get mad that they can't.

Pretending that the right doesn't hurt anyone with their hateful legislation is delusional at best.

[zorkuus]

Just like blacks bullied america to give them rights?

[Nostop it]

Perhaps I pay more attention to her because she's one of my neighbors. Her views on gay people are entirely based on her beliefs.

Edit: If you think I'm being intolerant, try this: my beliefs on this issue don't involve trampling on anyone. Hers do. If my beliefs win, which they will, it affects her beliefs in no way at all. If her beliefs win, if affects many.

So if I own a cake store and a gay couple comes in to buy a cake but I refuse service because of my religious beliefs is that fine with you?

[tss]

It's almost as if nobody really gives a crap about tolerance of beliefs and acceptance of all walks of life

This is the fatal flaw of your reasoning. It's not about tolerance of beliefs, it's about tolerance of people. If your beliefs involve intolerance, perhaps your walk of life is invalid and not deserving of... tolerance.