Bachmann rewrites Revolutionary History...

Nmysys wrote: Critical:

Sorry to disagree with your calling them gaffes.

Hank Johnson's wasn't a gaffe, it was pure stupidity. Maybe we can justify Obama's comment about visiting 57 states as a gaffe but that really is a stretch. Sorry to disagree with you, my friend.

OK, Hank is a mega numbnut, he had plenty of time to think that one through and it was an epic fail....even my 12 year old is smarter than that.

:thumbsup:

Spin fact #1 - I have never called President Obama my messiah. That is your spin.

Spin fact #2 - If you read my post, I say the First Lady made a mistake with the BBQ comment. You are the one comparing the President with people who are not. That is your spin.

Spin fact #3 - Facts blow your mind. This is the funniest spin because there is not one statement of truth in your entire post.

Thing is I stated that Bachmann and the First Lady were both guilty of this. Both sides. You obviously have some crazy blinders on and I hope you start to look at this world from both sides instead of your current one sided attitude. I, for one, have appreciated Nymsys's efforts to address the issues without the attitude and personal attacks. I am more prone to listen to his POV now. I would kindly suggest you look into this method and maybe we could have some real conversations instead of the smiley faces and insults.

Yes, Nym has elected to take the high road and I applaud him for that.

Back to the OP:

"The latest gaffe may not hurt Bachmann with those grass-roots activists who are attracted to her for her attacks against the Obama administration, but it could hamper her efforts to be taken seriously among the broader swath of Republicans she’d need to win the nomination."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/03 ... z1GR1nx7vr

We've really got to get someone good if we're going to have any hope in the next election. It's certainly not a slam dunk as some of the extreme partisans have portrayed on here.

kresspin, as your name implies..you spin here and you spin there..your new name is "Skippy"...you have been getting spanked pretty good, maybe take a self-time out and go to bed...you need rest..

Maybe because I had heard of Concord, New Hampshire when I was young, I always thought the battle took place in NH until I actually read the history. Hard to walk from Boston to New Hampshire for those British redcoats in one night.

here's my opinion, regardless of political party - every damn candidate should have to take a comprehensive U.S. History test - and pass it over 80%.

They should have to take a geography test - worldwide - and pass it over 90%.

They should have to take a current world events test - and pass it with 90%.

Of course, this will vastly limit the political field. But we'd be better off for it.

Local_Historian wrote: here's my opinion, regardless of political party - every damn candidate should have to take a comprehensive U.S. History test - and pass it over 80%.

They should have to take a geography test - worldwide - and pass it over 90%.

They should have to take a current world events test - and pass it with 90%.

Of course, this will vastly limit the political field. But we'd be better off for it.

As a amateur historian and geography nut, (I have maps mounted all over the house.) I would prefer my politicians did have a deep knowledge of history, international politics and geography, but I wouldn't make it a requirement.

Or the voting public can vote for people who do understand more than fund raising and glad handing.

I would. If they can't even tell where basic history that every school kid learns actually happened, how am I supposed to trust them with the important stuff?