Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Republicans

Journal damn_registrars's Journal: Michelle Bachman Compares Obama to Andreas Lubitz 65

Journal by damn_registrars
Former presidential hopeful Michelle Bachman recently compared President Obama to Germanwings copilot Andreas Lubitz:

"With his Iran deal, Barack Obama is for the 300 million souls of the United States what Andreas Lubitz was for the 150 souls on the German Wings (sic) flight - a deranged pilot flying his entire nation into the rocks. After the fact, among the smoldering remains of American cities, the shocked survivors will ask, why did he do it?"

No, this is not an April Fool's joke. She really is that far disconnected from reality.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Michelle Bachman Compares Obama to Andreas Lubitz More

Michelle Bachman Compares Obama to Andreas Lubitz

Comments Filter:

  • Never ascribe to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest. She's not disconnected from reality, she's trying to disconnect you and me from reality.

    She doesn't seem to be very good at it.

    • I'm not sure how it is in her self-interest to disconnect others from reality; she doesn't need to recruit believers to continue to attract attention. It seems pretty clear that her presidential goose is cooked anyways, she just needs to keep bringing in enough attention to pull in revenue from the tabloids so she can land the fox news or reality tv gig that she aspires to.

    • She doesn't seem to be very good at it.

      I'm sorry, what?

      Disconnect, no. Distract... She has peoples' attention and scares them into voting for democrats to keep the 'crazy' republicans out. Alternatives are not given the time of day. Mission Accomplished, sir.

      • But you'll teach 'em all a lesson by not voting, and then telling us that we are all wrong by voting for the people on the ballot! That will certainly bring credence to your conspiracy and prove you right for all eternity; maybe we'll congratulate you by making you emperor for life afterwards!
    • By tasteless, are you referring to her calling Lubitz "deranged", or something else? Her monologue regarding President Lawnchair isn't much different from much of yours.

      And for that matter I just saw some guy on google plus trying to resurrect the birther hysteria over him recently with new "allegations" regarding the Hawaiian birth. I'm surprised you haven't jumped on board that bandwagon yet.
      • Well, let me not be confused with one of #OccupyResoluteDesk's throne sniffers.
        But using a tragedy like that in a prophetic mode is tasteless. As tasteless as the idiotic Indiana protests designed to distract from Her Majesty's email fiasco, and SecState Kerry's rodeo-clownery. Or the whip cracking on Menendez's back to keep those Democrat Senators on the plantation.
        Were there less at stake, maybe some of this buffoonery would be amusing.

        • But using a tragedy like that in a prophetic mode is tasteless.

          It's easy to say that when the person doing it doesn't have much of a chance of becoming your party's next spokesperson (again).

          However I recall that your last POTUS used a tragedy (that killed even more people) to justify a terrible mistake that killed over 3,000 Americans and unknown thousands of non-Americans. I have never seen you criticize that use of a tragedy.

          As tasteless as the idiotic Indiana protests designed to distract from Her Majesty's email fiasco

          Is that your idea of an April Fool's joke? I have never heard anyone reach far enough into absurdity before to try to connect those two

          • I have never seen you criticize that use of a tragedy.

            So? If I were less credulous, I might think you merely a cheap manipulator, trying to make others do your dance. But you'd never be less than forthright in your dealings.

            Is that your idea of an April Fool's joke?

            No, this [theothermccain.com].

            • I have never seen you criticize that use of a tragedy.

              So?

              My point is that when your guy is in the white house, and using 9/11 as a justification to waste thousands of American lives and billions upon billions of dollars on a wholly unjustified invasion of a sovereign nation, you were a cheerleader for the adventure. You are criticizing someone else from your party who is trying to make political capital from a more recent tragedy, but your record suggests that if that person were in the white house you would not be criticizing them at all.

              Is that your idea of an April Fool's joke?

              No

              So then your conspira

              • So? Time passed. I learned. Efforts at multi-hangings For The Same Crap succeed in making your butt look big.
                This is why I ceased to think you argue in good faith, and quit giving you the benefit of the doubt.

                • Efforts at multi-hangings For The Same Crap succeed in making your butt look big.

                  Wait a minute, here. There have been how many investigations - including multiple ones that have been conducted and endorsed by the federal government - into your favorite conspiracy and yet you keep asking for more? There has been not a single investigation into the pile of lies that your guy gave us to lead us into an unjustified and unprovoked war that cost thousands of American lives and unknown billions of dollars.

                  Not. One. Single. Investigation.

                  The one calling for multi-hangings is you.

                  This is why I ceased to think you argue in good faith, and quit giving you the benefit of the doubt.

                  So

                  • Your ability to stand there with a mouth full of filth and thank Cthulhu for the feast is truly wondrous. I suppose you think Her Majesty and the no-talent rodeo clown are both innocent, despite the recent email server revelations. How much more silly could it get? None. None more silly. Yet you keep pluckin' that chicken.
                    • How many people died as a result of Hillary's email server? Your hyperpartisanship has crossed the line of absurdity a long time ago.

                    • Your ability to stand there with a mouth full of filth and thank Cthulhu for the feast is truly wondrous.

                      Learn to consume and savor the same poop you lob unto others. I eagerly await an elaboration on what you have 'learned' after you finished pimping Romney and the party, and especially in light of who you favor now. Your *metric system* is indeed interesting.

                    • How many people died as a result of Hillary's email server?

                      Probably a bunch. Lots of weapons sales (that was her job, in case you haven't figured it out) transpired through those those servers, and considering precedence, many of those sales were probably illegal. But I gotta give her credit for the increased market share [nytimes.com].

                      She already have your vote? Baaaaa...

                    • Oh, so you're positing some "body count metric" for rationalizing unethical behavior? Do elaborate. This could get interesting.

                    • She already have your vote? Baaaaa..

                      Well, as she parleyed his soul away to Cthulhu long ago, the vote is hardly a footnote.

                    • And what's your favorite metric? Yes, this could get interesting.

                    • My favorite metric? This is both interesting and joyous.
                      I'm keen on the one where, after three days, He arose, that death may die.
                      Happy Easter!

                    • Nice cop out!

                    • Oh, just get stuffed. You asked, I answered, and then you accuse.

                    • I asked, what's your favorite metric for rationalizing unethical behavior? As always you evade the question. You didn't answer shit, though your reaction is very revealing nonetheless (and I thank you for that)... You're still copping out. And I don't make accusations, that is your role.

                    • Dude. It's up the page. You asked: "And what's your favorite metric? Yes, this could get interesting."
                      Now, since you have floated a different question my favorite metric for rationalizing unethical behavior is probably the party affiliation letter following the name of the public figure in question.
                      A related metric is, in a news report of unethical behavior, the positioning of the party affiliation for the public figure. For one party, the affiliation is quite prominent, and hammered like a predatory Pres
                    • I saw Pimping Romney open for the Orwellian Douchebags in Virginia Beach in 2011. PR's "Ain't damn_registrars The Biggest Knob EVAR?" release was doing well with the stoned & curious demographic, from what I could tell.

                    • I didn't 'float' a different question at all. It was in direct reference and response to your post. I fully expected you to play dumb with that, and you did it perfectly. Again, thank you. You simply performed a typical evasion tactic. You copped out and still are in denial. Veeeerrrryyy interesting!

                      For another party, the crickets...

                      :-) Yes, exactly. But, for you it's the cult of personality that you grade everyone on. Your 'absolute zero', if you will, or even, if you won't. It's crickets and total defer

                    • You copped out and still are in denial.

                      Wow, even though I answered your altered question? You never cease to astound, sir.

                      It's crickets and total deference for your idols who act the same way.

                      I do not defend the GOP, but that doesn't seem to upset your tautologies in the slightest.

                    • I'm a little concerned to hear that I occupy your thoughts that often when you are not on slashdot. I guess everyone needs a hobby, though.
                    • Impervious to jests, you are.
                    • The signal-to-noise is so poor with your "jests" it is impossible to tell when they are in jest or not.
                    • This is Slashdot: What. Signal?

                    • You 'answered' nothing.

                      I do not defend the GOP...

                      I didn't say anything about the GOP...

                    • Yes, that's correct. I over-read you.

                    • This is Slashdot: What. Signal?

                      Rare as it is, there does exist some useful signal here. I like to think that I contribute to it. I expect most members who are not intentional trolls like to think the same of themselves.

                      If you have decided to just go for 100% noise that is one approach one could take, however it hardly seems like it would be worth the time investment on this failing site. Why be a clown on the Titanic after hitting the iceberg? Nobody will remember your efforts.

                    • :-) Seems to be chronic...

                    • It happened, and I admit it when it does. So: acute, not chronic.
                    • You and fustakrakich are two delightfully broken records. I guess if you'd held up your end of the Marx bargain, I could take you more seriously. But it's just one rationalization or excuse after another with you. So what difference, at this point, does it make?
                    • So you'll only talk with me if you can convince yourself that I am being more genuine than you? That is a fascinating metric, there.

                    • :-) You only admit it when it's too obvious to cover up, but it is definitely is chronic when you bump up against anybody who doesn't follow your script.

                    • I pop into Slashdot for passing entertainment, as time allows. Frequent breaks are needful, as the broken records on here seem increasingly tedious.
                    • Ah, the accusatory "script". Along with "tribe", these are pointy little words that you sure know how to fetish, eh?

                    • Not 'accusatory', just plain fact. Your game is too easy.

                    • I get it. It's "just plain fact" when you do it. Check your privilege.

                    • Do what?

                    • Do what you do. It works great on my end, as well.

                    • :-) That's a given... You are the teacher

                    • Truly I suck, for you'd have better regard for the truth, which is Christ.

                    • Truly I suck...

                      On the contrary, sir! You have been most helpful in confirming the truth. And from what I can gather, your Christ wasn't a bigot, republican, or American. The stuff I read doesn't indicate any such thing. I don't know why the people who claim to follow him are so hateful. It must be because they are reasonably well off. Heh, talk about materialistic bourgeoisie! They are the worst, and it shows. You're hanging with a bad crowd.

                    • I don't know why the people who claim to follow him are so hateful. It must be because they are reasonably well off. Heh, talk about materialistic bourgeoisie! They are the worst, and it shows. You're hanging with a bad crowd.

                      It's true. One should move to Iran, to hang with the cool kids. Dork.

                    • Ahhh, relativism... You surprise me... not.

                      Do a body count someday :-)

                    • Only if I had your omniscience could such a count have meaning.

                    • Oh? What's your 'metric'?

                    • You're the one asking for a "body count", boss.

                    • You are the one claiming the supremacy of the Christian religion. By what metric is that based?

                    • A purely subjective one where I note your incapacity to deliver a meaning for life superior to the Gospel.

                    • Subjective is personal...

                • I learned.

                  This, is very doubtful. You still stand for the aristocracy. The people you support are *The Same Crap* in a new suit, not even a 'new' suit, just one that has been bleached whiter than white.

  • Michelle Bachman is a poser. Read up on your Diane Feinstein right there on the front page. Your idiot democrats are just as bad, worse...

Slashdot Top Deals

I think there's a world market for about five computers. -- attr. Thomas J. Watson (Chairman of the Board, IBM), 1943

Close