11 comments on “The Lady with No Sense(us)

  1. Boy, that Bachmann is off her rocker. Picking and choosing what aspects of the law you choose to follow. Picking and choosing what aspects of morality you choose to follow. These have become the staples of the GOP.

    I guess this begs the question: what the heck is wrong with the people in Minnesota?

    • Right! Picking and choosing has become a calling card of sorts. I’m curious to see what would happen if a cop pulled her over for speeding and she told the officer how much she disagreed with the law. I suspect he would laugh at her while he continued writing her ticket.

      I guess this begs the question: what the heck is wrong with the people in Minnesota?

      In Minnesota’s defense, she’s a state rep. She has a smaller constituency in Minnesota.

  2. As much as you may want to attack Rep. Bachmann, she makes an EXCELLENT point. Since when have we been able to trust that they government would honor the integrity of the Constitution? They can swear on Bibles all day long and promise to uphold the Constitution, but then turn around and use it for toilet paper.

    Rep. Bachmann expressed her concern about it, and rightly so. Our Gov’t can’t be trusted not to misuse census data, and they have a history of misusing it in ways that oppress selected groups in our society, Whether you want to believe that or not, it’s true. Her points are well worth listening to.

  3. They can swear on Bibles all day long and promise to uphold the Constitution, but then turn around and use it for toilet paper.

    Like President Bush did, right? If anybody mistaked the Consitution for Charmin extra soft, it was Gee Dub. I admit, Obama has been piggybacking off of some Bush’s policies (odd because he was supposed to be the “Change” candidate). But let’s not get things twisted. The Bush Administration were experts at dropkicking the Constitution.

    Rep. Bachmann expressed her concern about it, and rightly so.

    There is a major difference between being rightly critical of the government and inciting fear and paranoia.

  4. Why am I not suprised that at some point in this discussion the Bush administration would come up? Well, so you know: 9/11 changed the game. As far as anybody knew, the enemy was not just on those planes that struck the Twin Towers. The enemy could have been amongst us. President Bush did everything in his power to keep us safe…and he did. Obama would be smart to do the same thing.

  5. Josh, you can’t have it both ways. You either uphold the Constitution or you don’t. Make up your mind, please.

    Changing gears a bit, I mentioned in my my post that I actually AGREE with Bachmann to an extent. One, I think certain information not important to anything should NOT be collected in a Census survey. Secondly, I DO think it’s unwise to assume people don’t have the ability to mess around with personal information. They do. But I think it’s just as unwise to go around feeding paranoia that certain people WILL mess with your personal information (like ACORN). In this time of fear-motivated activism, playing into paranoia is not a good look. After all, most of Bachmann’s anti-government sentiments have – in a much larger sense – been designed to paint Obama as a “Socialist” and a “Fascist”. The Republicans are doing everything they possibly can to drum up more fear. This is a perfect strategy for regaining Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012, since continuous scandals are killing any chances they have of winning on the “values” platform. “Obama’s a socialist who wants to leave your personal information in the hands of ACORN.” That’s the message.

    Protecting personal information and citizen’s rights was NEVER an issue with President Bush…but now it’s a problem? Now that a Democrat is in the White House, it’s something worth defending? Seriously?

  6. The questions on gender, age, race, ethnicity, relationship and whether you own or rent your home are essentially the same as those asked in 2000, with some improvements designed to help reduce respondent confusion.

    Estimated to take less than 10 minutes to complete, the 2010 Census will be one of the shortest and easiest to complete since the nation’s first census in 1790.

    The Census Bureau also submitted the questions for the American Community Survey (ACS) — the new yearly survey that eliminates the need for a decennial long-form questionnaire and provides key socioeconomic and housing data about the nation’s changing population every year rather than once a decade.

    Three new questions in the 2008 ACS gather data about health insurance coverage, marital history, and military service-related disability status.

    2010 Census Questions

    I don’t see the big deal. 90% of the answers to these questions can be found on various employment applications that I’ve filled out over the years that are certainly being used for nothing but coffee coasters on some poor schmucks littered desk. Much of the remainder have already been answered on various other government forms (FIA, 1040s, etc.) & the three new questions aren’t going to result in anybody’s guns being taken away, their religion outlawed, or their white women married off to them there colored folk. ::dodgy::

    For all the good this intertubez thing does, it sure does help fan the fire of fear-mongering.

    -n

  7. Hey Dre,
    First, I find it hard to believe that you want to follow the letter of the law in the part of the Constitution that allows for counting some people wholely and allows for “excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” Want to take a guess at who those “other Persons” were?

    Second, you didn’t accurately quote the Constitution when you said “as directed by Congress”. The correct quote is ” in such manner as they shall by law direct.” I would point out the part “by law” that you omitted. The point being that they can not simply make up their own rules in the House, it has to be voted on by the House (as you stated) and then the Senate and then rectified in commitee if necessary and signed by the President. If it meets the letter of the law, then I have no problem, if it is full of questions not validated by law, then I agree with Rep Bachman. Even given that the Census follows the law, if I saw the questions as being politically tainted by a House, Senate and President ruled by one Party, as we have now, I would back some civil disobediance. I’m not ready to give carte blanche to Congress to ask ANY question they want when one Party is ruling. The census was designed to allocate Representatives, not to be used as a political tool to prove points.

    • Hey Hip Con,

      (1) “…I find it hard to believe that you want to follow the letter of the law…”

      Since I did go on the record saying we have to either uphold the Constitution or not, I’ll bite. So, yes, I stand firm in my beliefs. Follow the law or don’t. It doesn’t go both ways. But nowhere in my commentary did I say people should not fight to CHANGE laws. In fact, it’s because people stood up to unjust laws yesterday that we have the freedoms we have today.

      If Bachmann is SO opposed to the law, why not use the muscle she was granted by her constituency to push for new legislation? At the very least (if she doesn’t want to go through the rigors of actually changing the law) why not author legislation calling for more oversight? Instead of spending her time rousing up fear of ACORN and Obama on Fox News, she could be using the powers her voters and the Constitution gave her.

      (2) I should point out that I was actually with Bachmann (oh, the wonders never cease) up to a point. If she would’ve simply left it at “I don’t think its right to collect this info by law”, I would’ve been feeling her. I mean, I think it’s wrong that people HAVE to wear seatbelts even though it’s state law. If you don’t agree with what’s been decided on, cool. But then she threw in all this nonsense about ACORN and internment camps (conveniently forgetting about Arab-Americans a few years ago), making me believe it was a calculated shot at the Obama administration and not a genuine attempt to protect the Constitution.

      (3) I wasn’t quoting the Constitution directly. But the Constitution DOES give Congress the ability to make laws…so your argument could go around in circles. Congress can make laws about what needs to go in the Census and then make a law requiring Citizens to fill it out.

  8. Hey Dre,
    1) I agree. She should go through the proper channels and try to change something she disagrees with. I’m still fuzzy on whether these questions have gone through the proper channels. I’ll let you know if I find the answer.
    2) The issue with ACORN is just a Red Herring. I’m all for investigating the living crap out of that seemingly corrupt organization. But her issue is with the questions, she just threw ACORN in to play to the right. The Internment camp statement was just ridiculous and fear-mongering.
    3) Granted, I was just trying to clarify the procedure.

    I’m really more concerned about the politicization of the census. This is part of the problem with one Party ruling everything. There’s no checks and balances to keep them honest. Good Post!

  9. My Greeneyed handsome man <
    Off topic , just dropped in to give your MUWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH and wish you well . xo Take care and God Bless

    G

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s