Posted on 06/26/2011 11:48:06 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
...Bachmann and her staff declined to talk to about the government assistance for the L.A. Times article. But asked about the issue on "Fox News Sunday," she insisted that she and her husband had not benefited at the expense of federal and state taxpayers.
"First of all," she said, "the money that went to the clinic was actually training money for employees. The clinic did not get the money. And my husband and I did not get the money either. That's mental health training money that went to employees."
As for the farm, she said it belonged to her father-in-law. "It's not my husband and my farm," Bachmann said. "And my husband and I have never gotten a penny of money from the farm."
As the Los Angeles Times reported on Sunday, however, in financial disclosure forms, Bachmann reported receiving between $32,503 and $105,000 in income from the farm, at minimum, between 2006 and 2009.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Ah I see it’s actually part of post # 85.
Your phrase “she shouldn’t give false information” certainly implies a volitional aspect.
If she didn’t deliberately give “false information,” then she made an honest mistake (if the facts are at variance) and then what in Hell’s Bells is so upsetting and disqualifying about that?
Again, why do you assume the information was false and that, even if it was false, that she did more than make an honest mistake?
I'm not tellin'.
..and nobody noticed?
That I cannot be sure.
How about the ones too ignorant to spell a candidate's name correctly?
Should such losers be permitted an opinion?
Well, if you weren’t called on it, most likely nobody noticed.
I’m okay with a Fifth Amendment Response... ;^)
That is not the tough part, it is the timing that is tough(my guess) . He already has the boilerplate HTML he can use over and over, but once he creates the newest comment from it he must choose a comment number in the future and wait till the exact moment after the comment # just before it is posted, and get it before someone else gets the next number. If FR hiccups (hangs) during the process who know what will happen, same with two others posting at the same time.
Interesting numbers. Thank you for your reply
You’re welcome. Thank you.
Your last post: Your phrase “she shouldn’t give false information” certainly implies a volitional aspect. If she didn’t deliberately give “false information,” then she made an honest mistake (if the facts are at variance) and then what in Hell’s Bells is so upsetting and disqualifying about that? Again, why do you assume the information was false and that, even if it was false, that she did more than make an honest mistake?
Your last post is ironic nonsense.
Read your first post, post #73. YOU are the one who first gave an excuse for what Bachmann said, based on the scenario that the information Bachmann gave was false.
I then responded to YOUR scenario by saying, "fine, then she shouldn’t give false information".
The scenario, was YOURS. I responded to it.
Add to that, you then assumed that I assumed that she was lying, when there is nothing in what I said that calls her a liar.
The word "false" means "incorrect". One can give incorrect information without lying. One can criticize one who gives incorrect information for reasons other than thinking that the person is a liar.
Do I need to explain those reasons to you??
Wrong.
Nothing about my comment touches on whether or not the info Bachmann gave was false or incorrect.
My simple point was about the size and reach of the federal government. It was about how stupid this entire flap is in the context of the larger catastrophe facing our nation that we are headed to a place where the vast majority of Americans "benefit from" (are dependent upon) the government.
IOW, the LSM is sitting around worried about whether Michele Bachmann's father-in-law's farm's federal tax credits (or whatever) flowed a financial benefit to Mrs. Bachmann while we have a President who is doing everything within his power, with the full support of that same LSM, to flow federal financial "benefits" to as many government slaves as possible.
I tried to make that point in a more pithy way. Obviously, didn't work for some.
How you see in that an "excuse" for whatever Mrs. Bachmann said seems like an emotional overreaction to me.
That is all.
(P.S. Just a suggestion: lose the added-on personal insults ("do I need to explain it to you?") and just make your points.
LOL, what? I used the word "fine" in my post to you. How is that an emotional overreaction.
Anyway, along with your objection to my use of the word "fine" I will add that I thought your following statements were emotional overations.
fightinJAG:what in Hell’s Bells is so upsetting and disqualifying about that?
(P.S. Just a suggestion: Don't put false words in people's mouths...e.g. "upset", "disqualifying", "deliberate false information")
Good post
...and I was going to say “good post” before I even saw my quote included. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.