But the point is you've labeled me, my answer won't matter.

 

Gosh, do I ever know that feeling! :lol:

Nevertheless, you act as if Bachmann was asked that question simply because she's a woman. That clearly isn't the case, given her history of out-there statements.

Again, would he ask Obama if he's an idiot because people look at his views or policies as idiotic? I'm betting no.

Gosh, do I ever know that feeling! :lol:

Get in line. :lol:

I don't think Obama is an idiot but I would love to see an interview where he addresses his perceptions. I think those you speak of one here also don't think Obama is an idiot but think Bachmann is a flake. I have that opinion as well. Obama has more stature than Bachmann so it may be harder to get away with asking him if he is an idiot compared to asking Bachmann if she is a flake but for me I personally don't see any line of questioning wrong

Well of course they think that of Bachmann and not Obama. The majority of them voted for him and defend him on everything. :lol:

Again, would he ask Obama if he's an idiot because people look at his views or policies as idiotic? I'm betting no.

Again, Bachmann's out-there comments and beliefs lend itself to the question being asked. Obama doesn't have a history of stuff like that.

But the point is you've labeled me, my answer won't matter. Besides, questioning Clinton as to why he didn't capture Osama bin Laden wasn't calling the man a flake. So, what's your point?

If the answer didn't matter, I wouldn't have asked the question.

 

You challenged Wallace's professionalism ... I simply asked if you felt that way when he asked Clinton about bin Laden.

Well of course they think that of Bachmann and not Obama. The majority of them voted for him and defend him on everything. :lol:

 

 

True. I'll still defend him when I agree with him or don't see anything wrong with his most recent gaffe. I would think he is easier to defend than Bachmann or Palin but I am a liberal so that probably has a lot to do with that.

No, my contention was that he would not have asked the question laced with name calling had she been a man. He would have asked the same question, just worded it differently; to show more respect.

The question asked of Bachmann had nothing to do with her being a woman ... it's about the out-there comments she's made in the past.

Again, Bachmann's out-there comments and beliefs lend itself to the question being asked. Obama doesn't have a history of stuff like that.

 

 

Very true. I definitely agree.

Law makers who try to side step or misrepresent the constitution are at times viewed as anti-American by lots of folks.. I agree the Lion King comment is a stretch, but again, lots of people agree with her on the homosexuality issue... Some schools are already addressing the issue. You got the time to respond to all the flaky things Obama has said? I disagree with you 99% of the time.... Does that make you flaky, or me?

 

 

Depends on your beliefs I guess. So are you saying Bachmann isn't flaky and that you have the same beliefs as her on her gaffes?

OK, after 190 posts, let's see if I can summarize the debate:

 

1. Those on Bachmann's side are primarily upset because Wallace asked "Are you a flake?". It has nothing to with whether she is or isn't a flake, they are upset because she was asked a question that way and feel that Bachmann was treated unfairly. They feel she was not given proper respect and was treated differently than other presidential level candidates.

 

2. Those on Wallace's side feel Bachmann has made so many outlandish statements in the past that the question was not name calling but warranted by her own actions and comments. They say these past comments were so outlandish, the question was fair and/or it gave Bachmann an opportunity to address the comments and those that say she is a flake.

 

At this point in our discussion, I think Wallace's question was over the edge because it did come across in a name calling type of manner. I do think the issue of her past comments is fair game but Wallace should have perhaps phrased the question this way, "What would you say to those people who call some of your past statements flaky?"

 

If Wallace had asked the question in that manner, would we still have this controversy?

I keep seeing new Bachmann quotes. The Lion King one and the gay marriage ones should be enough for any level headed person to snicker at. How can she not be viewed as a flake? Come on now. Those are laugh out loud funny. Perhaps they should try it? I'm laughing as I type. Obama has misspoke but he doesn't BELIEVE there are 57 states. She BELIEVES that gay marriage will make kids want to try homosexuality... I'm still laughing.....

OK, after 190 posts, let's see if I can summarize the debate:

 

1. Those on Bachmann's side are primarily upset because Wallace asked "Are you a flake?". It has nothing to with whether she is or isn't a flake, they are upset because she was asked a question that way and feel that Bachmann was treated unfairly. They feel she was not given proper respect and was treated differently than other presidential level candidates.

 

2. Those on Wallace's side feel Bachmann has made so many outlandish statements in the past that the question was not name calling but warranted by her own actions and comments. They say these past comments were so outlandish, the question was fair and/or it gave Bachmann an opportunity to address the comments and those that say she is a flake.

 

At this point in our discussion, I think Wallace's question was over the edge because it did come across in a name calling type of manner. I do think the issue of her past comments is fair game but Wallace should have perhaps phrased the question this way, "What would you say to those people who call some of your past statements flaky?"

 

If Wallace had asked the question in that manner, would we still have this controversy?

 

 

Possibly. To me this situation is no different than a reporter asking Sammy Sosa if he ever used steroids.

^ I have come to see it differently. I think Bachmann deserves a higher level of respect since she is a serious presidential candidate. I have no problem with someone asking Sammy Sosa about steroids. I think most people whose past comments would cause someone to ask "Are you a flake?", no problem. But I think a presidential candidate gets more respect than that. I don't think any interviewer would ever ask a President, "Are you a flake?" and so I don't think Bachmann as a presidential candidate should have been asked that either.

^ I have come to see it differently. I think Bachmann deserves a higher level of respect since she is a serious presidential candidate. I have no problem with someone asking Sammy Sosa about steroids. I think most people whose past comments would cause someone to ask "Are you a flake?", no problem. But I think a presidential candidate gets more respect than that. I don't think any interviewer would ever ask a President, "Are you a flake?" and so I don't think Bachmann as a presidential candidate should have been asked that either.

 

 

I hear you. That is where perspective comes into the equation. She is not a serious presidential candidate to me because I don't think she can win. I do understand where you are coming from but I wouldn't have a problem asking anyone anything if I were in the media and felt that my listeners would wan an answer to that question. Of course I am on the opposite side of the fence with Bachmann so I'd ask her if she was a flake and I'd ask Obama if he would like to take some time to address those who feel he is an idiot for his decisions, gaffes and policies. I can't lie....I'd treat them differently. To Wallace's credit, he seems to go after everyone.