And again...this was on the WIDELY listened to "Nick Coleman" show. Just to put the Lib-Net listenership in perspective: 99.07% radios in the Minneapolis areas do NOT listen to that station. If Coleman breys, does anyone actually listen?

Further proof that Coleman isn't just a terrible radio personality. He's actually depraved.

Welcome to the Minnesota version of "Jeopardy!"

The answer is: The ACLU, Mike Hatch, and a gaggle of lawyers.

The question is: Who would come to the defense of a gay rights activist, cornered and restrained in a public bathroom by a group of defense-of-marriage supporters?

Tasted 950 for first time this morning to hear this Wendy Wilde person conducting a little Bachman hate-fest, including a truly awful "parody." Incredibly puerile stuff.

Had a caller who claims to have been there. Here are a few of his "facts":

Attendance was 34 people.

He is from Scandia and all the people there were from Scandia except Bachman and Vanderveer (stillwater).

Bachman screeched from bathroom about being held against her will and burst out, followed by two very confused innocents, a little old lady and a very "petite" woman, in other words, not very threatening individuals.

Interesting--he claims the Scandia City Clerk did not know how Bachman got the key to the building. I set up a couple of these Town Halls Meetings when I was a Legislative Aide, and it involves mass mailing and other advance pub, and careful arrangements for the site and suppplies, lit, refreshments, etc. And the City Clerk had no idea how they got in? I feel like calling her myself. If true, the City is pretty poorly run!

Back to 950. I kept trying to tell myself that I need to look at it from the other side to realize that conservative talk radio is just as awful, but I just couldn't stop thinking that this is much more mean-spirited and really immature than even the worst of Conservative talk, even Savage.

Tasted 950 for first time this morning to hear this Wendy Wilde person conducting a little Bachman hate-fest, including a truly awful "parody." Incredibly puerile stuff.

Had a caller who claims to have been there. Here are a few of his "facts":

Attendance was 34 people.

He is from Scandia and all the people there were from Scandia except Bachman and Vanderveer (stillwater).

Bachman screeched from bathroom about being held against her will and burst out, followed by two very confused innocents, a little old lady and a very "petite" woman, in other words, not very threatening individuals.

Interesting--he claims the Scandia City Clerk did not know how Bachman got the key to the building. I set up a couple of these Town Halls Meetings when I was a Legislative Aide, and it involves mass mailing and other advance pub, and careful arrangements for the site and suppplies, lit, refreshments, etc. And the City Clerk had no idea how they got in? I feel like calling her myself. If true, the City is pretty poorly run!

Back to 950. I kept trying to tell myself that I need to look at it from the other side to realize that conservative talk radio is just as awful, but I just couldn't stop thinking that this is much more mean-spirited and really immature than even the worst of Conservative talk, even Savage.

Dave wrote:

"The question is: Who would come to the defense of a gay rights activist, cornered and restrained in a public bathroom by a group of defense-of-marriage supporters?"

That statement is the most succinct of this whole thing. Imagine it for one teensey second.

>>I'm trying to find some reliable sources who were there

Oh, like Thomas Swift? Guess what, we already have reliable sources. Read the accounts again, Mitch. The people who wrote them weren't involved in the altercation, they were bystanders. There were conservatives in the room. And not a single person who was actually there disputes the facts as we have presented them - not even Bachmann herself has made a statement to the contrary! If you don't consider people who actually witnessed and were involved in the event reliable, Mitch, then you might as well stop looking for folks who are. Your time is better spent slinging Nick Coleman than searching for some sort of omnipotent objective source that doesn't exist.

"Oh, like Thomas Swift?"

Um, no?

" Guess what, we already have reliable sources. Read the accounts again, Mitch. The people who wrote them weren't involved in the altercation, they were bystanders."

So say you. I don't know that, and have no means of verifying that. Although I could certainly spend a little time googling names and seeing what I come up with (although I can't now, since I'm at work, which blocks blogspot).

" There were conservatives in the room. And not a single person who was actually there disputes the facts as we have presented them"

Right. None of the people you found and presented gift-wrapped to the reader dispute your account. Perhaps that's accurate - I don't know. I'd rather find out for myself.

IF that's all right with you, of course.

" - not even Bachmann herself has made a statement to the contrary!"

And you think that in and of itself is dispositive?

"If you don't consider people who actually witnessed and were involved in the event reliable, Mitch, then you might as well stop looking for folks who are."

Having read two or three accounts, I have no idea if the people presented do or do not have a dog in the race.

Why is the fact that I want to find some accounts I consider genuinely dispassionate such a threat to you?

" Your time is better spent slinging Nick Coleman than searching for some sort of omnipotent objective source that doesn't exist."

Don't need omniscience. Just need to know that they're not in bed with the partisans involved.

You've provided me nothing of the sort, not yet.

Wog:

I do the same I listen to much 950 to get perspective. One thing is for sure, Conservative talk is a lot more lighthearted and fun to listen to. Way too much preaching to the Choir and little attempt at appealing to undecideds. Franken is a 3-hour sneer fest. Marc Marin's show was fun to listen to, but 950 pre-empted it for Nick Coleman, which is only Franken with a fakey minnesota accent.

I did a little checking and discovered that District 52A went overwhelmingly for Bush (8pts) and Vandeveer (13pts, oddly Wetterling edged out kennedy by a significant margin, 3 pts).

Thus I doubt that the "Crowd of 34" was very representative of the district. If something like this happens close the election, it'll be sure to backfire.

Also Vandeveer is not from Stillwater. 52a does not include Stillwater.

While I have the microphone I am going to opine on how anti-religon the hosts on 950. Do they really think they are going to win converts to the Democrats by insulting churchgoers at every opportunity?

Michele Bachman is the HOTTEST legislator out there. Va va vaROOOOOOOM!!!!! Does she swing?

Michele Bachman is the HOTTEST legislator out there. Va va vaROOOOOOOM!!!!! Does she swing?

Michele Bachman is the HOTTEST legislator out there. Va va vaROOOOOOOM!!!!! Does she swing?

I heard Michele Bachman came on to a woman in the bathroom. When she refused her advances, Michele started to scream that she was being kidnapped.

"I'm not well...." Michele was heard uttering as she left....

"Brian": You must be one of Eva Young's readers.

"Robert": Oddly, you have the same IP address as "Brian".

The really interesting thing about this whole episode is that I have yet to see an account from a Bachmann supporter who was actually there... So far, it's been account after account from people who are NOT Bachmann supporters that WERE there versus Bachmann supporters who weren't there but are insistent upon regurgitating and exagerating heresay accounts.

Mitch claims he's trying to find a reliable source but he doesnt consider "parties to the altercation (whatever it was) to be reliable".

Just what exactly would you consider a reliable source if not somebody like myself who actually witnessed the events?

Obviously, the three women in the bathroom were party to the "altercation" so none of them are reliable sources.

Does the fact that I witnessed the Senator acting extreemely bizarre make me a party to the altercation?

If so, wouldn't every attendee by your standard be considered an unreliable source?

Be honest Mitch. You're not the least bit interested in finding so-called reliable sources. Your goal is purely to try to paint those of us who were there as liars.

By the way, your justification for being selectively ignorant - that you worked in a bar for a few years is not only insulting, it's sad. Comparing us, a group of senior citizens, parents, self-employed business owners, teachers, writers, and a Doctor to a bunch of drunks in a bar fight really makes you look like a sorry desperate little man.

"The really interesting thing about this whole episode is that I have yet to see an account from a Bachmann supporter who was actually there..."

Meaning...?

" So far, it's been account after account from people who are NOT Bachmann supporters that WERE there versus Bachmann supporters who weren't there but are insistent upon regurgitating and exagerating heresay accounts."

The problem being that most of the people I've heard from would seem to have an agenda. More on this in a bit.

"Mitch claims he's trying to find a reliable source but he doesnt consider "parties to the altercation (whatever it was) to be reliable".

That's right. I don't. Not as reliable as someone who approaches an issue dispassionately.

"Just what exactly would you consider a reliable source if not somebody like myself who actually witnessed the events?"

Let's leave you out of it for a moment; your insults below render you pretty much useless as a source as far as I'm concerned.

People view things through their own personal templates. Someone who is, let's say, awash in hatred for someone will view their actions differently than someone who is not. I will view, say, Howard Dean's statements differently than, say, a moderate would, and that moderate's view would differ from a liberal's view.

Since most of the people I've heard from have made few bones about being Bachmann detractors (to be polite), claims that she was "acting bizarre" are very much open to question.

"Obviously, the three women in the bathroom were party to the "altercation" so none of them are reliable sources."

????

If one of them DID, let's say hypothetically, do something that could be perceived as threatening, why would she then make a statement against interest to that effect to a third party?

"Does the fact that I witnessed the Senator acting extreemely bizarre make me a party to the altercation?"

No, but your behavior elsewhere in this thread makes me think you have a dog in this race, and (to be charitable) your diagnoses of "extreemely bizarre" behavior needs corroboration from someone not predisposed to see any Christian conservative as "bizarre" anyway.

"If so, wouldn't every attendee by your standard be considered an unreliable source?"

No, and you're being obtuse now.

"Be honest Mitch. You're not the least bit interested in finding so-called reliable sources. Your goal is purely to try to paint those of us who were there as liars."

Sentences that start "Be honest" and go on from there are inevitably manipulations. On the one hand, I'd like to know what happened. On the other, I doubt I'll get the facts from any zealot (on either side). On the third hand, I don't really care that much, since the whole flap is a symptom of the growing realization that the move to stop gay marriage is polling around 2/3 in Minnesota, so far.

"By the way, your justification for being selectively ignorant - that you worked in a bar for a few years is not only insulting, it's sad. "

Buncombe, Dan. It's human behavior. Zealots aren't a whole lot different than drunk; their perceptions are altered, their ethics become a whole not more stratified, and their ends justify their means.

"Comparing us, a group of senior citizens, parents, self-employed business owners, teachers, writers, and a Doctor to a bunch of drunks in a bar fight really makes you look like a sorry desperate little man."

Fortunately, I'm neither sorry nor desperate. And I'm not characterizing any group as such. And either you know it and are being obtuse again, or you don't know it and are incapable of feeling good about an argument that doesn't dig into someone else. In either case, the name calling is inappropriate. Drop it.

Mitch,

First, you compare a wide spectrum of constituents to drunks.

Then you refer to this same group as zealots.

Don't lecture me about name calling.

You weren't there. I was.

You didn't happenen to see the events. I did.

The movement to stop marriage in Minnesota is polling 2/3 because elected leaders like Senator Bachmann are using rhetoric, junk science, the Bible and their own homophobia to legislate.

I realize this is difficult for you but try to follow along.

When asked what the threat is to traditional marriage, one of Bachmann's responses was... (and I'm paraphrasing here...)

"Study after study has shown that children who grow up in a household with a biological mother and a biological father have a much greater chance of success..."

With me so far?

1. She didn't answer the question. She changed the context to one of child welfare.

2. Even though she attempted to confuse the issue, she was challenged to cite specific studies that proved her contention. She couldn't.

3. Since she was the one to offer up the child welfare angle to gay marriage, she was asked if divorce should be banned in Minnesota since it clearly didn't fit with her just stated position. She smirked and shook her head but again didn't answer the question.

4. She was asked if second marriages should be banned for couples who don't plan on having children. She didn't answer.

5. She was asked if infertile couples, seniors and couples who don't plan on having kids should be banned from getting married. She didn't answer.

I can say with a pretty high level of confidence that the reason the whole episode in the community center happened is because Mrs. Bachmann was frustrated and confused when her constituents began using her own logic against her. She felt trapped because she backed HERSELF into a corner and didn't know how get out.

Just for your information, I had a long discussion with a couple who were at the meeting and are staunch Bachmann supporters. When I asked the same question regarding threats to traditional marriage, they admitted that their opposition to gay marriage is based exclusively on their religious beliefs and began quoting passages from the old testament to me. I would suspect that a fair amount of your 2/3 feel the same way as these people do.

If you and your brethren feel that we should legislate based on the Torah, please feel free to move to another country where they practice Halachah.

It's been a long time since I so enjoyed reading posts in the net. Two thumbs up! when Opponents is Game it will Double TV: , Red is feature of Bad Gnome Astonishing Soldier becomes Full Cosmos in final , White Pair becomes Tremendous Soldier in final Full Table becomes Full Cosmos in final