Michelle Bachman’s opponent creates the worst @#&! political commercial of the year

by editor on October 7, 2010

Democrat-Farmer-Labor candidate Tarryl Clark is running against conservative favorite Michele Bachmann in Minnesota. She has a unusual message for the voters of Minnesota’s 6th district.

Clark’s new commercial uses an expletive to describe Bachmann‘s congressional accomplishments.

Since Clark is 6 points back in the latest poll, we’d say she doesn’t have a snowball’s @#&! chance in hell.

H/T: HotAir.com

Leave a Reply

31 Comments on "Michelle Bachman’s opponent creates the worst @#&! political commercial of the year"

Notify of
FranklinR
Guest

Sure wish I lived in Michelle’s district. I’d vote for her just to see the liberals heads explode at the mention of her name!

KimmyQueen
Guest

How classy… Democrats are just C-L-A-S-S all the way.

This voting season has brought a lot of the crazies out in the open.

Necron_99
Member

More proof libtards are like spoiled little children and their political agendas are like toys to them… and as any responsible adult knows, children should not be allowed to play with toys they don’t understand.

perlcat
Member

The beauty is today’s libs have absolutely no idea how to handle different opinions. It is really humorous to watch them go off the deep end when we push back.

If liberals actually realized how many people in their circle of acquaintances are actually conservative, but were just keeping their opinions to themselves, they’d sh*t their pants.

Zabazoom
Guest

What an load.

perlcat
Member

Actually, I dropped a load earlier, and I named it ‘Barack’.

Mn6er
Guest

Half of Americans read below an eight grade reading level. Is it any wonder that they don’t understand scientifically proven facts, and are more likely to believe in the fairy tales of the right? It’s a fact that Bachmann hasn’t done squat.

fleeceme
Guest

And the other half read Saul Alisnky.

You’re not one of those people who thinks everyone is stupid because they don’t agree with you are you? You’re not still a democrat are you? Everyone knows they are racist zombies who toe the party line at every opportunity.

You don’t still believe in global warming do you? Most people agree that the science behind it was a lie. What, do you live in the dark ages and only believe what the Pope Gore tells you?

Mn6er
Guest

Well we now know what side of the bell curve you fall on. Muddle on. No, I don’t believe that someone is stupid because they don’t agree with me. It would however seem that stupidity shows its self in a moronic response like yours.

fleeceme
Guest

So you resort to ad-hominem attacks on me? I just asked you questions that you could refute, and although you answered one of them, you showed your true colors by calling my response moronic.

Just because someone challenges your belief system doesn’t mean they are morons (the implication you made). You don’t truly believe people shouldn’t be allowed to speak their mind? Everyone knows people who want to censor thought are nazis. I know you don’t associate yourself with them.

As far as your assertion that I am illiterate, the fact I am responding refutes your claim. You’re not one of those people who use big words without actually knowing the meaning are you?

Mn6er
Guest

Sorry, I wasn’t trying to use “big words” on you. I’ll try and dumb it down for you. When you claim that Democrats are, “racist zombies”, or that “Most people agree that the science behind it was a lie (global warming)” those are the word’s that show, that there is a deference between using words and original thought. So whoever is putting those words in your head might be the ones to fear.

perlcat
Member

Your command of the language is poor, and you show little respect for others’ opinions. The difference between “difference” and “deference” juxtaposed with your supposed jibe about independent thought are such that you look like an idiot.

As to the global warming question, the usual argument is “many scientists say it is so”, ignoring the other scientists saying it is not so. You add nothing to the debate but dogma and bigotry. There is such a thing as a scientific method. Injecting a politician into a debate over science is just plain stupid. Neither you nor scientists vote on issues like global warming/agw/whatever it is at the moment.

Science is results-based, using theories and hypotheses. If theories are disproved through experiment, new theories are developed.In the case of AGW, when theories are disproved or blatant academic dishonesty is proven, people like you hide behind phrases like “the science is settled”, and ad hominem attacks revealing a profound ignorance.

Face it, in the 16th century, you and your ilk would have been trying to burn Copernicus at the stake for his heresy, too.

Pretending that you are so much better educated than the people you are insulting doesn’t get you far out here — you have no idea of the education level or the capabilities of the people you so casually insult. Such childish insults may play well amongst your limited circle of friends, carefully sanitized against dissent and other opinion, but here, we get to make fun of you.

Go pound sand. You’re a bigoted intolerant asshat, and as such will remain, and I’m afraid there’s nothing you can do about it. My apologies to your parents.

Necron_99
Member

AMEN!

John in 6th district
Guest

While the “bleep” in the ad is inappropriate, why are we talking about it? Shouldn’t we be talking about the fact that Bachmann HASN’T done anything for the distirct? We have the highest unemployment in the state! The highest forclosure rate in the state! But she votes against our interests all the time. Did you know she even voted against a bill that would give tribal police more power in finding men that come onto the reservations, rape a native woman, and high-tail it off the reservation where they can’t be touched by the law?

Face it – she is walking all over her constituents and loving it.

perlcat
Member

You ask interesting questions. They speak a lot about yourself.

Whose responsibility is the unemployment? Is Bachmann supposed to hire all of the people personally that you lay this charge on her rather than on the business killing policies of the administration? I’m a little curious how that works. Last I heard, she was in the minority in Congress, and wasn’t setting policy.

Did Michelle personally foreclose on you? Or the albatross of never enforcing regulation of Fannie & Freddie, which was Barney Frank’s job, and never got done (even when his lover was in charge of it) somehow now a Republican issue? If banks NEVER loan to poor risks, their foreclosure rate drops dramatically. The housing market stays flat, and the bubble never starts. Conversely, when government forces lenders to lend to people who cannot pay, the foreclosure rate skyrockets when the inevitable bubble burst.

And where is the personal responsibility in this high foreclosure rate? Why don’t I, for example, live in a $1,000,000 house with a balloon mortgage? Could it be because I understand that it is more than I can afford, so I never ask? Why have I always bought houses that I can afford even if either my wife or I lose our jobs? Maybe because I do not want to play the risks, because I know there is a very real down side?

I don’t think you can sum up her position as anti-constituent with those few sorry-assed talking points. The issues that led to this point are complex, and most of them have more to do with government out of control, which is something that Bachmann is on record as opposing to the detriment of her political career with independents, democrats, and the Republican establishment. That would seem to be solidly in line with the interests of her district.

And tell us more about that bill? Everybody knows that more stuff is put in bills than just one issue — hence we have defense appropriation bills that should pass, but for DREAM acts. Are you going to also posit that the Republicans who voted against that defense bill, which they usually support in other circumstances (even when they probably shouldn’t), are now anti-military because of this poison pill, and the Democrats are pro-military because they wanted to fund the military as an incidental cost to their DREAM act for legalizing illegals to the detriment of the economy?

You should be proud of her courage, but if you instead want another big government shill in office, I suppose you could go trolling on the discussion boards until people get pissed off at you and tell you to go away.

perlcat
Member

Here’s an apropo quote for you, John in 6th District:

“All right… all right… but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order… what have the Romans done for us? ”

hth.

Jim Stewart
Member

I’ve always wanted to marry a woman named Michele. Then my answering machine could say, “Hi, this is Jim and Michele, we’re not here so go to Hell!” BTW, where is the Editor’s can of Crisco?

perlcat
Member

I just figured you’d prefer to meet a gal called “Mother Tucker”. 😉

DeanH
Member

And to imagine she SU@$& giant dirty &*?K with that mouth! The nerve of these people.

mountainbiker21
Member

It is of no surprise that Democrats cater to the lowest common denominator.

YT
Member

Thats not really a bad ad. The level of discourse has been headed down hill ever since they told us inner-city slang was a language. I can ignore that bleep and focus on the fact we need an incumbent blood bath.

fleeceme
Guest

Leave it to dems to raise the level of political discourse in America.

All I gotta say is, Michelle Bachman is a big f%&king deal!

wpDiscuz