Go home and give up. Your time is over.

I knew there was a reason I love New Hampshire!

We don't need more right to work states. Its double-speak. We need more worker's rights states. What good are jobs if the wages are too low to raise a family?

Never a cream pie around when you need one.

http://newamerica.net/publications/policy/the_way_forward

Good grief, she was awful. Read her speech, was so repetitive and slow it was just terrible - and the worse part - she enjoyed dividing us... loved the hurt she's doing willingly. Imagine, happily dismantling one of the top states to lower our standard of living - all while smiling away... frightening.

Wow, see what happens when you try to talk to real Americans instead of the fox tv/pparty people?
Go away michelle, and take your "supporters" with you.

Michele you are becoming the laughing stock of the clown car. Your 15 minutes are up, go home destroy your own state.

Get off the Prozac Lady

So here's the Websters real definition of the TeaPublican theme,

Going ROUGE

1 : vagrant, tramp
2 : a dishonest or worthless person : scoundrel
3: a mischievous person : scamp
4: a horse inclined to shirk or misbehave
5: an individual exhibiting a chance and usually inferior biological variation

And the Wall Street Occupiers are fanatical and crazy?? LOL, Please..

Right to work for less brought to your by O'Brien and the Koch Brothers. The NH House bought and paid for by the 1%.

If by profanity are you referring to the utterance of the name "Bachmann"? Lestwise there was no profanity I could hear.

The middle class is done for if ANY of these Repuglican clowns get into office in 2012! How much pain, how many self-serving tax cuts and loopholes for the rich and corporations, how long till they vote for meaningful job creation, worker protections and CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM??? Make no mistake, they do NOT care about the 99%.

Listen to the video: there were both cheers and boos. By mentioning only boos in his lying headline, we can see what side Dan Tuohy is on: Team Obama propaganda.
In any case, most of his blogs have been cut-and-paste Leftie propaganda.

One would expect cheers, that's rather normal in a speech - don't you think? The exceptional part of the whole thing was that very loud boos were heard - the video is capturing the sound in the lower chamber - a few boos - but the gallery rocked with disapproval when she got started pushing her hateful rhetoric.

Rep. Bachmann "won cheers and jeers" when she addressed the NH House of Representatives. Republican lawmakers did applaud her, as I noted. Having covered the NH House for a handful of years in the past, I can't recall another guest speaker receiving such treatment from the public gallery. With due respect to the good people of Wisconsin, New Hampshire is no Wisconsin. Others touted right-to-work during their 10 minutes at the House podium and they did not provoke or stoke similar emotions from the people in the gallery. So that was the genesis of the headline. I appreciate your 2 cents, Robert Wittner; thanks for depositing them. Keep 'em coming.

I would posit that the good folks of New Hampshire are well versed in politics and know a phony when they see one.Thus the boos and cat calls. Bachman's BS does not play well amongst an educated electorate. She usually panders to those with a room temperature IQ. Her pull string talking points do not play well with folks who hold a high school diploma or better.

In Bachmann's attempt to appeal to the Tea Partiers she exposes the very cowardice that the original participants of the Boston Tea Party put on public display back in the day. Painting themselves to look like Indians to avoid recognition and place the blame on someone else they had hoped to avoid detection and blame for their deed. Not much has changed as Tea Party folks do pretty much the same today.They send up an equally face painted shill to do their bidding . Funny how something so obvious as the stunt pulled by the colonists has become mythical legend when in point of fact the participants never wanted a finger pointed at them.

Yes I agree, with added vitriol, with all of these these anti-Bachmann, anti-Republican, anti-Conservative postings. Yes, what we need is 4 more years of Barack Obama and his administration. We need to restore Nancy Pelosi to her rightful thrown. Yes, they are the answer. Just look at how well they've done !! Hope and Change forever !! Yes, yes, yes !!!

The women is an extremist corporate right wing idiot.
Who doesn't know what she's talking about most of the time.
That's when she just making things up.

This harpy is a disgrace to the Senate and the political sense.
Profiting from government subsidies while complaining about them.
She's a liar, a thief, AND a christian charlatan.

1) The president is allowed to go on vacation. It is also common for presidents to go on diplomatic missions at the expense of the country.
2) Solyndra represents a very small percentage of the total investment by the nation in boosting jobs. Some of them will go bankrupt. That's business.
3) The biggest deficits were always Republican presidents, and this is the first president that has acted to balance the budget by launching a commission. The argument isn't that Barack Obama doesn't want to balance the budget; the argument is *how* to balance the budget.
4) The Patriot Act was George Bush. The programs that we have now for national security, for better or worse, use that.
5) increased taxes? Oh, do tell. From my perspective, you already have decreased taxes for eight years, spending the "surplus" that we had during the Clinton presidency. That was George Bush. It's more like going back to paying the taxes that you originally owed.

I could go on and on... you are just giving the Republicans spin. So yes, four more years, I hope so. Better than anything the Conservatives are offering.

1) Agreed, but do we need Michelle going on a trip for $424,124 for just the aircraft charge alone. She also listed her two daughters as “senior staffers” and brought along her mother (Marian Robinson), plus her niece and nephew (Leslie & Avery Robinson) not to mention her hair stylist and makeup guru. Cost doesn’t include the cost for security and ground transportation. Hey guess what, President wasn’t even there.

2) It’s not the$528 million investment that’s the problem. It’s the fact that they were advised against doing it and ended up restructuring the loan so that private investors (Obama campaign contributors) were moved ahead of taxpayers for repayment of the loan.

3) Not so-
GW Bush total 8-year debt - $3,011,831,280,329 avg annual - $376,478,910,041
B Obama total 2-year debt - 1,307,224,383,572 avg annual - $653,612,191,786

4.Patriot Act- In 2003 Obama told the National Organization of Women he considered the Bush Patriot Act “shoddy and dangerous” and would vote to repeal it. In March, 2010 he signed a 1 year extension of the Patriot Act WITHOUT reforms. On May 26, 2011 he signed a 4-year extension of the Patriot Act WITHOUT reforms. All while Dems voted to kill it 5 times in 2006. No hypocrisy there. Yeah, I know, it’s Bush’s fault.

1. For brevity sake I re-quote myself - “Do we need Michelle going on a trip for $424,124 for just the aircraft charge alone. She also listed her two daughters as “senior staffers” and brought along her mother (Marian Robinson), plus her niece and nephew (Leslie & Avery Robinson) not to mention her hair stylist and makeup guru....." Your reply was - "...it's not unprecedented for officials to take military aircraft". Which officials are you talking about? This was a trip for Michelle Obama's family. So you’re saying that even though the story was on usnews.com’s web-site they didn’t report it? Then how about theblaze.com, or dailymail.co.uk, or freerepublic.com, or the newamerican.com, or covenantnews.com or liveleak.com, or a thousand other publications? I guess they’re all wrong and we should believe it never happened? Didn't even mention her trip to Spain.

2.No, an investment is NOT a loan? When you buy a house/car/boat you go to the bank and get a L-O-A-N. The bank does not consider the money it lends to you an investment. They expect to be paid back (with interest) whether the collateral’s value goes up or down. An investment is when money is given to an entity (Solyndra in this case) with the “hope” that the asset/venture will increase so the investors can HOPEFULLY get a return on their investment. The US government made a LOAN to Solyndra with our taxpayer money. They DID NOT make an investment in Solyndra. Shssssh, I've got to explain this !

3. My error, table 4, not table 3. You do have a funny way of reading statistics though. How about US Treasury stats – Bush increased the national debt by 75.2% in 8 years while Obama has increased it by 30.9% in just 30 months. See http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm. I guess that's false too !

4. Really don’t understand what your babbling about on this one???

5. So, you say, calling Bush a “raving idiot” would be name calling but calling him “one of the most corrupt, fiscally irresponsible presidents….” is NOT name calling. Oh, I see. Sounds really logical to me. As with all name-calling liberals, you're very typical and predictable indeed.

Here is something nobody is thinking about re: Bachmann. When I was young I used to collect Bitsy Bears. Yes, Bitsy Bears. Here is a tad more info to put it in context:

http://www.ghostofthedoll.co.uk/Toys_BitsyBears.htm

Both Bush and Obama support/supported foreign interventionism, endless war, massive foreign subsidies, corporate welfare, secret prisons, the destruction of civil liberties, massive domestic spending, and enormous deficits. They both want/wanted more power for the federal government, and less liberty for you and I.

This is not a partisan issue.

"Right to work" is a misnomer. There is no right to work at someone else's business -- hiring should be by mutual consent. Thus, I oppose "right to work" for private businesses. If the owner wants to require union membership as a condition of employment, that's his right.

I support "right to work" in the public sector, however, because funds are not aquired by government by voluntary trade or donation, but by coersion. It's no longer a voluntary arrangement, or a property rights issue. Furthermore, government in this case is the employer, so even if it were a voluntary operation, it'd be their right to make employment conditions (which might not include union membership).

I wish more in the state house would recognize this distinction.