Michele Bachmann protests taxes by refusing to pay hers

• It saddens me to find my thoughts keeping you up three nights in a row, Tickler. It frightens me even more to find you missing your geographic descriptor. It is a sad day, indeed. Thus we share our heartache, if nothing else. One of the most notable fables of the fabulous fabulist Krylov paints a story of a little Mos�ka barking at an elephant. Your musings are even more allegorical and most certainly more irrelevant to our discussion. I appreciate your need for logical detours, for in the direct discourse you cannot score a single point. In a familiar rethug manner you fling a bunch of turns in the air, hoping some will stick. When none stick and all are refuted, you do not pause for a second to acknowledge your error. No, you move on to the next topic. Well, my friend, I will not allow that Republican maneuver. I am all too familiar with it. You�ve tried to score points, you missed, and now you must admit that you were wrong. And this �rules� obsession of yours; I thought I explained the danger of not sticking to the topic and wandering too far afield. But you apparently eschew the abstract, so allow me a Tickler-like allegorical example. There once was a man. A terrible, horrible man. Let�s call him Ivan, to continue the Russian theme. So terrible was he, that that pretty much became his name for the history books. He too avoided paying taxes. He avoided paying taxes to the Golden Horde. Where did that lead him? A few years later he murdered his son. Bachmann is clearly on a wrong path! As to the ad hominem attacks, it is you who needs to find a better source or reference. When ignorance is demonstrated on a topic, when that point is proven, it is not an ad hominem attack to call it ignorance. It is a statement of fact. And now you fold. Now you run. Ah, "this little bemusing topic is of no consequence to me; I am bored". Touche. You have nothing of substance to say after all. Here�s another phrase from a dead language for you to look up: quod erat demonstratum. Carry on, ~ Latte

• It causes me great dread to find that the time frame of my lesson was of such horrible bearing upon your wanting mind. Tell me my dear friend, what is proper time frame for a response upon an internet forum which one finds no real interest in, beyond the interest of attempting to help a feeble and furious fellow? I'm sure you have a rule for this, like all other things. Would twelve hours be too short? Would twelve days be far too long? Asking me to apologize for attributing an ad hominem attack to you is almost sad, and I do not mean that in a flippant way mind you. I mean I am honestly sad that a mind can sink so low into the mud of denial, or spin so wildly in avoidance of obvious things. Your attacks were indeed ad hominem; and if you cannot realize this, than you have not the slightest of what you speak. You may want to research your latin phrases. I realize that dead languages make one feel large in the mind, but using them wrongly will have one quite laughed at in the direction of the mouth. Claiming that a man "deserved" it when you insult his person does not change the fact that you insulted his person. The rest of your folly you can find on your own.(Though I doubt you are in a rush to look.) Your other problem seemed to be that I did not acknowledge the fact that you agreed with me in certain instances of my post? I suppose you lean on trivialities because you are rather insecure. Must you have a pat on the back each time you do something good? Must you have a trophy merely for finishing a race; even if you have not won it? I suppose the answer is yes, as it fits with the coddled philosophy which you no doubt subscribe to. In summary, you have said nothing. The only way for you to deny being a hypocrite was to claim that calling someone names was not "ad hominem"(truly a paradoxical statement). And the only way for you to attack me was to say that I did not acknowledge you when you agreed with me. Which if anything, the fact that you were concerned about something like that, says so much more against your person than mine. I feel this discussion has come to an end as you are quite tangled in your own web of rules; so tangled that you are apparently now changing the definition of words and phrases. In leaving let me address one pot that has brimmed and boiled over. You demanded that everyone stay on topic and dismissed anyone who did not do just that. You have now had two posts in a row that have had exactly nothing to do with this story and everything to do with everyone else, including me. It seems, in a crescendo, you have broken your first rule, and sent it shattering through the night. You have been more off topic than any of those souls you wished to set aflame for such a sin. You might say I trapped you into making such a hypocritical maneuver, and perhaps I did. But then, it merely shows the difference between us; the difference between the mover and the moved. I wish you the best and hope you have learned something from this. And I hope that perhaps your constant turd calls and angry protests may become more measured and thoughtful. As a warning, since I saw how quickly you noticed the two day span; I must insist that you do not trouble your mind over my next return. Exciting as it may be. I cannot force myself to check this unheard-of site each night so I can watch you create another rule and then break it in the very next breadth. It seems this little corner of the world was your "stomping ground," so I will let you get back to--though, with slightly smaller feet.

• forgot to close the tag, sorry A two day wait produces nothing but another steaming pile of inconsequential musings from a <a href=http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=french+tickler> misguided pleasure accessory</a>. Is there an apology for falsely attributing an ad hominem lobotomy attack to me? No, of course not. For that would not be the way of a rethug. What do we get instead? We get a paragraph about a man falling from the building, we get a feeble attempt in the next two to deflect the discussion from the HYPOCRISY of holier than thou exposed in the article to something else, anything else, really. The �local� restriction, my incisive observer, was not imposed by me. No. The local restriction stems from the very nature of the medium in which the article appeared: City Pages is a LOCAL MN paper. �My rules� are neither my nor rules; they were merely a plea to keep the discussion on topic. If you think Coleman is irrelevant to it, be it so. In any case, Coleman was never my focal point, the way Geithner was the center piece of the other side�s argument. The other side, mind you, still quiet to this day on the matter. So, what�s next? Firstly, there was no apology from you from falsely attributing insults I never said to me, secondly there was willful and intentional deflection from the hypocrisy to the minor detail. Oh, yes. I took the time to explain to you how not all infractions are judged the same, how some are judged harsher. That seemed to be the centerpiece in your original query. Yet, there is no acknowledgement from you, no thanks. How ever shall I sleep? And yes, I am above ad hominem attacks. Every phrase I thrust at my interlocutors, starting from their ignorance and ending with their ad hominems and steadfast refusal to stick to the topic has been warranted and proved in the thread above. But then again, and again and again, this is not about me, no matter how much you and your friends try to steer the conversation thus. I am not a moderator here; I do not make the rules, no matter how much you try to ascribe that to me. I merely point out, that, hey, there�s a pile of turd. There�s a turd wrapped in a candy wrapper. Right under our noses. And that the color of the candy wrapper doesn�t matter. All those with an opposing viewpoint in the thread keep pointing out other items: hey, that guy in /fill in the blank/ doesn�t smell fresh either. Great. But irrelevant. If you think it�s relevant, by all means deflect the subject to b.o. But I will continue insisting the irrelevancy of that, and see it as an attempt to divert the discussion. You don�t like �my rules�? You are free not to. You are obviously quite at ease making your own on the fly: not apologizing, not ackn�but we�ve covered all that. All in all, another noble attempt, but yet feebler than the previous. A whimper, but still, Carry on ~ Latte

• A two day wait produces nothing but another steaming pile of inconsequential musings from a <a href=http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=french+tickler> misguided pleasure accessory. Is there an apology for falsely attributing an ad hominem lobotomy attack to me? No, of course not. For that would not be the way of a rethug. What do we get instead? We get a paragraph about a man falling from the building, we get a feeble attempt in the next two to deflect the discussion from the HYPOCRISY of holier than thou exposed in the article to something else, anything else, really. The �local� restriction, my incisive observer, was not imposed by me. No. The local restriction stems from the very nature of the medium in which the article appeared: City Pages is a LOCAL MN paper. �My rules� are neither my nor rules; they were merely a plea to keep the discussion on topic. If you think Coleman is irrelevant to it, be it so. In any case, Coleman was never my focal point, the way Geithner was the center piece of the other side�s argument. The other side, mind you, still quiet to this day on the matter. So, what�s next? Firstly, there was no apology from you from falsely attributing insults I never said to me, secondly there was willful and intentional deflection from the hypocrisy to the minor detail. Oh, yes. I took the time to explain to you how not all infractions are judged the same, how some are judged harsher. That seemed to be the centerpiece in your original query. Yet, there is no acknowledgement from you, no thanks. How ever shall I sleep? And yes, I am above ad hominem attacks. Every phrase I thrust at my interlocutors, starting from their ignorance and ending with their ad hominems and steadfast refusal to stick to the topic has been warranted and proved in the thread above. But then again, and again and again, this is not about me, no matter how much you and your friends try to steer the conversation thus. I am not a moderator here; I do not make the rules, no matter how much you try to ascribe that to me. I merely point out, that, hey, there�s a pile of turd. There�s a turd wrapped in a candy wrapper. Right under our noses. And that the color of the candy wrapper doesn�t matter. All those with an opposing viewpoint in the thread keep pointing out other items: hey, that guy in /fill in the blank/ doesn�t smell fresh either. Great. But irrelevant. If you think it�s relevant, by all means deflect the subject to b.o. But I will continue insisting the irrelevancy of that, and see it as an attempt to divert the discussion. You don�t like �my rules�? You are free not to. You are obviously quite at ease making your own on the fly: not apologizing, not ackn�but we�ve covered all that. All in all, another noble attempt, but yet feebler than the previous. A whimper, but still, Carry on ~ Latte

• Have you ever seen a man fall from a building? The great misconception is that he screams, but in most recorded instances he is silent. The silence seems to a be a final acceptance of a final fate. Now there are certain cases of denial, one would assume, where even a man falling from heaven screams in defiance of the very air. And you, my friend, are that very man. Rather than simply walking away and chalking this up to a lesson learned, and learned well; you charge on in a lesson not learned at all. Your most recent response was nothing but the pitiable scream of a falling man who will refuse his fate even in the irony of such a phrase. You are now retreating quickly and saying that your allusion to Coleman was ok because it has to do with MN. Shall I quote your original rules? "If you have nothing of substance to add to the ISSUE of the thread, i.e. Bachmanns not paying their taxes on time, kindly showcase your lobotomy related skills elsewhere. Otherwise, you are as grossly irrelevant as the rest of your fellow conservatives here, small and large." Oops my friend. Oops indeed. It seems to be very clear that you, in your insecurity, DEMAND that this discussion concentrate entirely on the Bachman's not paying their taxes on time. Now you are squirming and saying that bringing third parties in is fine...so long as they are from the same state? I don't remember you writing that exception down. And I must ask, how is being from the same state a better or worse parallel than being in the same situation? Perhaps you can make another convenient rule. NO third parties unless they live within one hundred miles of the accused? You see, this is the typical ploy of an unarmed wit: They will make up rule after rule to try and control the argument, since they feel they cannot keep up with a free thinking discussion; thus they attempt to restrain it. Of course, it always ends in hilarity when they cannot follow their own rules, when they are the only ones required to do so. You may also note that in the very same quote you very clearly deliver an ad hominem attack to every "conservative" in the discussion. But scroll up and you will see yourself(though you may not recognize him)declaring with great pomp and circumstance that you are "quite above petty ad hominem attacks." You see how tangled you have become? I could say nothing at all and watch you tie yourself into a thousand knots and eventually watch you choke on the ropes of your rules. It seems that rattling cages on this little blog is of great excitement to you, so I apologize for shaking yours instead. I cannot even remember how I happened upon this site, and I am quite sure I can forget it without taking a major loss. Hopefully you learned the risk of always being the first to attack; hopefully you learned that the safety of self inflicted rules is not worth the risk when compared to the damaging turnabout of self inflicted rules. You'll always find it quite impossible to win a fight when you pridefully tie your own hands before the bell rings.

• Ah, the forceful French response, be it from the Tickler. Alas, FT, let us dissect your incisive analysis of unparalleled parallels. Do we treat all the scum the same, you ask. A great question, and the answer is, no. We do not treat all the scum the same. The answer is �it depends�. When holier than thou fall, they are scorned a bit more. Quite a bit more. For if there is one thing our short attention span electorate still gets, that�s hypocrisy. Geithner was a piss-poor example. A better NY/DEM example would have been Spitzer. Why? Why, you already know in your heart why. Eliot went after infringements with the same zeal Revers went after gays and Souder and Palin went after non-abstinence bases sex education. Guess what happens when they are caught transgressing? They are tried much harsher in the court of public opinion. Same is happening to the fiscal queen Bachmann. And the issue of her fiscal hypocrisy is not limited to the late taxes. No, it�s the farm subsidies her family has been receiving, the state/federal healthcare assistance and the mucho dinero that came from fostering an army of girls. These are some rather large sums, all in all. All this Bachmann welfare and handouts add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars and one massive hypocrisy. So, she is judged. She is judged harshly. But she merits it. No, a week-late property tax payment would not merit as many words were any one of us involved. But most of us have not made ourselves financial accountability royalty the way Michele has. See the diff? In case you still do not, let me explain how Nohm fits in. Nohm was another MN politician, representing most of us who read the City Pages. Nohm is another local who �made good�. See? Bachmann, Coleman, but not Geithner. Geithner is a bit of a red herring. If you bring in Geitner, you open it up for a much wider and much different discussion. If you bring in Geithner, I bring in Phil Grahm. See? It leads us away from the specific topic at hand: fiscal hypocrisy in MN. Now, I will not resort to the petty ad hominems in which you engage. But I will address insults you falsely attribute to me. If you search the page for �lobotomy�, you will see it was not my term. I was merely responding to it, and not at all suggesting anyone is a recipient of the procedure. This little trick of yours, btw, is a classical rethug maneuver. All in all, my Francophile sexual implement, a noble attempt on your part. A nice try. A far more thoughtful response, but alas, one that still falls way short. But do, Carry on, ~ Latte

• Ahh, now isn't this the way discussions are supposed to be held? I'm not sure how one could make a story out of four thousand dollars in unpaid taxes; when they have only been unpaid for one week, and therefore it becomes a bit of a stretch(albeit a willing one for some of you)to assume they will never be paid at all. Mind you that I do not stand in defense of this woman(I merely wonder if it is too early to call this intentional?), she is a dirty politician, but then, they are all quite mud covered. So to attack one without attacking the other is even more revealing of certain head-to-sand slants. I must reckon up a bit of unending wonder--though mind you, not surprise--at the fact that I have heard more about this on the news than I had previously heard about politicians who had not paid their taxes at all, to the tune of fifty-thousand-plus. Can we not treat all scum the same? Or is some scum quite sacred? Now while I'm sure to that last point our dear coffee minded friend will shout "off-topic nonsense! Talk about Bachman or don't talk at all!" Well wouldn't that be a treat for you? If you could control the argument so that all mishaps on your end were filed under classified? No, I'm afraid you have broken your own rule my metachromatic munchkin. Do my eyes deceive me, or did you speak of someone other than Bachman? Who is this Coleman and why do I care? You will of course say you were drawing parallels, but those parallels were also drawn by others to cases like Geithner, and you seemed so very upset. So in the end you merely wished to travel two roads at once. In the typical liberal paradox, you wished to bring up outside parties when they fit your needs, and to declare outside parties inconcessus, when they did not. I would go and quote you as you basically say that anyone bringing anything into the argument not having to do with the Bachman's paying taxes on time deserved a lobotomy, and other original insulting surgeries. But alas, it seems so very unnecessary. You could not even write a few paragraphs without contradicting yourself; but then, it is easily forgiven; for the entirety of your social ideal is a contradiction. It is a rather sad sight to behold; to watch an intellectual insect stand on his hind legs, and think himself a giant. I wish you all, all of the best in future endeavors. And I pray that at some point a political discussion may be more than "well your side did this and my side only did that." As I said before, these people are all equally bad, and arguing about which is better, is as useful as a damned man arguing about the axe or the noose for his execution. You must damn Bachman, you must damn Geithner. You must damn Obama as readily as you damn Bush, and you must damn a colorful racist as quickly as you damn a colorless racist. If you cannot do these things, if you can only ever really damn one side; then you have given us a glance into your skull, and you have shown the world that you have half a mind. And therefore, no mind at all.

• small L, For those ESPECIALLY obtuse, I am repeating for the 4th time (!): this is not about me. If you have nothing of substance to add to the ISSUE of the thread, i.e. Bachmanns not paying their taxes on time, kindly showcase your lobotomy related skills elsewhere. Otherwise, you are as grossly irrelevant as the rest of your fellow conservatives here, small and large. Brandon, I think if a) you have a conventional mortgage and b) have less than certain minimum debt/equity ratio (commonly 20% eq/80% debt for a typical repackaged and resold security), then yes, you are almost always required to roll your real estate taxes together with mortgage insurance into an escrow along with your monthly mortgage payment. Then, the debt holder distributes the real estate tax twice a year out of that escrow. However, if you do not have a conventional/FHA mortgage, and Bachmanns most likely do not, as they dished out $760,000 for their West Lakeland house, then the rules are quite different for the "jumbo" instruments. Don't forget, Bachmanns lived right here in Stillwater for a number of years, but defeat after defeat at home, be it for the school board or MN CD-6 seat(Michele lost Stillwater every single time) must've driven them out. So there was likely to be quite a bit of equity on their Stillwater residence (if it sold). Add to that all the money Bachmanns have been suckling off the state for their 30+ foster children over years and all the farm subsidy money and the "clinic" money - well, you get the picture. It is likely the Bachmanns had to put down a whopper of a down payment to qualify for that jumbo mortgage. Remember too what happened to the [former] Senator Coleman with his upside down mortgage. Congressional salaries are too small to pay for the extravagant lifestyle Colemans and Bachmanns of this world are used to. They simply cannot keep up with petty taxes and mortgages. If only small l libertarians and big C republicans had compassion enough to help out a feller C in need. Pitch in, kids; it's for a good cause. LMAO. "I've grown accustomed to this thread" ~ Latte PS: If any conservatives still want to argue THE SUBSTANCE of the economic/tax issue, I welcome intelligent debate. Otherwise, I preemptively confess to an almost infinite ability to do all sorts of mental and physical tricks and to any sort of insulting turd you can muster of to fling at me. Yeah, I'm all that. Now, let's get past that, and show the rest of the class how you are smarter than a lobotomized douche bag liberal and how simple it is for you to defeat one in a debate. Should be simple, right? The bar could not be any lower. Polysyllabic words and all.

• For the people that don't think very well, remember the vast majority of us who live in a house have a mortgage associated with that. And that mortgage payment includes taxes. In fact, about the only way you can avoid paying property taxes is to not have a mortgage. All mortgages want you to set up escrow so the bank knows the taxes are paid (after all, the state can take the house if taxes aren't paid). So, multi-million dollar mansion owned by an "Average Joe" tea-bagger (right) is paid in full. Can't anyone else in the teabagger movement see your being totally duped by the weathly and affluent? Maybe it's time to start the ANTEA party - Affluent Not Taxed Enough Already!

• Agreed, taxes are getting out of control. But don't property taxes go to the local government? Honestly, I've never had a problem with my local government, they provide most of the valuable services I need. It's federal and sometimes state overreach that gets my blood hot.

• Oh, btw. Carry on; yes, definitely carry on. Wapner at 3:00. Can't miss Wapner.

• ".... But thanks to dingbats like subject Bachmann, I am now a DFL activist." Well, yeah. Bachmann and that full frontal lobotomy you're sporting. Besides those mad asshat dancing skillz, can you blow bubbles out of your nose now, too?

• ARWJ, I feel your pain, and I do hope you suffer for the next six years as we have suffered under dubya. As a small and meaningless gesture, I misspelled the word "vibrant" to appear more in step with the hoi polloi. As to your many points, I do call you tea baggers because a) that's what you are and b) that's what you called yourself until you discovered the urban dictionary. Since then, thanks to the tea baggers we've learned an entire new lexicon like "hiking the Appalachian Trail" and the "long stroke of carrying the luggage" and the sexier side of abstinence, be it Bristol's, Twig's or Souder's. Now for the substance. Do you want to see how much damage unfunded tax cuts of dubya's have down to our economy, to our deficit? Add to that two wars, both unfunded and just for good measure top that with Phil Grahm's deregulation of derivatives market that cost our economy several dozen trillion dollars. All good ole GOP measures. Nobody said a word about the deficit under dubya. Not one of you. After all, freedom isn't free. Guess what? Freedom isn't free still. We are paying for it now. In spades. But now we also have to clean up all the elephant dung. And you elephants do leave pretty huge and steaming piles of ignorance. I'm an elitist liberal. I own guns. I eat meat. I voted for Reagan. But thanks to dingbats like subject Bachmann, I am now a DFL activist. And that is because the Democrats are the new centrists, and the GOP, be it Michele, be it Rand Paul or his daddy, Boehner or DeMint are a bunch of loonie tunes out of touch with reality. Plus they regularly diddle children or have holier than thou extramarital affairs, all while making sure the rest of us help them dismantle that wall separating the Church from the State. So, if we on the left are taking your meat and guns away, perhaps you ought to have thought about that before turning to pedophilia. You still want to talk generalizations? We can talk generalizations. As you can see, I am adept at that as you are. Even though the facts are not on your side, you're probably a bit safer there. Carry on, ~ Latte

• &#64;Kirk The Conservative Jerk says Did I claim it on my taxes that I sold my TV on Craigslist? Uh.. No.. It's not profit nor is it income unless I used the TV as a business write off.

• Jeez, I thank you for your sincere, if backhanded compliment. That is indeed how I talk; I'm a pompous ass. I am, after all, a LATTE liberal. I have a certain image to uphold. But - and you will pardon me for repeating, as some, you apparently included do not get it, this is not about Geitner, this is not about California taxes, and this is even more certainly not about me and my lexicon. But since you are so immune to sarcasm, I will peel back a layer and repeat: sarcasm. Why is it that the very people who are isolationist and xenophobic shiver and point when the only language they speak is being used properly? Sounding educated, using proper grammar and complete sentences is not a sin. It's not a crime. It's our lowest common denominator. But back to the point. The point of the article. This is about Michele, an alleged tax specialist, an alleged fiscal conservative not paying her taxes on time and taking handouts from the "socialist health care" in her husband's "clinic". Clinic is in quotes because...well, that's another topic all together. And staying on topic is already so darn difficult for rethugs and their ideological allies. If you want to discuss high California taxes and issues with Craigslist, perhaps Arnold will lend you an ear. After all, his fellow actor seeded the vibriant economical harvest we are reaping today. Trickle down, baby, trickle down. And do carry on, ~ Latte

• I'm not a Bachmann fan, but I think it's too soon to call her a tax protester. I dropped my Ramsey county property taxes off at the post office on the 15th, and the Ramsey county website hasn't recorded it (nor has it been debited from my checking account). In Ramsey county, and I presume across the state, the due date for the first half property taxes was the 17th, because the 15th fell on the weekend. Also, if Bachman's house is mortgaged and her taxes are escrowed, if the mortgage processor is late, it's not really her fault. If Kevin Hoffman were a responsible journalist, he would have checked with Washington county to see if they were done processing their property tax mailings, and also contacted Bachmann for a comment.

• IRS go get her and throw her in jail like Wesley Snipes.

• Latte, of course this isn't about Geitner, he is a Democrat. I am sure you are OK with high property taxes, you probably rent. I understand that property taxes are NOW a necessary evil. In reality they never should have been implemented. That aside, here in California you do have to claim sales tax on anything you buy, even off Craig's List. Not only that, you have to pay a use tax equal to the going sales tax on anything you rent. If you barter work with someone, each of you is supposed to estimate how much the work you did would cost and claim that as income. So many taxes. Yet you make the statement that so many things had to be shut down because people are not having to pay taxes due to Bush's tax cuts. Yes, I understand you think Socialism is good. Many of us don't and for that you hate us. For that you call us tea baggers. Yes, you definitely show how much superior you are to the right. And louis, just because our views differ does not mean I am ignorant. Again, the left hates anyone who doesn't agree with them. If someone on the right doesn't want to own a gun, they just don't buy one. If someone on the left doesn't want to own a gun they try to pass a law so nobody can. If i don't want to eat meat I don't buy meat. if someone on the left doesn't want to eat meat they try to stop everyone from eating meat. I could go on because it has always been that way. You on the left are so much better than anyone else. You are elitist, and I despise that attitude.

• Drill Baby Drill!

• I don't really give a flying crap about this story, it was actually quite stupid and irrelevant. But I laugh at whomever MNlatteliberal is. Gotta love those thread commentors that "speak/type" in a manner that they think will impress upon everyone that they are edumacated, i.e. "with their accusatory digits of indignation pointing at the lack of substance from the other".

• Oh somehow I got the feeling the money will show up shortly. Lou www.total-anonymity.tk

• Latte, TELL 'em. Too many conservative, a.k.a. IGNORANT voters and lackeys out there for my taste. Bachmann is vapid and a down-right clown. It is a wonder the voters in her district voted for her a second time? I guess many of them have too little time to read and educate themselves. I guess FOX and the other distractions have claimed a good percentage of the population. You can't teach them anything because their arrogance prevents and lucid dialogue. Write them off and this bag-of-wind, Bachmann.

• Kirk, It's always heartwarming to see when the conservatives come out with their accusatory digits of indignation pointing at the lack of substance from the other side. It's even more gratifying when their own substance is same old lies. Case and point, your knowledge of taxation and code is on the level of financial acumen of Ms Bachmann herself: you are both aware that there are such thing as taxes and finances out there and somehow they relate to something called "economy", but not quite sure how the dots connect. FYI: garage sales and craigslist sales ARE NOT SUBJECT to MN sales tax: http://www.taxes.state.mn.us/taxes/sales/publications/fact_sheets_by_name/content/BAT_1100122.pdf Your comparison of Bachmann's delinquency on real estate payment to an alleged tag sale obligation only underscores your ignorance. Next time, read up before posting. That might be a good guiding principle for whole tea bag "movement". Otherwise, do Carry on, ~ Latte

• Not much for comments with any substance here. Just typical children calling names. You college students better hope Tarryl Clark doesn't win against Michele come November. Check it- Vote from 04/17/2009 Limit of 3 Percent on Tuition Increases Tarryl Clark voted NO the Amendment was Rejected - Senate (32 - 33) If Tarryl Clark would have voted yes, College tuition would have been caped at 3% increase per year MAX. How many of you have sold something from a garage sale or off of craigslist? Did you claim it on your taxes when you filed? Are you going to eventually pay them like Michele? Is this your form of protest?

• This crazy coont needs to be "teabagged", literally. She won't be able to talk with a hairy yambag in her greasy pie-hole.

• Sad thing is her property tax pays for LOCAL Gov. Not the Fed. that is all taken in FIT. Perhaps her property tax wouldn't be so high (that seems pretty low for a million dollar property) had the State and Feds not cut funding to state county and local Government. Thank you Bush Tax cuts.

• you go gril.

• FIGHT THE POWER!!!

• Ride that hobbyhorse City Pages! Ride it hard! Oh yeah! Feels good don't it?

• Hey, Mr. Blows, this is not about Tim Geitner, this is about the tea-bagging queen Ms Bachmann. If you want to drag in other off-topic folks, let's chat about Revers' baggage handling techniques, Souder's and Bristol's passion for abstinence and those who hike the Appalachian Trail. Geitner is far away in DC and NY before that, while Ms Bachmann suckles on the government teat all while protesting crocodile tears right here in MN CD-6. Ms Bachmann shortchanges my county by first advocating against census and then by not paying her taxes. See the diff? No, probably not. Have someone draw you a picture. Carry on, ~ Latte

• Ms. Bachmann, is out of touch with reality. She is obviously spending more time "Creating" chaos than running her district. For you folks who find her "spunk," logical or intelligent (silly rants and ravings, it just PROVES "the blind are leading the blind." Get rid of this dummy.

• this Ms Bachman just craves attention,,any way she can get it. Spoiled little rich girl,,,,,,

• So Bachmann does have something in common with the libs. Hey CP, did you guys trash Tim Geithner when he was outed for not paying almost $50,000 in taxes between 2001 & 2004? Bachmann not paying her property tax (yet)should be no problem for the deamoncrats in Washington, they sweep it under the rug for their own. Will they on this occasion?

• this is just pathetically pathetic

• You don't even have to make this stuff up: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2474334/posts Tea Party favorite Rep. Michele Bachmann (R, Minn.) has urged opponents of ObamaCare to stop paying taxes if the House passes the health care reform bill using "deem and pass," a controversial procedural shortcut. "They want us to pay for this? We don't have to," she said over the weekend. "We don't have to follow a bill that isn't law." By the way, the Bachmann Manor is in West Lakeland Township.

• Or, she submitted it in the mail and it's postmarked by the 15th and they just haven't processed the check yet...

TotalComments: 36