NO. But Bachmann reported a claim. It is up the claimant to substantiate the claim, not the skeptic to disprove it, which is essentially logically impossible.
“But Bachmann reported a claim. It is up the claimant to substantiate the claim, not the skeptic to disprove it, which is essentially logically impossible.”
That is not the point.
A skeptic that steps out to prove Bachman wrong, while offering evidence that does not amount that proof, has in fact offered just “so many words, full of sound and fury signifying nothing” [to paraphrase a famous line].
You’re right, no one is REQUIRED to prove Bachman wrong. She should back up her own statement.
But, anyone TRYING to show proof of why Bachman is wrong should do so on a more substantial basis than what the author in the AmericanThinker offered.
In the eyes of anyone looking for “proof”, he proved himself no better than Bachman. That’s the issue, against his piece in the AmericanThinker.