Michele Bachmann Expected to Form GOP Exploratory Committee

[bbarrick8383]

Non-responsive non sequitur and ad hominem.

*John Quincy Adams was not a founding father.

*The founding fathers did not end slavery.

*Ethnic prejudice existed in the US against new immigrant arrivals.

*Lexington and Concord are not in New Hampshire.

Now, that’s Ms. Bachmann messing up so far. Those are not slips of the tongue (before you say it) – she had her facts dead wrong.

Watch this space!

There are not 57 states either.

So what are you saying about Obama?

 

[estesbob]

The silly season is certainly underway. Just consider the possibilities:

“Bachman for President 2012”
“Trump for President 2012”
“Palin for President 2012”

The thought of these three as Republican presidential candidates just makes me giggle. Four more years!

V

Of course the Democrats biggest nightmare is “Obama2012”

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Run, Michelle, Run! Get nominated by the GOP!

IMO she has less chance of being elected than Ms. Palin does.

Why, pray tell, Rich?

She may not have the national exposure that Palin has, but at least she does not have quite the same “history” and “reputation.”

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Michele is too pretty and too smart to be a Republican. However, like Ron Paul, she says it like it is without the Palin obnoxious sarcasm and I could live with her as President.

Oh boy, that’s cold!!!

 

[oldcelt]

Michele is too pretty and too smart to be a Republican.

Except that she has no concept of American history. The founding fathers going after slavery…wow…what a complete lapse of American history. There is more…but in respect for the board, I’ll defer.

John

 

[bbarrick8383]

Except that she has no concept of American history. The founding fathers going after slavery…wow…what a complete lapse of American history. There is more…but in respect for the board, I’ll defer.

John

If only this thread were titled “Politicians Say the Darndest Things”, the list would go on and on with names from both sides of the aisles and quotes ranging from downright stupid and silly to racist and inflammatory.

Very few of them would be left out, including the all knowing elitist with a firm grasp of American history but a complete ignorance of what happened in their own life a decade before, sniper fire anyone?

 

[Abyssinia]

Thats true; they ran McCain/Palin last time around. I’m sure they’ll do the same this time around.

Those two won’t be running again together haha.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, a pro-life advocate from the state of Minnesota, will reportedly form an exploratory committee in June, or perhaps earlier, to consider a potential bid for the GOP nomination for president.

Bachmann is a conservative lawmaker who has burnished national credentials because of her involvement with Tea Party groups and her outspoken views on pro-life issues. According to a CNN report, she may form the committee — the first official step before a formal candidacy is declared — earlier than June in order to participate in some of the early Republican presidential debates media outlets and interested organizations are already organizing.

lifenews.com/2011/03/24/michele-bachmann-expected-to-from-gop-exploratory-committee/

Cool. I like Bachmann. Much better that Trump or Gingrich. However, I don’t remember the last person who won the White House who came out of the House of Representatives. Its usually the Senators who all believe they should be President.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Except that she has no concept of American history. The founding fathers going after slavery…wow…what a complete lapse of American history. There is more…but in respect for the board, I’ll defer.

John

If YOU understood anything about American history, you will understand that the 2/3 rule for slaves was to make the slave owning states have LESS power in Congress. They wrote the Constitution with this rule to make the slavery issue a bug in the craw of every state until it would be abolished. The slave owning states wanted every slave to be counted as a full head. The anti-slave states replied “If every slave is a full person, how can you be justified in owning them?” So, they settled on the 2/3 rule. It created the presumption that the slaves were in fact people, not property, and that they were discounted to that the anti-slavery states would have more Congressional representation and would be able to begin chipping away at the institution.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

V

Of course the Democrats biggest nightmare is “Obama2012”

Hey, with his unilateral military engagement in Lybia, even they are starting to turn on him. If this keeps up, you could see a Palin/Joe the Plumber ticket win the White House.

 

[agnes_therese]

Attractive conservative women bring out the worst in liberal Democrats.

Of course. It’s COMPLETELY impossible that anyone would oppose Palin and/or Bachmann for ANY reason other than that they’re “attractive.” Pointing out their errors of fact, or other mis-steps, can only be done from evil motives, not because they’re actually wrong about some things.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Of course. It’s COMPLETELY impossible that anyone would oppose Palin and/or Bachmann for ANY reason other than that they’re “attractive.” Pointing out their errors of fact, or other mis-steps, can only be done from evil motives, not because they’re actually wrong about some things.

I am still waiting for legitimate, debatable criticism of Bachmann. All I am hearing are that she’s dumb and has no concept of history, without specifics.

 

[mary_bobo]

Michele is too pretty and too smart to be a Republican. However, like Ron Paul, she says it like it is without the Palin obnoxious sarcasm and I could live with her as President.

Let’s not worry about it at this point. No way the GOP will nominate either of these ladies. Bachman might be tapped for VP, but Palin will not be nominated. Besides, she is effective in fund raising. I hate it that we are getting into election speculating so early.

 

[Lujack]

If YOU understood anything about American history, you will understand that the 2/3 rule for slaves was to make the slave owning states have LESS power in Congress. They wrote the Constitution with this rule to make the slavery issue a bug in the craw of every state until it would be abolished. The slave owning states wanted every slave to be counted as a full head. The anti-slave states replied “If every slave is a full person, how can you be justified in owning them?” So, they settled on the 2/3 rule. It created the presumption that the slaves were in fact people, not property, and that they were discounted to that the anti-slavery states would have more Congressional representation and would be able to begin chipping away at the institution.

No, that’s actually wrong. The Northern States wanted the slaves to not be counted at all, as that would disproportionately benefit slaveholding states-the 3/5ths compromise did settle at that number and it was better than each slave being fully counted, but that was never really on the table to begin with. Not only that, it didn’t allow the North to begin chipping away at the institution of slavery-the only serious chipping away done in the time of the Founding Fathers was either in their Northern states, where the 3/5ths compromise was irrelevant and not enough slaves were owned to begin with to make a powerful political bloc, or the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.

The NW Ordinance barred slavery from the territories that would become the states of Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, but that was passed under the Articles of Confederation-before the Constitution and the 3/5ths Compromise. Without the 3/5ths Compromise, anti-slavery forces would have been much stronger-they would have had the votes to bar slavery from the Louisiana Purchase territories, for instance.

The 3/5ths compromise was a bulwark for slavery, not a wedge against it.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Let’s not worry about it at this point. No way the GOP will nominate either of these ladies. Bachman might be tapped for VP, but Palin will not be nominated. Besides, she is effective in fund raising. I hate it that we are getting into election speculating so early.

I’m with you, Mary. The GOP is NOT going to nominate Bachmann or Palin for President, Furthermore, it’s still too early to be able to point to any GOP pol as being in the lead in the running.

 

[estesbob]

If YOU understood anything about American history, you will understand that the 2/3 rule for slaves was to make the slave owning states have LESS power in Congress. They wrote the Constitution with this rule to make the slavery issue a bug in the craw of every state until it would be abolished. The slave owning states wanted every slave to be counted as a full head. The anti-slave states replied “If every slave is a full person, how can you be justified in owning them?” So, they settled on the 2/3 rule. It created the presumption that the slaves were in fact people, not property, and that they were discounted to that the anti-slavery states would have more Congressional representation and would be able to begin chipping away at the institution.

John and I disagree on a lot of things but I can absolutely assure you that John credentials where Amercian History is concerend are extensive.

The 3/5 rule (not 2/3) was added at the insistence of the Southern States. The Northern States did not want the slaves counted at all when determining representation in the House

As far as chipping away the Dred Scott Decison made it impossible for any more “chippng away” (not that much had occured anyway)

If you want to truly grasp all that was involved I suggest you read :

“The Witch at the Christening: Slavery and the Constitution’s Origins,” William M. Wiecek

“America in 1857” Kenneth Stampp

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

John and I disagree on a lot of things but I can absolutely assure you that John credentials where Amercian History is concerend are extensive.

The 3/5 rule (not 2/3) was added at the insistence of the Southern States. The Northern States did not want the slaves counted at all when determining representation in the House

As far as chipping away the Dred Scott Decison made it impossible for any more “chippng away” (not that much had occured anyway)

If you want to truly grasp all that was involved I suggest you read :

“The Witch at the Christening: Slavery and the Constitution’s Origins,” William M. Wiecek

“America in 1857” Kenneth Stampp

Okay, I got my percentages wrong. And history is perspective, it ain’t about facts anymore, or there would be more people like me who were of the opinion that Lincoln was probably the worst President we ever had. The 3/5 rule was agreed to by the abolitionist states because it established the bulwark that slaves were, in fact, PEOPLE, not property. So, the south got part of what they wanted, but in return, they surrendered the fact that slaves were people who could be counted for census, not just things to be bought and disposed of. By pushing for the 3/5 rule, the slave states invariably brought about their own ruin. Therefore, I maintain that the abolitionists won out in the end and that the way the constitution was written was a masterful long-term stroke AGAINST slavery, not for it.

Ironically, it was James Madison and Thomas Jefferson who wrote the defining articles on state nullification that “chipped away” at Dred Scott and the slave fugitive act.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

If YOU understood anything about American history, you will understand that the 2/3 rule for slaves was to make the slave owning states have LESS power in Congress. They wrote the Constitution with this rule to make the slavery issue a bug in the craw of every state until it would be abolished. The slave owning states wanted every slave to be counted as a full head. The anti-slave states replied “If every slave is a full person, how can you be justified in owning them?” So, they settled on the 2/3 rule. It created the presumption that the slaves were in fact people, not property, and that they were discounted to that the anti-slavery states would have more Congressional representation and would be able to begin chipping away at the institution.

That’s The 3/5 Rule.

 

[estesbob]

Okay, I got my percentages wrong. And history is perspective, it ain’t about facts anymore, or there would be more people like me who were of the opinion that Lincoln was probably the worst President we ever had. The 3/5 rule was agreed to by the abolitionist states because it established the bulwark that slaves were, in fact, PEOPLE, not property. So, the south got part of what they wanted, but in return, they surrendered the fact that slaves were people who could be counted for census, not just things to be bought and disposed of. By pushing for the 3/5 rule, the slave states invariably brought about their own ruin. Therefore, I maintain that the abolitionists won out in the end and that the way the constitution was written was a masterful long-term stroke AGAINST slavery, not for it.

Scott there was not one word in any of the deabates about this issue about slaves beng “people”. If the South had gotten what they wanted the slaves would have been counted fully so how does comnpromising on 3/5 become a compormise on their part that indicated slaves were people??? This debated had absolutely nothing to do with recognizing the humanity of slaves-it was only a political dispute on the makeup of the House of Representatives.

This debate is not vey well understood today. You often hear African Americans politicians bemoan the fact they were once considered only 3/5 humanwhen in fact it was the slaveocracy that wanted the counted in full and the abolitionists who wanted them not counted at all.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Okay, I got my percentages wrong. And history is perspective, it ain’t about facts anymore, or there would be more people like me who were of the opinion that Lincoln was probably the worst President we ever had. The 3/5 rule was agreed to by the abolitionist states because it established the bulwark that slaves were, in fact, PEOPLE, not property. So, the south got part of what they wanted, but in return, they surrendered the fact that slaves were people who could be counted for census, not just things to be bought and disposed of. By pushing for the 3/5 rule, the slave states invariably brought about their own ruin. Therefore, I maintain that the abolitionists won out in the end and that the way the constitution was written was a masterful long-term stroke AGAINST slavery, not for it.

Ironically, it was James Madison and Thomas Jefferson who wrote the defining articles on state nullification that “chipped away” at Dred Scott and the slave fugitive act.

In the name of mathematics:

2/3 and 3/5 are fractions. 0.66 = 66% and 0.6 = 60% are percentages that represent the same ratio.