Michele Bachmann Expected to Form GOP Exploratory Committee

[Scott_Lafrance]

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.

Maybe you missed the fact that I admitted that I got my percentages wrong.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Maybe you missed the fact that I admitted that I got my percentages wrong.

Yes, but you were using fractions, not percentages. Both represent ratios but are expressed differently.

Don’t take it too seriously.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

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.

Yes, but you are missing out WHY they wanted things that way. The slave states wanted their cake and eat it too. I.e., they wanted to be able to own what they fully recognized as people and somehow not seem like massive hypocrites when signing off on that whole “all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. THey wanted to be able to both treat people as disposable property, and yet also count them as fully equal people. The anti-slavery states said “No, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either they are people will all of the same rights as other people in this country, or they are property with no rights whatsoever.” The South wanted the full head count specifically for enumeration at the census for Congressional representation, the anti-slave states recognized the hypocricy of that position. Thus, the 3/5 compromise.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Yes, but you are missing out WHY they wanted things that way. The slave states wanted their cake and eat it too. I.e., they wanted to be able to own what they fully recognized as people and somehow not seem like massive hypocrites when signing off on that whole “all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. THey wanted to be able to both treat people as disposable property, and yet also count them as fully equal people. The anti-slavery states said “No, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either they are people will all of the same rights as other people in this country, or they are property with no rights whatsoever.” The South wanted the full head count specifically for enumeration at the census for Congressional representation, the anti-slave states recognized the hypocricy of that position. Thus, the 3/5 compromise.

In other words, it was about politics. What’s new?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

In other words, it was about politics. What’s new?

Nothing.

 

[estesbob]

Yes, but you are missing out WHY they wanted things that way. The slave states wanted their cake and eat it too. I.e., they wanted to be able to own what they fully recognized as people and somehow not seem like massive hypocrites when signing off on that whole “all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. THey wanted to be able to both treat people as disposable property, and yet also count them as fully equal people. The anti-slavery states said “No, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either they are people will all of the same rights as other people in this country, or they are property with no rights whatsoever.” The South wanted the full head count specifically for enumeration at the census for Congressional representation, the anti-slave states recognized the hypocricy of that position. Thus, the 3/5 compromise.

You are the one missing the point-your analysis is bassackwards. If we follow you theory then the slaveocracy should have been fighting for them not to counted at all and the abolitinst fighting for them be counted fully.

 

[estesbob]

In other words, it was about politics. What’s new?

Absolutely. There was nothing noble on either side where slavery was concenred. Slavery slimed everyone and every insitution it came in contact with. The founders inability to resolve this issue ended up costing the lives of over a half million Americans and still haunts us today.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Bachmann thinks about running for president…Obama gets down on his knees and realizes there is a God for sure…“Thank you Lord!” he cries…

 

[estesbob]

Bachmann thinks about running for president…Obama gets down on his knees and realizes there is a God for sure…“Thank you Lord!” he cries…

The GOP could run Pewee Herman and have a better than even chance of beating Obama. Unfortunatley for Obama I suspect his opponent is going to be Romney or Christie.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

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.

Unilateral? We have a UN Mandate endorsed by the Arab League and NATO. The United States isn’t the only country flying planes and firing missiles and we’re not the ones who pushed for the no-fly zone.

 

[Lujack]

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.

It didn’t work that way, though-the 3/5ths compromise was never seriously used as a bulwark to claim that slaves were more than just property. Abolitionists mustered other evidence instead. The idea that the 3/5ths compromise had anything to do with a principle of humanity is sort of a modern reading backwards, and it did nothing but strengthen the South.

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.

I don’t know about this one, either. The basis of Northern resistance to the Fugitive Slave Law had less to do with the political philosophy of state nullification and more to do with the theological philosophy of resisting an unjust law-it came more from Garrison and the Quakers than anything else.

 

[Lujack]

The GOP could run Pewee Herman and have a better than even chance of beating Obama. Unfortunatley for Obama I suspect his opponent is going to be Romney or Christie.

It won’t be Christie, I don’t think. First of all, I don’t want it to be because the man is a bully and a thug and it makes me sick to look at him (I actually won’t debate any of his policies because of the way his policies have adversely affected my family and friends of my family and nobody seems to care and if I start I’ll say some things that I’ll ultimately regret and because of him I’m going to have to give up my dream of teaching in my home state because I know that I’ll never be able to afford a house on the salary that teachers will ultimately end up with).

The most I will say, though, is that his personality is a serious weakness for him in the primaries-as a pushy New Jerseyan, he is exactly what most of the country dislikes and distrusts about us Northeasterners; it even grates on some New Jerseyans, who are more used to that style. In places like the Iowa Primaries, that won’t run so well against people like Mike Huckabee. Also, he’s doesn’t like he’ll run in 2012, anyway. That’s my last word on Christie, though-if I talk about him anymore I’ll ruin my day.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

There are not 57 states either.

So what are you saying about Obama?

That was a slip. Bachmann was quoting accurately from her script. Which was wrong.

Conservatives love to bring up slips when you show one of them to be misinformed.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

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.

I think I cited you chapter and verse. I could add that she is a government handout beneficiary (farm subsidies) while telling others to get off the public weal.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

It won’t be Christie, I don’t think. First of all, I don’t want it to be because the man is a bully and a thug and it makes me sick to look at him …

I think he is bullying. He attacked the mayors of some cities for their snow response when he was questioned about the governor and lieutenant governor of the state both being on vacation in sunnier climes when the state was declared a blizzard disaster area. He’s his own apologist.

 

[estesbob]

That was a slip. Bachmann was quoting accurately from her script. Which was wrong.

Conservatives love to bring up slips when you show one of them to be misinformed.

So when Obama mispeaks its a slip. When bachman does so its an indication of incompetence? The problem with this is we now have two years of Obamas performance to judge-he is obviously incompetent and given this it is not hard to beleive he actually believed there were 57 states.

Again i am incredulous that people who supported Obama would dare question the competency of anyone else.

 

[Lujack]

So when Obama mispeaks its a slip. When bachman does so its an indication of incompetence? The problem with this is we now have two years of Obamas performance to judge-he is obviously incompetent and given this it is not hard to beleive he actually believed there were 57 states.

Again i am incredulous that people who supported Obama would dare question the competency of anyone else.

Wait, you actually believe that Obama thinks there are 57 states?

Look, I’m not one to attack people on gaffes or slips, which is why I’ll never metnion any of Sarah Palin’s new words or George Bush’s pronunciations of nuclear-those are silly mistakes that everyone makes. I’d those two in the same category as the 57 states thing, or Dan Quayle not properly spelling potato-those are things that happen when every word you speak is broadcast publicly, eventually your brainfarts get aired nationwide. This is the category where I’d put Bachmann’s thing about Lexington and Concord being in New Hampshire, a brainfart.

Bachmann’s thing about the Founding Fathers is in a different category, though, because that’s what she meant to say, and it means that she really just has a weird reading of that period of history. Its sort of inexplicable, and it belongs in a different category than other mistakes. Its more like Gerald Ford insisting that Poland wasn’t dominated by the Soviets.

 

[estesbob]

Wait, you actually believe that Obama thinks there are 57 states?

Not now but obviously he did befopre someone pulled him aside and corrected him. But then i guess tht Amercian History is not stressed in Indonesian Schools.

Bachmann’s thing about the Founding Fathers is in a different category, though, because that’s what she meant to say, and it means that she really just has a weird reading of that period of history. Its sort of inexplicable, and it belongs in a different category than other mistakes. Its more like Gerald Ford insisting that Poland wasn’t dominated by the Soviets.

Just about all Americans knowledge of US History is terribly deficient. I dont think that disqualifies them from serving. The attacks on Bachman and Palin are petty. In addition it is a little late for Obama supporters to start worrying about whether people have enough experience to be Presdident

 

[Lujack]

Not now but obviously he did befopre someone pulled him aside and corrected him. But then i guess tht Amercian History is not stressed in Indonesian Schools.

Or he made a mistake. Do you really believe that he didn’t know there were 50 states before then? That he noted that there were 100 senators and 2 for each state at any point?

Just about all Americans knowledge of US History is terribly deficient. I dont think that disqualifies them from serving. The attacks on Bachman and Palin are petty. In addition it is a little late for Obama supporters to start worrying about whether people have enough experience to be Presdident

Where did I say anything about experience, and where did I criticize Palin in this thread? My point is that the 57 states gaffe (or Sarah Palin using a word that doesn’t exist) is an essentially minor one, indicating nothing but a mix-up of facts or a brainfart. Its the same when Bachmann thinks that Lexington and Concord are in New Hampshire. None of those three matter-but her interpretation of the Founding Fathers does matter. It only matters in aggregate, as part of a lot of different things, but it is of a different order than the other three I mentioned, because it isn’t just a brain-fart but a deliberate argument that bears no relation to the facts.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

The attacks on Bachman and Palin are petty.

Hmm. I would say that the criticisms of Palin and Bachmann are certainly appropriate and relevant. The president has been attacked as to his grammar school – that’s not relevant to anything nor is it of his doing but conservatives will bring it up.

In addition it is a little late for Obama supporters to start worrying about whether people have enough experience to be Presdident

Ad hominem, once again. Can’t you stick on Bachmann?