Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Bachmann: Founding fathers ‘worked tirelessly’ to end slavery

page: 7
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


No doubt. I had the same problem with 06, thinking it was 05 at first, and 07 was obscured by her finger, could have gone any way. It's a little fuzzy in the picture. Also I have no reason to doubt your figures, or the fact that months within the year were cherry-picked. You know what they say - there are lies, there are DAMN lies, and worst of all there are statistics. Politicians are masters at fudging statistics, which is a large part of why I don't believe any of them, Bachmann included.

No, my whole gripe here is not that Bush gets his dumb ass trashed and trounced, because he's got it coming to him, it's the attempt to gloss over Obama's continued complicity in the matter, and blame it ALL on Bush - as if Obama has done any better, or different. Near as I can tell, their both two sides of the same coin, and if brains were gunpowder, neither would have enough of his own to blow his own nose.

I'm not defending Bush, because I think what he did in office is indefensible. I'm saying that Obama doesn't get a pass either until HE does something right to trump what Bush has done wrong, rather than continue on with more of the same, and accelerate the decline. I'm despairing that I'll ever see that day. With any luck at all, he's only got two more years to complete the train wreck that Bush got rolling along really well.


edit on 2011/1/27 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Which shows just how dumb she thinks her followers are...she doesn't expect them to verify the data


I am torn between...(a) She thinks her followers are dumb or (b) She thinks her followers are unconcerned with the truth...they don't mind if she lies.

either way it is a trend for her...From Politifact...I guess I should be grateful that she said something "half true" twice.

# of Statements
0 True
0 Mostly True
2 Half True
2 Barely True
7 False
6 Pants on Fire

politifact.com...



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by nenothtu
Exactly! There is ALSO no evidence to support the demagoguery inherent in using figures like "70,000 to 100,000 ppm" for CO2 to support an argument, since those levels have never occurred "in the wild" during the entire tenure of life on Earth, either!


Yes they did, although locally and briefly, in recent history. 1,700 people died. In the wild, as you say.

en.wikipedia.org...


I'm familiar with the Lake Nyos incident, but fail to see it's relevance to the overall MMGW debate, specifically the use of those outlandish figures to extrapolate that we're all gonna die from CO2 in lethal concentrations world wide.



I grant you that the link presented to you was motivated by sarcasm towards Mrs.Bachmann, who indeed chose words poorly. It's "harmful" in CDC sense alright. But she should have phrased it as "having the potential to cause irreversible and deadly change in climate". She's just a mess. How many Noble Prize Laureates (and she claims multitude) support creationism? I don't know one, but I know that 72 of them went on record to officially state just the opposite:

www.talkorigins.org...


To be fair, she specified "intelligent design" rather than "creationism", but I get your point. That's really outside my knowledge base, so I have to defer to your assessment.



Was it deception or ignorance on her part? At this juncture, I don't care. This coffee is too nutty for my taste.


Could be either, I reckon. After all, she IS a politician, and so qualifies on both counts.

All THREE counts, taking the "nutty" charge into account...




posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by maybereal11
 


No, my whole gripe here is not that Bush gets his dumb ass trashed and trounced, because he's got it coming to him, it's the attempt to gloss over Obama's continued complicity in the matter, and blame it ALL on Bush - as if Obama has done any better, or different.


Let me explain where I stand on the issue..Pres. Bush, horrible president, I really did not like him...but unemployment was not his fault, deregulation was mostly his fault, but the dems share the blame.

Pres. Obama...Unemployment isn't his fault either, any POTUS has limited tools by which they can effect macroeconomics in a meaningful way. Both Pres. Bush and Pres. Obama tried with Stimulas packages...it was a macroeconomic experiment...a bi-partisan one...and it had some effect, but not as large as anyone hoped.

So as far as economics are concerned? I blame Investment Banks/Insurance/Mortgage companies and Regulators who were either corrupt or lazy or both.

Both Pres. Bush and Pres. Obama get unwarranetd crap about the financial situation and unemployment....and both pretend that they have more power to effect the economy than they actually do.

In the end the Gov. can only serve as Referees on the field...not players.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa


WASHINGTON – Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said the United States was founded on racial and ethnic diversity and that the founding fathers were responsible for abolishing slavery.


...the slavery issue is secondary to indigenous genocide committed / condoned by whites, which proves that the usofa was founded on greed, racism, religious intolerance and an abhorrence for ethnic diversity...

...thats the plan we're still on... sos, different century...



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by glome
 


I'm framing this


Well said.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

Your post is awesome, and I considered most of what you point out in trying to see this incident from all aspects and angles and almost did, but after watching the video, I now know that's not what she meant. I don't believe she remembers her history at all. Pity.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


I didn't like Bush either (neither father nor son), Clinton, OR Obama. All those cookies were cut by the same mold as far as I can tell. Bush Jr was the straw that broke the camel's back, and caused me to break ranks with a party gone horribly off the rails, in my opinion. THAT is how much I detested his reign. Nor will I EVER return to that fold unless and until I catch them doing something right for a change, and I'm not holding my breath that will EVER happen. It's like the end of a bad marriage - you move out and move on.

The TARP fiasco was just the tip of the iceberg, the icing on the cake. All of the above have done FAR worse abuse of the office than merely throwing my money away to their rich buddies. They are no longer "shepherds of the State", they have become meddlers in private affairs, would be Lords of the Manor.

They can ALL bite me.

Regarding the investment bankers and the like, I agree wholeheartedly. THEY drove this economy over the hill and into the ditch, and were aided and abetted by politicians handing out TARP funds. Those are also some of the same people who will set up markets to trade in "Carbon Credits" when the MMGW mythology takes hold well enough to make it into law. They are among the fatcats who will benefit from that particular scam.

THEY can all bite me, too.

How much difference is there, really, between the puppets and the puppeteers? I say ride 'em ALL out of town on a rail.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
I'm familiar with the Lake Nyos incident, but fail to see it's relevance to the overall MMGW debate, specifically the use of those outlandish figures to extrapolate that we're all gonna die from CO2 in lethal concentrations world wide.


With all due respect, nothing of that sort was presented either here or at CDC. There was a plain statement that CO2 can be lethal and you are right in saying that O2 potential can as well. But nobody said there will be global suffocation. A member was unhappy with the choice of word "harmful" by Bachmann, which does in a way belie the actual problem.


To be fair, she specified "intelligent design" rather than "creationism", but I get your point. That's really outside my knowledge base, so I have to defer to your assessment.


Thank you for that.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
Bush Jr was the straw that broke the camel's back, and caused me to break ranks with a party gone horribly off the rails, in my opinion.


As a somewhat unorthodox argument, let me state that I believe that Clinton paved the way for the insanity that followed. He showed that the President in this day and age can be untruthful and unaccountable, and this was not lost on the dark powers of doom that moved the Shrub into the office. Yes I hate Clinton.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by beezzer



If she comes out for higher taxes and larger government then I would be very much against her. But if we got rid of every politician that said something stupid, then DC would be a ghost-town.


This just isn't making dumb remarks; this is a complete break from reality into some surreal pseudo patriotic fantasy land that never existed.

You can't see that?


I've already said it wasn't a good thing to say. I'll wait for a follow-up, let HER clarify/apologize, if she can't or won't then I'll pass judgement. (Like MY opinion matters
)
edit on 26-1-2011 by beezzer because: typo



A completely false statement cannot be satisfactory clarified. At all. It just shows ignorance. Even more. It's like trying to clarify saying Lincoln was black. "But only in mind," or something.


She might *try* to clarify (because i can't see her as woman enough to apologize), but it'll be more drivel and spin. "I didn't mean that they were against slavery, i meant that they were against the principle of slavery as it was intended at the time," or something, although i doubt she is that eloquent.

It is good, however, for you to wait until she addresses it, since you support her (no ill intent meant by that statement).

I too will wait, salivating, to pounce on her explanation. j/k



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by nenothtu
I'm familiar with the Lake Nyos incident, but fail to see it's relevance to the overall MMGW debate, specifically the use of those outlandish figures to extrapolate that we're all gonna die from CO2 in lethal concentrations world wide.


With all due respect, nothing of that sort was presented either here or at CDC. There was a plain statement that CO2 can be lethal and you are right in saying that O2 potential can as well. But nobody said there will be global suffocation. A member was unhappy with the choice of word "harmful" by Bachmann, which does in a way belie the actual problem.


I can accept that he didn't read his own link, and just went with the first thing he googled that said "CO2 is bad for children and other living things" from an authoritative source like the CDC, but it made for a poor argument (a good reason to always read your links before posting them). I also doubt that he read the Columbia link, but at least that one is a bit closer to the mark he was aiming for,

Yes, I read that one too. I have a fetish for knowing what it is I'm replying to.



To be fair, she specified "intelligent design" rather than "creationism", but I get your point. That's really outside my knowledge base, so I have to defer to your assessment.


Thank you for that.


You're welcome. If I knew everything there was to know, I'd be running the world. Since I obviously don't, I've learned to listen to those who know the things I don't know, of which there are MANY. I acknowledge that when I can.

Still hasn't gained me a slot in the "running this world" sweepstakes, but I'm happy where I'm at!



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
I just heard some dude on MSNBC say that FoxNews didn't even show Bachmann's response to the SOTU. Is this true?

He also added this means the Tea Party is dead. By this I'm assuming he meant that once FoxNews drops something, it's over. Quite the leap, but interesting to note.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

As a somewhat unorthodox argument, let me state that I believe that Clinton paved the way for the insanity that followed. He showed that the President in this day and age can be untruthful and unaccountable, and this was not lost on the dark powers of doom that moved the Shrub into the office. Yes I hate Clinton.



Exactly so. Daddy Bush was no better than Bush Jr., he just had fewer opportunities for abuse. Clinton's 8 year reign fixed that problem, and set the stage for Junior's excesses, and when his time was done, and he'd done all the damage he could, he passed that torch on to Obama so that he could see what HE could do with it.

The whole lot of 'em deserve a party involving viscous hydrocarbons and avian pinions before that ride out of town I mentioned above.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


I don't watch fox, but i heard the same thing (I think msnbc). I think CNN was the only station to carry it. I think i also heard that the true republican base is trying--to a large degree--to separate itself from the TP.

Not sure the veracity of it all, but it wouldn't surprise me.

I could be wrong, though.

While the TP has *some* good ideas, they distort, inflame, and, sprinkled with too many untruths, kindle ignorant passion too much to do any good, IMO.

*shrug*



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liquesence

 


I don't watch fox, but i heard the same thing (I think msnbc). I think CNN was the only station to carry it. I think i also heard that the true republican base is trying--to a large degree--to separate itself from the TP.

Not sure the veracity of it all, but it wouldn't surprise me.

I could be wrong, though.

While the TP has *some* good ideas, they distort, inflame, and, sprinkled with too many untruths, kindle ignorant passion too much to do any good, IMO.

*shrug*


I think Fox is rambling on about some "split" in the party, and trying to analyze that to death, over this. The "true" republican base (which is nothing of the sort since the hostile takeover by the neocons of that party) does appear to be trying to distance itself from the TP, which is a hilarious thing for me to watch, considering all the effort they put in to tying to co-opt it and take IT over, too. Now, they appear to be scrambling backwards from it with a scared look on their faces.

Here's an idea for them: don't try to take over a populist movement if you don't want them to have a voice in your house. You can't have the votes that entails without having to listen to the voters... they've tried that several times already, from both sides of the house.

I really don't care if the republicans crash and burn at this point. I can't tell them from the democrats any more, other than what rhetoric I hear. Apart form the rhetoric, which is nothing but empty words and calculatedly futile actions, the end results are the same.

We have a de facto one-party state now, with two heads of the same beast, and if the TP does nothing else, I hope it at least upsets that imbalance.



edit on 2011/1/27 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
You do know that these people are COMPLETELY out of touch don't you? Interesting, I am currently reading a book about the Romanov's and am seeing how their complete and utter narrow sightedness contributed to their own demise at "The house of special purpose" in 1918. I thought the latter very much likened to the situational awareness of our current crop of "aristocrats". They have the save massive disconnect from the reality agreed upon by 99.99% of the global population. This is their "Dawin" moment. Will they be smart enough to figure out that a significant change has occurred? Will they be able to adapt fast enough? Will they be viable candidates for evolution? Or will they become extinct? IMHO, the questions haven't even occured to them.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
I just heard some dude on MSNBC say that FoxNews didn't even show Bachmann's response to the SOTU. Is this true?

He also added this means the Tea Party is dead. By this I'm assuming he meant that once FoxNews drops something, it's over. Quite the leap, but interesting to note.


You heard correct. CNN was the only MSM network to cover it. Ironically their coverage was met by consternation by one of their very own commentators Candie Crowley. (I love that lady-real journalist) Wolf Blitzer defended it.

BTW, the fact that Ms Bachmann was seen looking at wrong camera is by virtue of the fact that she was reading off the official Tea Party camera which likely had a teleprompter as opposed to the CNN camera. The response was initially intended to be web/internet only. I suspect CNN just covered it for a ratings bump and you gotta admit, they are getting a lot of exposure. You'd think her handlers would have been a little more media savvy to avoid her embarrassment unless they simply don't care about "lame stream media."

Maybe next time:






edit on 27-1-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Founding Fathers who were against slavery:

1.) Benjamin Franklin:


In his later years he became vocal as an abolitionist and in 1787 began to serve as President of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery. The Society was originally formed April 14, 1775, in Philadelphia, as The Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage; it was reorganized in 1784 and again in 1787, and then incorporated by the state of Pennsylvania in 1789. The Society not only advocated the abolition of slavery, but made efforts to integrate freed slaves into American society.


Another member of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society

2.) Benjamin Rush

3.) John Jay had started a similar society in New York:


As a leader of the new Federalist Party, Jay was the Governor of New York State from 1795 to 1801, and he became the state's leading opponent of slavery. His first two attempts to pass laws for the emancipation of all slaves in New York failed in 1777 and in 1785, but his third attempt succeeded in 1799. The new law that he signed into existence brought about the emancipation of all slaves there before his death in 1829.


William Livingston, a signer of the Constitution, and Governor of New Jersey, upon hearing of Jay's Abolitionist Society wrote to that society:


I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the society in New York] and… I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity… May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke.


4.) R ichard Bassett

5.) James Madison

6.) James Monroe

7.) Bushrod Washington

8.) Charles Carroll

9.) William Few

10.) Chief Justice John Marshall

11.) Zephania Swift

12.) Alexander Hamilton

As to whether or not John Quincy Adams was a Founding Father or not, he was certainly a son of a Founding Father and was 20 years old when the Constitution for the United States of America was adopted, which would fairly make him a Founding Father as well.

As to the Raw Story's claim that the "three-fifths compromise" was "largely" part of the reason slavery continued after the founding of the United States, this is a gross misunderstanding of what the "three-fifths" compromise was, and ignores the Missouri Compromise:


In an effort to preserve the balance of power in Congress between slave and free states, the Missouri Compromise was passed in 1820 admitting Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state. Furthermore, with the exception of Missouri, this law prohibited slavery in the Louisiana Territory north of the 36° 30´ latitude line. In 1854, the Missouri Compromise was repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Three years later the Missouri Compromise was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision, which ruled that Congress did not have the authority to prohibit slavery in the territories.


The "three-fifths compromise" did not, as the Raw Story claims, establish African Americans as three fifths of a person, it is implicit, but not expressly so. The exact language of that Section of the Constitution reads:


Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.


The Founding Fathers were no idiots, and they knew precisely what they were doing with this language and in no way does the language endorse slavery, nor does it condemn any specific race to being less than a white person. It is purposely vague and ambiguous simply to appease Southern States needed to ratify the Constitution, in granting them the ability to count their slaves in terms of apportionment. It is also an example of what is wrong with compromise, but the Raw Story shows a great deal of ignorance with that paragraph and their oversimplification of what the "three fifth compromise" was and did.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The Founding Fathers were no idiots, and they knew precisely what they were doing with this language and in no way does the language endorse slavery, nor does it condemn any specific race to being less than a white person.


I must disagree with that statement. Perhaps you missed my prior post on page 3.


Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) commonly referred to as the Dred Scott decision, was a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves (or their descendants,[2] whether or not they were slaves) were not protected by the Constitution and could never be U.S. citizens.[3] The court also held that the U.S. Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories and that, because slaves were not citizens, they could not sue in court.


SOURCE

Of course the 14th Amendment 9 years later trumped this grossly deplorable decision. You were saying?
edit on 27-1-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join