that the founding fathers tried to "abolish slavery", while many of them had slaves. Guess she never heard of the Civil war, eh?------ Fair's fair, "timmy"-----------

-- Modified on 2/1/2011 12:00:05 PM

three branches of government. I you really really believe the guy on the video believes Schumer doesn't know? If you, or anyone else asked him "what are the three major branches of government, what would you guess he'd say. I'd put my money on him giving the correct answer.

It's obvious that the guy on the video doesn't like Schumer, and wants people to believe Shumer is stupid and arrogant, when all that really happened was a misstatement within the context of what he was addressing. Actually, he can described the government as having as many branches as he wants to, to represent all the various parts. It he had said there were "only" 3 branches of government and then listed what he had said in the video, then he would be wrong, and I'm not certain why, but I don't know where that would have shown any arrogance on his part. The guy on the video thinks he's arrogant for "telling us how to live our lives" or some such statement. Well, he was elected by his constituency to pass laws that are in their self-interests, and they haven't voted him out of office yet, so he much be doing pretty much what the elected him for.

When Palin made some remarking about supporting our friends the North Koreans, I didn't think she believed that. I was quite certain it was a misstatement. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure the different between misstatement and ignorance.

And, it doesn't take much to be honest.

not to listen to the warnings of his then Secretary of State Colin Powell, that if he went into Iraq, he would "own" it. Meaning, it would be much easier invading Iraq than fully liberating, and stabilizing it.

He simply repeated the grossly mischaracterized statement Bachmann made. Many of the Founders did indeed work hard to end slavery. She never said they ended it.

If the opponents of slavery had taken your suggestion to make it illegal, the slave states would have never joined the Union. There were several compromises made in order to move forward. What was written into the Constitution was what they believed to be a path that would result in the death of slavery.

1) What they DID write into the document made slave trade (importation) illegal after 1808 (I think). They believed this would cause slavery to whither away.

2) Your misconception of the 3/5ths clause is a common mistake. It is actually ANOTHER example of the ANTI-slavery aspects of the Constitution. It weakened the south’s representation in the House of Representations. This was another compromise as the south wanted slaves to be considered a FULL  person.

The Constitution is actually quite anti-slavery. If you don’t trust me, look up some of the things Frederick Douglass said about the topic.

Wow----what a brave right-winger-----& under a chickenshit alias yet.

Talk about right-wing sophistry ! Yea_saying in the constitution that African-American slaves makes up "3/5th" a human being is an ANTI-Slavery statement?! Man !! Next this moron will defenend the Dredd Scott decision. You notice he didn't talk about the founding fathers who were also slave owners.

Pictured below is Yea_Really & friends at a "political rally"-------

-- Modified on 2/1/2011 4:57:50 PM

importation of slaves illegal after 1808. Rather, it prohibited Congress from passing a law making importation illegal until 1808. Congress did in fact pass such a law as soon as the Constitutional prohibition expired.

      It is also probably not entirely accurate to say the founding fathers worked hard to abolish slavery. There was little effort in this regard made by the founders because they all realized this was not economically possible. A number of founders are on record stating that they recognized slavery was inhumane and should be abolished in the future.

    Some of them including Jefferson and Washington in fact died with slaves but their wills provided for their freedom.

     Finally, it is important to remember that slaves made up 30 to 40 of population of some southern states. Hence the south wanted slaves to be counted as regular persons for purposes of representation; the north did not want them to be counted at all.
         
      The 3/5 clause was the eventual compromise.  I would not say it was either pro slavery or anti-slavery – the south simply wanted to increase its representatives for its own benefit while the north wanted  a skewed counting scheme to reduce southern control of the house.

but the Progressives on the left and the hard core conservatives on the right are arrogant. Hopefully the two cancel each other out. Maybe the centrists, moderates, independents, or whatever you call the middle, need to become more arrogant.

I'll tell you what is stupid. It's those hideous Schumer hair plugs. I don't know what is more obvious and ridiculous, a rug like Kucinich, or Schumer's hair plugs.

his tongue fails to watch out for his manic brain-----

obvious, how he talks over everyone, and doesn't allow them to finish the answer to his question, that he wants to do all the talking.

Image the uproar if Palin had said something this stupid

  The way I learned  the three branches of the Government were  and  still are, the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial...  ,  dumbass  

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/publius-forum/2011/02/ny-senator-chuck-schumer-doesnt-know-the-three-branches-of-government.html


-- Modified on 2/1/2011 11:36:53 AM

Let me guess the branches of Schumer's government. The gun control branch, the gun banning branch, and the the branch that fell on his head.

Posted By: Timbow

Image the uproar if Palin had said something this stupid

  The way I learned  the three branches of the Government were  and  still are, the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial...  ,  dumbass  

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/publius-forum/2011/02/ny-senator-chuck-schumer-doesnt-know-the-three-branches-of-government.html


-- Modified on 2/1/2011 11:36:53 AM

I see the 3/5ths clause as tipping power towards the North, compared to what the PC crowd considers the correct thing to have done. Anything that decreased the potential power of the South was anti-slavery from my viewpoint.

I think if he thought about it, he would get it right.

And I have said that anyone who talks in public is going to make stupid comments, even the Teleprompter Chier.

The thing that drives me crazy is the fact that this is the basis of The Evil Bush also being dumb.  He made a few comments.  The fact is that even someone who gets into the top schools on an "alumni admission" has to have brains to get through 7 years of anonymous grading, unless you believe, like some of my lib friends, that every professor he had was in on a secret plot to circumvent that system.

Bush was dumb for a few slips. Qualye was dumb because of potatoe. Obama made a slip and isn't dumb for 57 states.  Palin is dumb.......

Palin's "back yard" comment, taken out of context, is one of the things most widely used against her today.  And none of those pople say it was a slip.

At least everyone really agrees that Biden really is dumb.

You said at the time you cut Palin slack for her comments. I don't remember, but I will take your word for it.  (Nothing personal. I am not sure what I did yesterday.)  If that is true, I give you credit for it.

But it is the constant replay of conservative slips that drive us crazy.  Just a short time ago, Obama got the motto of the United States wrong, and it was not even in the Los Angeles Times.

Do you wonder why we are paranoid

If they had wanted to end slavery, they could have ended by putting a clause in the Constitution making slavery illegal.
But instead they added a section that slaves are 3/5 a person.  Keeping it legal under federal law.  

Slavery was not illegal in the US until December 1865.  Long after the founding fathers were dead.  

Its scientific proven fact.  Shumer is stupid and arrogant.

I just heard a tape on the radio of Chris Matthews explaining that Egypt was important because it has the Panama Canal.

No. I don't think he believes it, but if someone one the right (Palin) had said it..........

At the Library of Congress, there's an old JFK news reel where a reporter asks JFK he thinks there will be a female President one day.  JFK immediately erupts into historical laughter, thinking the question was a joke.  Then he shakes his head and turns his back on the reporter.  Classic.  

Why do you worry about this trivial bullshit when you know that none of the politicians that you listed are dumb. You are constantly wasting bandwidth with these banal arguments. The media is driving you crazy so you want everyone to be crazy?

tell the difference between a sporting rifle and a military rifle.

YEA, get out from under that white robe, fess up & admit you're a racist. Are you from the South ? Bet you consider the civil war as "the war of Northern aggression". Bigoted cracker.



-- Modified on 2/2/2011 5:26:49 AM

He simply corrected you and the other poster on the historical basis for the clause. His position that the clause was designed to tip power to the north is an entirely reasonable one, although I see it as race neutral since no matter how you counted the  slaves they were still slaves.

     Another way you could have handled this post:

"Thanks for the education."

Yea_ was being disingenuous from the start, talking about founding fathers "working hard to end slavery" while neglecting to mention that many of them held slaves themselves. Yea is just like moronic Bachmann, a rabid "teabagger", trying to whitewash the "slaveholding" past of the founding fathers, which calls his entire thread into question.

You wanted me to "thank" Yea for "educating me" ?

Wow, Mari,add to your list of flaws ( besides being a lying gossip ) that you're condescending as well. You should work on your numerous flaws after having a "ethereal baklava"----



-- Modified on 2/2/2011 6:34:57 AM

Remind me to buy you a dictionary some time as you are really struggling with word usage.

     Being "disingenuous"  is a long way from being "racist," even if we assume he was disingenuous for not mentioning their slave ownership, although he acknowledged my post which brought that out.

      You had the guy in the white robes and called him a racist and a bigoted cracker until I called you out. Now the best you can say is that he is "disingenuous" and then try to change the subject.

    If you can't make a better case that this guy is racist, you owe him an apology as well as a "thank you."


    As to the "ethereal baklava," you're just mad because you can't get that at the buffet.

terms aren't mutually exclusive, which may be hard for you to grasp. Btw, a "cold day in hell" before I apologize to a moron like him.

In re to the "ethereal baklava", hope you enjoyed it with your "racist dark-suited friends"--------

His defense for any gaffe a lefty commits is to compare it to something that someone in the Tea Party has done that is in his opinion worse, than he harps on it until the opposition tires of arguing.

It the same old song and dance, done over and over again. He's been called on it a dozen times,, but he's teflon where the Tea Party is concerned. Pri doesn't care about facts or reason, they are all "batshit crazy" to hear him tell it. It makes for some very tedious reading IMO

Why do you keep responding to my posts, but never say anything about the content.

I really can't think of any time you ever addressed the merits of anything. Just snide comments.

It's like a little puppy, nipping at the wheels of a car.

You are kind of cute that way. But thanks for reading. Like they say in my hometown.  Don't care what you say about me, just so you get the name right.  

It is impossible for him to carry on a genuine conversation without resorting to personal attacks, which is all he had here, as nothing I stated even hinted at my personal opinion about slavery. It would pointless at this level to even consider attempting to straighten out his thinking. It highlights his true label of PUTZ as being so very appropriate.

Most of what you post are your personal opinion supported by grains of out of context truth. To dispute the content of your posts would be like willingly climbing into a pool of quicksand.

there are sane factions in the Teaparty ( you & John Galt, for example ) I'm not saying majority of TPR's are nuts ( I know,of course, there are "batshit lefties" also )------BUT, there IS a "batshit" faction of the TP movement----& if you don't see that, then your head is firmly lodged up your ass--------

-- Modified on 2/3/2011 5:45:08 AM

pointing out the "BSC" faction of the Tea Party. You have dozens, if not hundreds of posts on the subject. From your writings one would conclude that the entire Tea Party is BSC, which only when called on it you freely admit is not true.

Your posts speak for themselves, you'd still be calling them Teabaggers if you hadn't been called on it. You seem to have no objectivity whatsoever where the Tea Party is concerned.

that he  applies to XIA.

          Just as XIA has many posts criticizing Israel, Priapus has "dozens, if not hundreds" of posts criticizing the Tea Party.
     
      Priapus insists from volume alone that XIA is a mentally deficient unredeemable anti-semite; if that is true, he should not complain if accused of a similarly mentally challenged bias toward fringe Tea Party members.

     At the very least, it is certainly "disingenuous" - if not "ironic" - for him to claim any level of objectivity here.

at the very least, that leaves you open to charges of being,errrrr "disingenuous"-----errrr, "hyopcritically ironic" ?----------LMAO !

and I consider Xiao guilty as well, well except for the "mentally deficient" part. I don't consider him stupid, but no one spends as much time "jew bashing" to be considered anything but an anti semite.

As to Pri, I think his claims to objectivity reach all the way to the "ironic" category, just by the sheer volume of "anti Tea Party" posts, the same standard we (and he) are holding Xiao to.