Pat Caddell: Country's Mood Is "Pre-Revolutionary"

Rana said:
No, as soon as something more promising comes along, she will bail! Write another book about it.
Click to expand...
I am supporting a Republican for governor, I have talked to some very reasonable Republicans that helped her in her earlier political endeavors, this is a man I truly respect and he said Sarah isn't what she appears to be and that is all he would say, but another said, yes, we had high hopes for her, didn't we. Then we started talking about happier things, like the gas pipeline.
 
Threedee said:
Its not in the 13th, its in Article I, Sec. 2. The North didn't want slaves counted at all, since it would just give the South more representation, but since Southerners are whiny little bitches, the North agreed to counting 3/5 of them. Franklin tried to argue that he should be allowed to count 3/5 of all Pennsylvania cattle.
Click to expand...

So then it is not that black's were said to be only 3/5ths human? Only that a state could not count but 3/5ths of their slaves for representation?
 
Southern Man said:
Sure, 15ppMoot. The pendulum will swing the other way, and I'll be pushing is as hard as I can to The Right. The Obama is going to face a GOP majority in both houses and will veto, veto, veto until 2012 when we elect Reagan II. :cof1:
Click to expand...

God, I hope it's not Newt.
 
Threedee said:
Its not in the 13th, its in Article I, Sec. 2. The North didn't want slaves counted at all, since it would just give the South more representation, but since Southerners are whiny little bitches, the North agreed to counting 3/5 of them. Franklin tried to argue that he should be allowed to count 3/5 of all Pennsylvania cattle.
Click to expand...

Careful Threedee.

Us southerners have a different take on things.
 
Threedee said:
Yes. The real crowning achievement of the 3/5 clause was in designating them as "persons."
Click to expand...

Hummm I read it differently. Meaning they were always considered persons.

That for purposes of representation they, the southern states, wanted them counted, but with regards to taxation they wanted them not counted. The compromise was to allow southern states to count every 3 out 5 slaves in a state for both taxation and representation? The 13th amendment aboloished this practice.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Hummm I read it differently. Meaning they were always considered persons.

That for purposes of representation they, the southern states, wanted them counted, but with regards to taxation they wanted them not counted. The compromise was to allow southern states to count every 3 out 5 slaves in a state for both taxation and representation? The 13th amendment aboloished this practice.
Click to expand...

If that were so, then the Confederate Constitution would not have changed the wording to "slaves."
 
Ice Dancer said:
Hummm I read it differently. Meaning they were always considered persons.

That for purposes of representation they, the southern states, wanted them counted, but with regards to taxation they wanted them not counted. The compromise was to allow southern states to count every 3 out 5 slaves in a state for both taxation and representation? The 13th amendment aboloished this practice.
Click to expand...

I'll say, "the southern states wanted to count each slave as a whole, but the northern states wanted to not count them at all."

The reason for this was for numbers in the U. S. House of Reps.

More reps, more power.
 
Threedee said:
If that were so, then the Confederate Constitution would not have changed the wording to "slaves."
Click to expand...

I was not talking about the "Confederate Constitution". I was discussing the original. I understand that during the Civil War the Confederate states had their own Constitution. The original constitution did not even use the word slavery, but "Person held to Service or Labour" which included whites in indentured servitude, the confederate constitution addresses the legality of slavery directly and by name.

The point I was getting at was the disinformation with regards to how people have been made to think about the 3/5ths clause.
 
Rana said:
Yeah, they love us so much they wish to send us back in time, when women couldn't vote and black men were only 2/3rds people! black women, forget it!
Click to expand...
You got it Froggie. That's the hallmark calling card of the reactionaries who have destroyed the Republican party. They are going to take us back to an ideolized past that has never existed but in their imaginations.
 
Southern Man said:
She's getting a lot of experience "thinking on her feet" at FNC! She's going to be a formidable candidate and she's the only one with the balls to turn this stinking ship around!
Click to expand...
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA LOL LOL LOL

God that's hillarious. You wing nuts are the best friends the far left has. Obama ought to personally put ya'll on his campaign staff, you'll get him elected for sure! MWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH :)
 
Liberty said:
God, I hope it's not Newt.
Click to expand...
Newt isn't right for me- he's too much of a compromiser. I want someone who would not simply trim the federal budget, but ax entire programs that don't comply with the Constitution, specifically the 10th Amendment.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA LOL LOL LOL

God that's hillarious. You wing nuts are the best friends the far left has. Obama ought to personally put ya'll on his campaign staff, you'll get him elected for sure! MWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH :)
Click to expand...
"Appeal to Ridicule". Awesome that's all you got. :good4u:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top