Tea Party v. U.S. History

The Druids Grove combined Off Topic Forum. Politics, science, random oddities - discuss them all here. - Low Moderation
User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Tea Party v. U.S. History

Post by Tudamorf » Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:08 pm

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov ... y_id=81734
Tea Party GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann thinks founding fathers ended slavery

Is there a history tutor in the house? 'Cause Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-MN, needs one bad. The Tea Party fave said that "the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States....Men like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country."

True, J.Q. Adams didn't rest before slavery ended...he died. Or maybe he was just taking a dirt nap.

As for a few other points from the rest of Bachmann's Bizarro U.S. History Class, Thomas Jefferson -- who wrote that all men are created equal -- owned slaves. And perhaps did more than own them. George "Father of the Country" Washington owned human property, too.

Oh, yeah, and that Constitution that Bachmann waves around, it established that a slave counted as 3/5ths of a human being. The provision was inserted into the document as a political compromise -- except it compromised human dignity.

Where did Michele make her comments: Before an anti-tax group in Iowa. Yup, she's testing the presidential waters.

Here is Michele...in her own words. And CNN's Anderson Cooper schooling her afterwards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg8kDG94 ... r_embedded
If you watch the video, she not only says that the founding fathers worked to end slavery (even as they owned and raped them), but that everyone who came to the U.S. was treated as equal regardless of their background (not only history, but the Declaration of Independence itself, contradicts this).

No wonder these people think they're sane; they've rewritten U.S. history to suit their warped anarchist ideals.

Just like Fyyr thinking that 200 years ago we had no governments (ROFL).

User avatar
Klath
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 2:13 am

Re: Tea Party v. U.S. History

Post by Klath » Tue Jan 25, 2011 11:59 pm

Tea Partiers are overwhelmingly evangelical Christians and many of them appear to have combined their political beliefs with their religious ones. They're attempting to interpret the Constitution the way they've grown accustomed to interpreting the bible. The problem they face is that the Constitution isn't a vague and self-contradicting collection of millennia-old metaphors and a lot more is known about its authors, their intent, and the process to interpret it.

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Tea Party v. U.S. History

Post by Fyyr » Sat Jan 29, 2011 3:12 am

Tudamorf wrote:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov ... y_id=81734
Tea Party GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann thinks founding fathers ended slavery

Is there a history tutor in the house? 'Cause Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-MN, needs one bad. The Tea Party fave said that "the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States....Men like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country."

True, J.Q. Adams didn't rest before slavery ended...he died. Or maybe he was just taking a dirt nap.

As for a few other points from the rest of Bachmann's Bizarro U.S. History Class, Thomas Jefferson -- who wrote that all men are created equal -- owned slaves. And perhaps did more than own them. George "Father of the Country" Washington owned human property, too.

Oh, yeah, and that Constitution that Bachmann waves around, it established that a slave counted as 3/5ths of a human being. The provision was inserted into the document as a political compromise -- except it compromised human dignity.

Where did Michele make her comments: Before an anti-tax group in Iowa. Yup, she's testing the presidential waters.

Here is Michele...in her own words. And CNN's Anderson Cooper schooling her afterwards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg8kDG94 ... r_embedded
If you watch the video, she not only says that the founding fathers worked to end slavery (even as they owned and raped them), but that everyone who came to the U.S. was treated as equal regardless of their background (not only history, but the Declaration of Independence itself, contradicts this).

No wonder these people think they're sane; they've rewritten U.S. history to suit their warped anarchist ideals.

Just like Fyyr thinking that 200 years ago we had no governments (ROFL).
Who's Michele Bachmann? I didn't vote for her.

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Tea Party v. U.S. History

Post by Fyyr » Sat Jan 29, 2011 3:17 am

It's funny, because the 3/5ths thing was set up by non slave owners and abolitionists, in the North.

They did not want the South which had slaves to have 'undue' representation in Congress.

If it were up to the slave owners, and those in the South, the slaves would've been counted as a whole.

Weird how you people turn things around. Very weird.

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Tea Party v. U.S. History

Post by Tudamorf » Sat Jan 29, 2011 12:37 pm

Fyyr wrote:Who's Michele Bachmann? I didn't vote for her.
One of the darlings of your beloved tea party.

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Tea Party v. U.S. History

Post by Fyyr » Sat Jan 29, 2011 11:59 pm

It's not my party.
Beloved or otherwise.

AbyssalMage
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:06 am

Re: Tea Party v. U.S. History

Post by AbyssalMage » Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:01 pm

Fyyr wrote:It's funny, because the 3/5ths thing was set up by non slave owners and abolitionists, in the North.
They did not want the South which had slaves to have 'undue' representation in Congress.
If it were up to the slave owners, and those in the South, the slaves would've been counted as a whole.
Weird how you people turn things around. Very weird.
Not weird or funny, it was a compromise! Its not something that is talked about much in history class, even at the college level. Most people are taught about the compromise but not what each side (North/South) wanted. Taking your rational, what the South wanted was property (slaves) to count toward the census but to have no Constitutional Rights.

The closest equivical argument that most modern people would understand is:
----Count the illigal immigrants in the US but give them no Constitutional Rights (Oh Wait! Thats what was done on the last census). Southern (Actually, every) States counted Illigal Immigrants towards their population count so that they could get services (and seats in the House) from the Federal Government but then treat them like 3rd rate citizens (i.e. Slaves opr individuals with no power) and send them back accross the boarder once their done getting the congressional seats and tax money.

If the South had gotten its way, I hardly doubt the civil war would of happened because the slave owning South would of controlled the politics in the US into the early/mid 1900's. If the North had gotten their way, the Union would of never formed or at the very least, been a very weak one (Similair to the "Democratic" governments that the US continues to try and make).

***Note***
I explained it in a simplistic way, but what happened over 200 years ago, happens every generation. Blacks, Asians, Italians, Hispanic....Their doesn't seem to be anyone Americans wont target for political gain.

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Tea Party v. U.S. History

Post by Tudamorf » Sat Feb 05, 2011 12:14 am

The Tea Party even rewrites the history of 25 years ago, hoping we won't notice.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110205/ap_ ... agan_palin
Palin: America out of step with Reagan's values

SANTA BARBARA, Calif. – Sarah Palin said Friday that America is dangerously out of step with the values of former President Ronald Reagan, and warned that runaway spending and a ballooning bureaucracy in Washington had put the nation on a "road to ruin."
Reagan's values?

The runaway deficit all began under Reagan.

Not to mention --

Reagan gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

Reagan signed into law a universal health care plan.

Reagan signed into law a huge expansion of the federal welfare system.

Reagan eliminated the special preference for capital gains in taxes.

If Reagan were running today, he'd be ridiculed by the "Republicans" and denounced as some sort of extremist leftist Communist.

erianaiel
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:33 am

Re: Tea Party v. U.S. History

Post by erianaiel » Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:07 pm

Tudamorf wrote:The Tea Party even rewrites the history of 25 years ago, hoping we won't notice.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110205/ap_ ... agan_palin
Palin: America out of step with Reagan's values

SANTA BARBARA, Calif. – Sarah Palin said Friday that America is dangerously out of step with the values of former President Ronald Reagan, and warned that runaway spending and a ballooning bureaucracy in Washington had put the nation on a "road to ruin."
Reagan's values?

The runaway deficit all began under Reagan.

Not to mention --

Reagan gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

Reagan signed into law a universal health care plan.

Reagan signed into law a huge expansion of the federal welfare system.

Reagan eliminated the special preference for capital gains in taxes.

If Reagan were running today, he'd be ridiculed by the "Republicans" and denounced as some sort of extremist leftist Communist.
Yes, well, if Sarah Palin were to run today she would be ridiculed by the "Republicans" for being tainted by 'socialist ideas'
...
You can never please all fanatics (anymore than you can convince a biggot)


Eri

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Tea Party v. U.S. History

Post by Fyyr » Wed Feb 09, 2011 8:14 am

AbyssalMage wrote: Not weird or funny,
You then misunderstand.

It was the NORTH, the Abolishionists, who only wanted to count slaves less than a person.
Not the South.

You can't turn that around and state that slave owners wanted their slaves counted less than a whole person. They wanted a whole person count for all of their slaves.

The 3/5ths thing is an anti slave thing.
Not a slave owner thing.

Simple enough for you?

I will make it even more simple for you.

The GOOD guys wanted the slaves valued at 3/5ths. The BAD guys wanted the slaves valued at a whole 1.

Can I make it any more clear to you?

Post Reply