I watched the Rev Al Sharpton debate Rick Santorum on a point of race on FOX Monday night. Actually, the debate shouldn't have been about race but Sharpton was trying to take it there, maybe some of you saw it. The
3/5 Compromise was brought up and it was clear that, if I understand it correctly, Sharpton hangs on to an old and ugly misrepresentation of it that's taught in our schools today and not the understanding I have of it.
PLEASE, could we discuss that Compromise, what it meant to the North and the South but, especially,
if it was a terrible insult or a protection of Black Americans of the day? I'd really like to hear your take on it, your understanding of how it worked....the truth. I've done some research and it's still not crystal clear. Maybe it's a bit of both Sharpton's take and my take,
I'm eager to hear your thoughts.
Thanks very much.z
69 comments:
Would you like the "Reader's Digest" version of American history from 1788 - 1868 with the added bonus of a serious look at the meaning of the Constitution and the intent of its writers?
I'm sure I'd still have to type up an essay that would take many posts in the comments section. ;)
The gist of the "3/5ths compromise" is that the number of seats a state can have in the US House of Representatives (the body where all tax legislation comes from) is based on its population. Slave states wanted to count their enslaved populations in the count to pad the numbers up to get more seats in Congress.
The "compromise" was that slave states could count 3/5ths (60%) of its enslaved population towards congressional seating enumeration requirements.
Counting all the slaves for purposes of enumerating a state's delegation to Congress would have made Maryland and Virginia political "superpowers" at the time, likely leaving slavery impossible to end as the Western Territories opened up. States with the most clout at the federal level would have had the most politically disenfranchised people in them. (This goal of the Constitution hating anti-Federalist political / philosophical root of the Democratic Party is very much still alive today, but that's another tangent)
So, in short the 3/5ths Compromise was a denial of slave states the right to use people with no political rights whatsoever to gain more seats in the legislature explicitly given the power to tax (then shortly thereafter ban) slave importation. None of this would have happened if 100% of slaves were counted towards Congressional enumeration. There would have been a SPIKE in interstate slave trade. Possibly even a breeding frenzy, as started by the early left-wing proto-eugenicist "breed the best slave" theorists of Maryland surplus slaveholders in the early 19th Century that lead to the mass migration of slaves into the Deep South as pioneers moved further south and west.
It screams for a longer explanation, but not only was the Constitution framed to make slavery politically unviable, it was also framed to make slavery economically unviable as "ten dollars" in 1801 money (Art. 1 Sec. 9) was backed by a little over a half ounce of gold, so let's just say via the magical inflation adjustment of now to then, you'd be paying around $650 per slave you wanted to import into America (before the 1808 ban on overseas slave importation) and $650 per slave you wanted to move with or sell across state lines thereafter. Not exactly a profit-driven venture with a Congress built in to tax it to death.
The Framers of the Constitution wanted to end slavery. The founders of the Democratic Party did not.
but....the Sharptons of the world STILL say "We were treated like 3/5 of a man, we were dissed, we got the short end of the stick"
Thanks, Beamish....your understanding is the truth from all I've read...but this truth doesn't seem generally to be encouraged.
FOX's Megyn Kelly made the same mistake only 2 weeks ago "when Blacks were treated like only 3/5 of a person"..geez
And another tangent... what if Art. 1 Sec. 9 was applied to companies that bring in illegal immigrants?
"Let's see, you brought these foreign guys in across the borders of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey to New York to live here and work for you. That'll be a $9,100 tax for each of them. What, you can't pay? I suppose we'll just have to seize your business and liquidate its assets."
Nah. People might actually revere the Constitution again and not get distracted by looney tune populist passions.
What Beamish said. :-)
but....the Sharptons of the world STILL say "We were treated like 3/5 of a man, we were dissed, we got the short end of the stick"
They're overestimating. They were rarely treated as persons at all, actually, beyond what political power their masters could enumerate themselves via their numbers.
Does Sharpton truly believe his left-wing Democrat slave masters should have had more political and economic power in Congress than the 3/5th Compromise arbitrarily limited them to?
Apparently so. ;)
beamish, good point about "barely treated human at all" but I wish/hope you're getting my drift.
I heard one black American about twenty years ago who'd written a fascinating book during which he talked about his ancestors loaning cash to their 'masters'....many, many blacks were allowed to have their plot of ground to harvest even as they harvested for the 'big house'....sometimes the big house money was skint and so the master borrowed cash from his trusted Black farmers....I loved that information; and it was NOT a rare occurence from what I've read.
David Barton's writings on early Black America are compelling and should be textbook material but it doesn't paint Blacks as victims too dumb to get ahead, who have to vote entitlement or they'll die...he celebrates them, shows the thousands of blacks who had Oprah Winfrey-types of resolve and succeeded....we should all know that information, especially the young people who come from those families.
Around 1982, a black student in my 4th grade class said, "I failed my spelling test because your ancestors held mine as slaves."
Huh? Illogical on so many levels, especially in light of the fact that none of my ancestors held slaves.
What happened over a century ago shouldn't be held over the heads of Americans today. I, for one, refuse to be a victim of white guilt.
I'm hoping someone argues for the side that Rev SHarpton takes, with facts and figures........
AOW, I'd have loved to have heard your retort to that poor, misguided, mistaught kid. Did he change his mind ??
The Rev Al would be SO PROUD.
Slaves were an interstate trade commodity until the late 1840s, and federal tax legislation was steadily chipping away at that.
Feeding and caring for slaves to keep healthy enough to work and breed wasn't all that cheaper than raising children or looking after the sick, and with federal taxation bearing down on the institution altogether and expansion of it westward into federal territories banned, slaves in the South were going to take the brunt of this "economic sanction" when their masters sought ways to cut expenses, by either giving up land for sharecropping (basically European feudal serfdom / left-wing wet dream collective farming) or working slaves to death to harvest enough cotton to make a profit after expenses. Usually a measure between those two.
The Constitution marginalized the institution of slavery to the point that only violent left-wing national socialists and their ideological ancestors in American history then and since cling to it.
Think about it. Without the 3/5ths compromise, slave states could have literally had a large caucus (if not the largest) controlling the purse strings of the federal budget. Raise taxes to fund slavery. That kind of crap. They would have probably been like, "hey, 15% of our population needs food, clothing, and shelter and we should get a tax break because they're our dependents and wards." Anything to justify the perpetuation of slavery by an entrenched political class of agrarian expansionists, or left-wing Farm-Labor Democrats for short.
Those that fail to learn from history ought to be deported before they form a public safety commitee and start guillotining people.
Clearly, in an exceptional nation it protected blacks from slavery.
Is there nothing in our history the right will not attempt to rationalize.
... and let's not forget that the compromise still allowed slave states a disproportionate impact.
Calling this a measure that protected slaves is the epitome of cynicism.
Z,
I told him, "My ancestors never held slaves. On my mother's side, they lived on soil that wouldn't even grow black-eyed peas. On my father's side, slavery was banned for religious reasons."
That particular student went on to have to repeat the grade, BTW. The next year, after much discipline (We paddled students in those days), he went on to improve as a student; winning a regional poetry contest certainly played into the boy's turn around. The following year, his mother put him in a military school, and the young man did quite well.
I saw this student at a reunion in 2009. He's a successful businessman in the IT industry. At the reunion, he got up to tell the crowd that I turned his life around. One of those wonderful moments for a teacher! Yes, I cried. And I'm a tough ol' broad who doesn't cry easily.
This young man had a lot of baggage: a white mother (an RN), who actually told him at one point that she wished he'd never been born, and a black father ( a doctor), who disowned the boy because he wasn't "black enough." The black father, married to the boy's mother, ditched the family and ran off and married a black woman. The upheaval in the boy's family was terrible, and, at one point, I volunteered to take him in as a foster child. That step brought the mother to her senses, and she and her son reconciled.
Some good reading on the topic of race relations and the futility of the blame game: John McWhorter's Losing the Race: Self-sabotage in Black America.
beamish: Thanks for the history lesson. I had always known about the compromise, but, had never put thought to its remifications. The compromise was all about economics, and slave owners used the numbers to gain relative power in Congress without having to let their slaves vote.
It seems to me that the Constitution does cover illegal aliens from Mexico and several other Latin American countries with the language that excludes Indians not taxed. Maybe that one is a reach.
AOW: That's a great story. However, even though our ancestors did not own slaves, the Al Sharptons of the world will still demand reparations. In my opinion the South has already paid reparations with Reconstruction, and recently with the Obama stimulus bill.
Beamish, amazing comments.
Lafayette, my French hero, was against slavery as well by the way.
Ducky, apparently you just don't read. Your comments make no sense with what Beamish said. You're just a robot copying and pasting past comments you made. It would be great if one day you could back up your thoughts like Beamish does and teach us something.
I think it'll rain "merde" when that happens.
Calling this a measure that protected slaves is the epitome of cynicism.
It's because you want everything to be perfect from the start. That's your problem Ducky.
So you'll always find the negative in everything.
Next up, despite the text of the South Carolina secession, states rights were the pivotal issue of the civil war.
I assume that's what is taught in the south to help our students understand how much slave owners loved the darkies.
Not pivotal. But one aspect of the civil war as I learned in French school.
Who's indoctrinated then?
Hey Ducky, how do you feel about SEIU chapters getting an exemption from healthcare?
I thought you leftists were leading by example.
FrogBurger, it will rain 'merde' before that, true. Isn't it unbelievable that he STILL doesn't get it with the facts in front of him? ..Facts and Figures don't bother leftists, they just come out swinging against the side they'll NEVER believe no matter what.
The other day I got an email from a Centrist friend...it showed how Conservatives had banded together to survive a weather situation and never relied on government and succeeded..great piece. He sent it to his liberal adult son who wrote this back:
"I always find it very interesting that the more "conservative" the message, the more typos that can be found in it.;-)
I found a few."
This way, he was able to insult the COnservative who'd made a typo and completely ignore the very obvious FACT in that piece that people had done very well ON THEIR OWN...not the message the liberal wanted to here or respond to; SO, he responded to TYPOS. I had to laugh! And, we get that here from our leftwingers, too.......or they just don't bother to read the posts or comments at all and just say their biased peace and throw in a little insult to boot.
laughable, not a way to LEARN, or prepare oneself to conscientiously VOTE.
by the way, anybody who does NOT agree with Beamish's synopsis of this Compromise and believes Sharpton's (and Megyn Kelly's) points of view, (oh, and probably every Black American and every WHite American who attended college and believed their professors' points of views); PLEASE provide information proving this was all about demoting the Black American human being to three-fifths status as a PERSON in order to hurt them and demean them more than they were as slaves.
thanks.
Froggy,the compromise was made initially to reduce the taxes southern states remitted to the Federal government. It had little to do with the institution of slavery.
No, I don't pay attention to Beamish because he's off the wall. The rule manage to give white property owning voters in the south disproportionate representation since slaves were counted for representational purposes but didn't vote. Basic math should help you there.
Fact remains that the fringe right has been trying for a number of year to use a variety of lies to push states rights as the corner stone of their early history, not slavery.
Real hell holes like South Carolina still maintain the civil war was not about slavery.
The rule manage to give white property owning voters in the south disproportionate representation since slaves were counted for representational purposes but didn't vote.
My English isn't great but this sentence makes my head hurt.
You're mentioning basic math. How can I take you seriously when your ideologies don't even look at basic math when we're dealing with the economy?
Honestly Ducky how does it feel to be a joke? And Beamish is off the wall?
You're off the rocker, grand pa.
Fact remains that the fringe right has been trying for a number of year to use a variety of lies to push states rights as the corner stone of their early history, not slavery.
That's what your intellectual dishonesty is fixating upon. It's your schtick. It helps you prove your point.
Haven't you realized you should convince people you're right by brining facts and evidence to the table, instead of throwing statements that are not backed up?
At your age, you should have wisdom Ducky.
I'm very open minded if facts analyzed the right way with cold and hard logic show me wrong, I'll change my mind.
But geez, you just spill words and you teach us nothing. NADA. NIET. NICHTS. RIEN.
I'm getting bored at this point. Let's talk movies then.
I always find it very interesting that the more "conservative" the message, the more typos that can be found in it.;-)
I found a few.
They cannot fight on substance.
Only form matters to them.
They don't like Conservative talk radio b/c they think they're mean. Yes, sometimes and often they are. Some are really angry.
But the Liberal brain is unable to differentiate substance from form.
It's fairly pathetic from an IQ perspective.
PLEASE provide information proving this was all about demoting the Black American human being to three-fifths status as a PERSON in order to hurt them and demean them more than they were as slaves.
Waiting for Ducky's hard research, links, documents, etc... He's working on it.
I'm preparing for the "merde" tornado here.
Heck, I'm still waiting for Ducky to prove that the millions who voted for Republicans in November can still be called "Fringe". I'd be happy with that :-)
Ducky doesn't understand the meaning of the word "fringe". He hasn't even check in the dictionary. It's too much work.
The left redefines word because that's convenient. Form vs. substance. No wonder they are the kings of propaganda and brain washing.
It would be more worthwhile, z, to attempt to explain why in spite of this supposed noble compromise, the presidency of the nation was overwhelmingly southern or northerners sympathetic to slavery.
Didn't do much to reduce the influence of slave holders. Also, you assume that the early battle for regional domination focused on slavery. Little more complicated.
You're no more accurate than Beamish or Sharpton.
z, regarding the fringe. Have you noticed that the health insurance bill is being labeled "the job killing health bill"? Not the death panel health bill or the government takeover bill.
Why? Because it is now necessary to tone down the rhetoric of the far right and pitch things to the center.
Most voting R in2010 were not supporting the Tea Party agenda. Notice that Rubio is already trying to separate himself from the movement. How many have joined the Tea Party caucus? DeMint, Paul, Bachmann ... (crickets)
Ducky, do some reading and present it...it'll help you here.
As for job killing....somebody has to call it as it is, Ducky, we can't all live in stupid land.
Frankly, I don't care much about the Tea Party movement except that it holds the feet of Republicans to the fire....don't look for many more rallies/signs, etc., they're working now...quietly.... it'll never go away, THANK GOD, but they'll ebb and flow as needed; they finally got the House in order; I wouldn't relax too much on that, Ducky...'the "FRINGE"' (more than half of America) is active, FINALLY.
Snoooze Duckette. No proof. Just a bunch of psychobabble that looks like in-depth analysis but is just a bunch of "Discussion de comptoir."
Why are you so afraid of proving your ideas directly without side stepping?
Have you lived your life with so little courage till now?
Ducky, by the way...I've got to leave for a big part of the day and I'm trying to get ready but this is hanging in my mind:
Do you REALLY think that because Sharpton's dead wrong about the 3/5 compromise (because it suits his purpose) and it's extremely clear what Beamish has written (and true), that Republicans think "That's it, there was no slavery, no bad guys who hated Blacks, nobody lynched anymore?"
I sometimes get from your remarks that if something isn't a silver bullet and solved the entire problem, you blame everyone around it for the imperfection....you leave no room for humanity, for human frailness, for differing viewpoints...
This is the Left's biggest and nastiest stain on America...it really is. it's :"No perfection in HUMANS? MAKE A LAW"
scary, idealistic and completely unthinking.
read up on the founding fathers who had slaves and HATED slavery, it'll teach you something, I think.
you leave no room for humanity, for human frailness, for differing viewpoints...
This is the Left's biggest and nastiest stain on America...it really is. it's :"No perfection in HUMANS? MAKE A LAW"
scary, idealistic and completely unthinking.
YUP! And that's why some lefty intellectuals are tyrants, borderline psychopaths. Ducky is in the latter, without the intellectual.
Z, perhaps you're being too hard on the Duck. Progressivism is a social disease. It turns an otherwise rational being into the equivalent of a tantrum throwing adolescent. I suspect ADHD may be involved as well.
Is it really appropriate to worry about yesterday's slavery when today we are all being enslaved by the government?
And Beamish, thanks for your exposition!
~ Will in Honduras
Clearly, in an exceptional nation it protected blacks from slavery.
Actually it legislatively made slavery politically and economically unviable, in an effort to draw slavery to an end.
Is there nothing in our history the right will not attempt to rationalize.
Is there any argument the left can make that doesn't require someone to share the leftist's lack of reading comprehension skills?
I managed to watch part of the Santorum/Sharpton "debate". Santorum started talking about some 50 million babies who didn't see the light of day because they were aborted. Right at that point Sahrpton grabbed the microphone and went off on a deranged tangent about slavery. I'm not sure if that was Hannity's intent or if Sharpton just hi-jacked the show for his own deluded topic of race hustling. I chnaged the channel since the whole thing seemed to be going off the tracks in a big way.
Waylon
Let's go slow, Ducky, because we both know that you're an imbecile.
It would be more worthwhile, z, to attempt to explain why in spite of this supposed noble compromise, the presidency of the nation was overwhelmingly southern or northerners sympathetic to slavery.
For that you can thank the violent leftist Aaron Burr, who turned anti-Federalism into a political program and party complete with a Supreme Court ignoring President (Andrew $20 Jackson) to ethnically cleanse the South of its native American populations to open the land up for farming with the surplus slaves that couldn't be imported overseas or sold across state lines, and a "spoils" system political machinery to keep party loyalists in place. The issue of slavery is still very much at the feet of the side of the political spectrum that proposes men should be ruled over by a class of unaccountable men in the first place. Slavery has always been the American left's baby, so y'all keep it. The Constitution was clear as a bell.
Congress could tax slave importation.
Congress did ban slave importation (in 1808).
Congress could tax interstate commerce (like the slave trade).
But states where slavery was legal could not have as many representatives in Congress as states where slavery was illegal.
It still did not begin to deal with the issue of protecting the lives, civil rights, and suffrage rights of minorities against left-wing progressive eugenicists and their cross-burning hood-wearing lynch mobs for almost a hundred years, given that President Grant failed to complete the eradication of the Democratic Party's Ku Klux Klan terrorist wing and dismantle its source, the left-wing coalitional umbrella of direct action terrorist organizations known today as the Democratic Party.
Nobody could organize a mob like Aaron Burr.
Sharpton's statement doesn't seem unreasonable.
------
Sharpton repeatedly argued that the comparison was "not an appropriate" one because there was "no reason at all to bring race into an argument that is a constitutional argument, and that is an argument about where life starts. Blacks were not considered three-fifths of a human being because there was a debate about their humanity. Because if they were 80 years old or a fetus they were considered less than human."
You're a bit scatter shot Beamish, the question is the the founders and their attitude towards slavery.
Now, z presents the 3/5th's compromise as a measure to end slavery, if so, it was pretty ineffective. The early president's were almost universally either southern or slavery sympathizers like van Buren.
Of the early presidents why is it that the antislavery Adams' were the only one term presidents. In fact the issue prevented John Quincy Adams reelection, a man who I submit was a great president(and he hated Muslims).
He was the brains behind the Monroe Doctrine and a number of foreign policy matters. He was a visionary about a strong government investing in capital improvements and he was sympathetic to native Americans to the point that Georgia went into virtual armed rebellion over his support for the Cherokees. He had to go. Although he was prescient in understanding that plantation agriculture was not going to be a suitable vehicle for national growth.
So the bottom line is that southern political power held the day and kicked the issue down the street. Eventually it came to a head and there is no point denying the heavy support for slavery among the founders and the early presidents.
the race baiters never take responsibility Z..no matter what the past was..the present and future is THEIR choice!
So the bottom line is that southern political power held the day and kicked the issue down the street. Eventually it came to a head and there is no point denying the heavy support for slavery among the founders and the early presidents.
Yes. Anti-Federalists. Democrats. Those opposed to the Constitution on the very grounds that it was economically and politically engineered to attrition the institution of slavery into non-existence.
You're splotching your argument together with a paintroller, Ducky. Yes, Americans perpetuated slavery. But take it a step further. Try rolling the ball towards the pins instead of the beer bottles.
American leftists perpetuated slavery, and Jim Crow, and KKK terrorism, and so on.
Now, sit down an learn something.
Will ...you said "Is it really appropriate to worry about yesterday's slavery when today we are all being enslaved by the government?"
Good point.
But I think it IS important that Blacks stop with the lie.
Ducky, thanks for reminding us all how stupid Sharpton's argument was; it had ZILCH to do with what Santorum said, of course. But, Sharpton kept hoping to blame Santorum for pulling a race card..utterly ridiculous. Yes, a man who actually still DOES think the 3/5 Compromise was to demean Blacks would, YOU'D THINK, understand that killing babies, especially Black babies, is a hideous thing to be doing....you'd think he'd have more sensitivity because he's Black; Such a bad thing for Santorum to have said? I think not.
Then that jerk Sharpton doesn't flinch when he hears how such a huge percentage of Planned Parenthood clinics are in Black neighborhoods and, of course, he had to be reminded that Margaret Sanger's point was to rid the country of Black babies, the horrible woman. Such a difficult thing for LIbs to admit, I know, those of you who are SO for Planned Parenthood. Disgusting.
By the way; I SAID it was a "measure to end slavery?" NO, I did not, thanks.
I said it's misunderstood and that it was most certainly NOT a measure to demote blacks to 3/5 human status. That's all I said.
That it did do something in moving the huge proportion of Southern politicians from dominating with sheer numbers is true.
Beamish, slavery was perpetuated in Europe bigger than in America.
And was ended here first.
People (not you) don't understand context. Washington, I think, had 200 slaves and wrote against it...I believe Jefferson did, too, having had 100 slaves or so at the heyday of his life. This is the best example of "know context" I can think of. It was DONE, people had SLAVES, like it or not.
And, of course, plenty of slaves (this, I found in a book with a black author, it might be DEVIL IN THE PULPIT but I'm not sure that's the book) had bits of land given to them by their 'owners' and actually made money off of those plots of land by selling vegetables, etc., to the point where they ended up loaning money to their masters!
But, of course, we have nightmares of whipping slaves, chaining slaves, so nothing we can read about good, fair treatment seems to matter to American students of history anymore, particularly not the students who have been taught to hate America and all she's ever done. And, of course, Ducky will now proclaim that Z is an advocate of slavery ...oh, and she hates Blacks, too. :-)
unreal
HEy Ducky, do you feel terrible about slaves under communist regime with Staline or Lenine aka forced labor?
I guess re-education camps are not slavery. They re red-education camps. Totally different, right?
Why in the world, considering his track record as a charlatan, liar, hate monger, & huckster, does anybody give Foul Al air time? Every time I see his ugly face, just before the changer clicks, I think, 'TAWANA'. If memory serves, no apology was ever given to the maligned policemen. 'nuf said.
Sic 'em, Beamish! Love you!
Silvrlady
As I understand it the Northern abolitionists wanted to count the slaves as 0 frr representation. That says a lot to me about motive.
The British ended the slave trade before we did thanks to men like William Wilberforce and John Newton. Newton not only was a slave ship captain but was at one time a slave himself. He eventually became a Christian and a pastor and Wilberforces' friend. Newton of course wrote one of our favorite hymns, Amazing Grace. He was a conservative.
YOU'D THINK, understand that killing babies, especially Black babies, is a hideous thing to be doing....
Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and a believer in eugenics, wanted to use abortion as a tool to control the minorities...especially blacks.
To date we've lost more than a generation of blacks to abortion. It's more than a pity.
Beamish, slavery was perpetuated in Europe bigger than in America. And was ended here first.
Yes, I know. But it is a rather unfair cultural comparison. Europeans haven't gone 20 years without going to war with each other since the days of Philip of Macedonia in the 4th Century BC. Hell, there's been 34 military conflicts in Europe in the 65 or so years SINCE World War 2 ended!
One day Western Civilization may penetrate Europe eastward and introduce those peoples to culture and philosophy, but let's not be so harsh on the primitive methane huffing, goat entrail-divining barbarians of ancient and modern Greece and the Balkans in general. It takes time to cultivate civilization in people who've never really ever had one. ;)
Elbro, ended the slave trade but, from what I understand, still had slaves in Europe after we stopped slavery.
I'd say that says a lot of the NOrth for wanting 0 for slaves......they did NOT want the South's representation to lean toward slavery.....and it would have.
Ya, I mentioned Planned Parenthood's evil motives in a comment above, you're absolutely right. But the Left loves Planned Parenthood and loves Sanger for it and refuses to let the truth sink in.
I believe I heard last night that 50 of every 1000 black babies are aborted..20 of every white baby. Sharpton didn't seem to give a damn, as he kept saying women HAVE A RIGHT TO CHOOSE.
SCUM (oops, sorry)
Beamish, ya, ya, ya,...you Europe lover, you :-)
You'll hate me, but (especially today..well, ESPECIALLY TODAY cuz I have to listen to that awful president's speech instead of having margaritas with friends JUST FOR MY BLOG!...tho I'm reconsidering) but I'd move back to Paris OR Munich tomorrow if I could. tomorrow.
Gad, did you guys read my latest post and have no comment? ???
I'd just post The Department of Generalelectricomcastmsnbc's news of creating thousands of jobs (in China) and go have margaritas while you can still avoid salt rationing.
I'd move back to Paris OR Munich tomorrow if I could. tomorrow.
Munich, I understand. But Paris? Unless you're there to do nothing, you're crazy to want to work there.
Z, I'm sure the President's speech will be full of plenty of empty rhetoric. Plenty of overblown triteness to have the media jumping through the hoops in praising it.
All one needs to do is pay more attention to the actions and see how what he does to achieve his ends won't be close to what he says and may be the exact opposite of what he says.
With the bff's of both parties partaking in a complete charade, I'm almost ready to say that there has almost been a complete transformation of the two parties into one blended party. The margaritas just may be the best choice, after all.
Waylon
I'm going Margarita Hunting after all. (beamish, no salt :-)
Obama will be on 'ad nauseum' all night somewhere on CSPAN or repeats on CNN or FOX. "Nauseum" being the appropriate word.
FB, true...In a perfect world where I wouldn't need to have an income, I'd go live in Paris...but...ca n'arrive pas.
I'd for for drinks too but I'm on a no-drink-during-the-week diet. One of my resolutions for 2011 before I am starting the Insanity Workout DVDs.
I won't watch the state of the union either. Can't stand that stuff, Obama or somebody else.
Enjoy the margaritas, Z.
You've GOT to love CNN, I'm laughing here!
They have all liberals on a panel talking now with Wolf Blitzer...talking about the State of the Union...and a HUGE sign clicking down to THE TIME OF THE SPEECH..
COUNTDOWN is the title! Oh, GOD< they are SO excited!!
You just have to see this!! :-)
Attagirl, Z.
I actually fell asleep watching Obama read his teleprompters and woke up to the post-speech commentary on CSPAN with the majority of callers and Twitter Twits marvelling at how vapid Obama's "speech" was.
America has found consensus in being tired of this idiot.
beamish, I think you're right about the consensus.
Did you see Pelosi on Greta Van Susteran? (sp?)
She keeps SMILING at the most inappropriate times and is SO ideological it's almost unbelievable...it's wonderful entertainment; too bad our pocketbooks are in these goofballs' hands. :-(
Ya, I mentioned Planned Parenthood's evil motives in a comment above, you're absolutely right. But the Left loves Planned Parenthood and loves Sanger for it and refuses to let the truth sink in.
Sorry Z. I missed reading it. Forgive me. Normally I try to be careful not to repeat or restate what someone else has already said. I apologize.
Elbro, no problem! I'm sure I do that all the time, who has the time to read the post AND many comments..!! Thanksxx
Do liberals hate Bush more than conservatives hate Obama?
Does it matter? Hate has so much power to harm haters. It doesn't hurt the hated very much, unless they're conservatives.
Or is it only liberals who can hate? Conservatives are so fine, so noble, so righteous, so correct, so pious.
No winder liberals hate them.
Anonymous, thanks for the compliments to the conservatives, tho I'm sure they're meant as sarcasm.
Pious, huh? WOW. NOBLE? :-)
I'm quite sure nobody can hate like the left hated Bush....I've still never seen as many Conservatives slam Obama in the same ugly terms the Left did BUsh......but the hate should stop.
Odd it seems to be almost mandated now..the really horrid name calling and constant nastiness to Bush didn't seem to matter. Now, suddenly, with the left's president in power, no criticism is allowed?
silly, really...very transparent.
yes, let the hate stop; but let the criticism continue or we'll lose our country: no more huge borrowing, no more appeasement, no more bills passed quietly without the publics' knowledge.....that would be a start.
so right Z
let the word 'hate' not include in it's definition simple disagreements
The left defines any show of dislike, disapproval, or discontent with cultural Marxist trends and policies as "hate."
In fact the left defines conservatism, itself, as a hate inspired mentality.
This is what comes of letting other people (especially those who dislike and disapprove of the way you think) define you, and not sticking up for yourself when you are vilified and misinterpreted.
Years ago some clever person came up with the phrase "one way rudeness" in connection with the left. It certainly applies. "They" assume the right to be rude to "you," but "you" are a dirty son-of-a-bitch if you don't quietly accept "their" view as the only right and fair way to look at whatever point may be at issue.
Unfortunately, too many who identify with the conservative movement have come to adopt more and more scurrilous Alinskyan tactics formerly used almost exclusively by the left. This may be effective in winning a battle or two, but once you become too much like your enemy he has effectively won the war by bringing "you" down to "his" level.
Questioning, criticism, open disapproval, even overt dislike should not be defined as "hate." Hatred is invariably irrational - a kind of insanity. Unsympathetic analysis of another's point of view is legitimate. Name-calling in response is not.
Emmanuel Goldstein was a @#$@#$@ neocon.
;)
Beamish: From an email from a dear friend: "I read your blog about the 3/5's Compromise. You're right it's not about race, it's about economics and politics. But, my problem to begin with is ... why would ANYONE take the time to listen to Al Sharpton???? That's the part that insults me as a black person. It insults me, not just that white people invite him on their shows as a representative of black people, but also that black people give this ridiculous race baiting CLOWN a voice as well! It sickens me, and I REFUSE to listen to him! But, it was good to take a look at history and do a little research on the 3/5s Compromise. I had forgotten all about it, which is just as well since it is even more moot than it was in 1865 ... LOL"
I love her. You would, too.
Speak Now by Taylor Swift Ring Of Fire / Johnny Cash 1963 (7) Little Town Of Bethlehem 12. E.M.
Post a Comment