Presidential Criticism

[Guest]

I've defended President Obama for some of his work and am particularly disappointed in how some posters here have been so incredibly negative toward the man and his 32 months in office.

But criticizing the 'boss' is perhaps America's favorite sport. This clip is a bit dated, but IMHO, it's clever, funny and appropriate...

http://www.247comedy.com/obama-musical

[Guest]

I loved the clip! Thanks for sharing. I'm up here in Canada so out of the fray.... although we have a fray of our own! Waiting to get to TV so we can watch your media options instead of ours.

LW888

[Guest]

:BigApplause::BigApplause::BigApplause:

[Guest]

Very good clip. Now let's harken back to how well the Democrats treated President George W. Bush. Or still treat him.

[Guest]

Very good clip. Now let's harken back to how well the Democrats treated President George W. Bush. Or still treat him.

Yes, 8 years of civil discourse, NOT. How quickly they forget.

[Guest]

Very good clip. Now let's harken back to how well the Democrats treated President George W. Bush. Or still treat him.

I find the lefts consternation on the negative feelings and words directed toward Obama as being pretty hilarious. There was no president in our lifetimes more cursed and disrespected as former President GW Bush, and it came from them.

Now they want decorum because they have a President who THEY like. I only think it fair that I treat President Obama with all the grace and dignity and honor as they showed President Bush.

It's only fair.

[Guest]

I agree it's pretty tough on Americans when we have inept Presidents in office.

We need another RR!

[Guest]

I really dont have anything against Obama I just want him out of office he is ruining our country he's not doing what is good for the country and trying to distroy it from within. This has nothing to do with dem or rep Thats just my beleif thank you

[Guest]

I really dont have anything against Obama I just want him out of office he is ruining our country he's not doing what is good for the country and trying to distroy it from within. This has nothing to do with dem or rep Thats just my beleif thank you

You're not alone in that belief.

[Guest]

Barefoot arent you Canadian

[Guest]

I really dont have anything against Obama I just want him out of office he is ruining our country he's not doing what is good for the country and trying to distroy it from within. This has nothing to do with dem or rep Thats just my beleif thank you

:BigApplause::BigApplause::BigApplause:

[Guest]

Barefoot arent you Canadian

Whatever happens in the U.S. has to be of great concern for Canada. Especially when the paramount reason they can concentrate on their economy is we take care of their international defense; and their market economy is inexorably tied to ours. (no offense meant Barefoot, just stating facts)

[Guest]

I really dont have anything against Obama I just want him out of office he is ruining our country he's not doing what is good for the country and trying to distroy it from within. This has nothing to do with dem or rep Thats just my beleif thank you

There is not a presidential bone in his body. The phrase "The great thing about America is that anyone can be President" has taken on a whole new meaning for me.

[Guest]

Thanks for the link.
Very funny.

It's funny how the right wingers can't help themselves from bashing the President even on this post that was about a humorous clip.

One question: I'm only 55 years old but when I get real old will I turn in to an old curmudgeon like these folks? :22yikes:

[Guest]

Thanks for the link.
Very funny.

It's funny how the right wingers can't help themselves from bashing the President even on this post that was about a humorous clip.

One question: I'm only 55 years old but when I get real old will I turn in to an old curmudgeon like these folks? :22yikes:

No, you might get your head out of the clouds and see what really is. 55 years old is a time frame when most people have seen the damage that can be done when socialists are in control.

[Guest]

Please don't send him back here in Il. he didn't have a clue how to do his job here but did know how to get kick backs.

[Guest]

Dear Curmudgeon (AKA Village Golfer),
There you go again with Sean Hannity talking points. So, President Obama is a socialist? Earlier you called him "The annointed one". At least try to disguise the fact you've been brainwashed by using different terms.

I've read about people like you but haven't really met one yet. How about we meet for a beer sometime soon. You busy this weekend?

It can be an American make beer of your choosing. What do you say?

[Guest]

Here's what I see. We have a few posters constantly bad mouthing the President. So be it. Here is what I and many middle of the road people see,a bunch of real losers on the republican side. Obama is definately beatable for all the obvious reasons but not by these right wing evangelicals who deplore evolution,mock global warming,and want to end any program that helps the middle class yet in tough economic times will not discuss closing tax loopholes or taxing the rich at pre Bush rates. Your candidates are weak willed and in some cases really stupid and cave in at the first sign of a tea party person. Until they catch on with the independant voter Obama will win again.

[Guest]

Barefoot arent you Canadian

Yes, I'm Canadian, Doug, thanks for asking. Since 2007 we've owned a home in Florida and live there six months each year. Luckily the Canadian economic situation and real estate market are fairly stable. But we're very concerned about the US economy since we consider ourselves grateful and enthusiastic "half-Americans".

[Guest]

:BigApplause::BigApplause::BigApplause:

Doug Buddy,
I don't get this. First you say you have nothing against Obama then you state that he is trying to distroy this country from within. Hummm, if I really thought someone was trying to distroy this country that I love I would definately have something against him/her.

[Guest]

Personnally should I say, he may be a nice guy. Bad for this country.

[Guest]

This country is in turmoil. There are no jobs, food stamps have increased dramatically, business is scared, we are fighting 3 wars, Gitmo is still open but the press doesn't talk about it anymore now that a democrat is in White House, stock market is tanking, Social security funds are low, Ans what does this leader do? He goes on Vacation and lives like a King while the country suffers.

It is deplorable!!!!!

[Guest]

Hmmm....let me see....

NO jobs, really? 10% unemployment, while bad, is still 90% employed, by my math.

Food Stamps increased dramatically...you have data for that?

Business is scared...scared of what, profits??? Many [not all] companies are reporting record profits every quarter.

3 wars... Only 1 entered into by the current President... Two were started during the previous Administration.

Gitmo still open... OK, got me there.

Stock Market tanking...Ups and Downs...lots of people getting rich these days...should be buying instead of complaining. Warren Buffet says buy, buy, buy...

Social Security Funds are low....NOT!

....and President Obama goes on vacation, like every other president has in recent memory...including President Bush (both of them).

I don't get it, but whatever

This country is in turmoil. There are no jobs, food stamps have increased dramatically, business is scared, we are fighting 3 wars, Gitmo is still open but the press doesn't talk about it anymore now that a democrat is in White House, stock market is tanking, Social security funds are low, Ans what does this leader do? He goes on Vacation and lives like a King while the country suffers.

It is deplorable!!!!!

[Guest]

Hmmm....let me see....

NO jobs, really? 10% unemployment, while bad, is still 90% employed, by my math.

Food Stamps increased dramatically...you have data for that?

Business is scared...scared of what, profits??? Many [not all] companies are reporting record profits every quarter.

3 wars... Only 1 entered into by the current President... Two were started during the previous Administration.

Gitmo still open... OK, got me there.

Stock Market tanking...Ups and Downs...lots of people getting rich these days...should be buying instead of complaining. Warren Buffet says buy, buy, buy...

Social Security Funds are low....NOT!

....and President Obama goes on vacation, like every other president has in recent memory...including President Bush (both of them).

I don't get it, but whatever

Real unemployment is like 21%

Yes there is data for food stamp increasing..look it up..google is your friend.

Small businesses have not hired because of Obamacare and the unfriendly policies of this regime.
Obama ran on the promise to end the wars and close gitmo...all he has done is start another war.
Yes, social security is critical and will be insolvent in a few years.

Obama going on vacation while the country suffers is inexcusable if not down right shameful.

[Guest]

http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2011/08/22/republican_tax_increase/index.html and you want me to vote for the republicans? Are you crazy?

[Guest]

http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2011/08/22/republican_tax_increase/index.html and you want me to vote for the republicans? Are you crazy?

This is total misrepresenation and I suspect you know it.

It is an EDITORIAL out of context from a blog that is surely further left than you can imagine.

Dont know the details but do not base your arguement on such tripe

[Guest]

how many men/women did we lose in this "war" with Libya? How long was this war? How many soldiers did we send to this war? Did we find any WMD's? To compare Libya to Iraq is folly plain and simple.

[Guest]

Bucco,are you saying that the republicans are not opposed to extending the payroll tax?

[Guest]

how many men/women did we lose in this "war" with Libya? How long was this war? How many soldiers did we send to this war? Did we find any WMD's? To compare Libya to Iraq is folly plain and simple.

Thousands of innocent civilians were killed by USA bombs. Where is the outrage!!!!

[Guest]

This is total misrepresenation and I suspect you know it.

It is an EDITORIAL out of context from a blog that is surely further left than you can imagine.

Dont know the details but do not base your arguement on such tripe

Prove it!!!! I was half owner in a tax business for over 30 years... Trust me when I say the tax law for the rich and against the poor have been perpetuated by the Republicans.

Prove this is wrong!!!!

[Guest]

Prove it!!!! I was half owner in a tax business for over 30 years... Trust me when I say the tax law for the rich and against the poor have been perpetuated by the Republicans.

Prove this is wrong!!!!

LOLOLOL There are no rich democrats???? LOL

[Guest]

LOLOLOL There are no rich democrats???? LOL


Not what I said...

[Guest]

Prove it!!!! I was half owner in a tax business for over 30 years... Trust me when I say the tax law for the rich and against the poor have been perpetuated by the Republicans.

Prove this is wrong!!!!


Just trust you? No links to prove that you are right?

[Guest]

Gitmo still open... OK, got me there.


That's the real issue for showing colors.

The people who condemn Obama for "flip-flopping" on Gitmo are the ones that said he would put America in peril if he closed it. He did what they wanted and still got gigged for it.

[Guest]

Just trust you? No links to prove that you are right?

Posting very rarely now.....but links for proof? Most links people incline toward the political forum look at are only those that "confirm" the point of view they already hold. I could provide links that "prove" just about anything I'd want to. I'm sure there are links that "prove" man was created in one day by a Supreme Being and there are links that "prove" we evolved from an amoeba in pond water. :(

[Guest]

That's the real issue for showing colors.

The people who condemn Obama for "flip-flopping" on Gitmo are the ones that said he would put America in peril if he closed it. He did what they wanted and still got gigged for it.


I think you forget the emotion used, the timing of the FIRST DAY signing of an order, the utter disgust shown for the previous administration.

I cant think of a candidate who doesnt "flip flop" once he gets into office and is faced with REALITY, but he and his followers made this such a big BIG issue and with such emotion and spewed such "misconceptions" about the ease in which this can be done....that makes it a big deal.

[Guest]

Whatever happens in the U.S. has to be of great concern for Canada. Especially when the paramount reason they can concentrate on their economy is we take care of their international defense; and their market economy is inexorably tied to ours. (no offense meant Barefoot, just stating facts)

And just where do you get the majority of your oil from??:posting:

[Guest]

Posting very rarely now.....but links for proof? Most links people incline toward the political forum look at are only those that "confirm" the point of view they already hold. I could provide links that "prove" just about anything I'd want to. I'm sure there are links that "prove" man was created in one day by a Supreme Being and there are links that "prove" we evolved from an amoeba in pond water. :(


I completely agree with you! Thus why I keep telling people to prove me wrong. I want to understand why people think/believe the way they do. I have change on so many issues by looking at both sides. Yes... You can find a link to "prove" both sides. But... often times you can prove or disprove the links.

Thanks! :thumbup:

[Guest]

Posting very rarely now.....but links for proof? Most links people incline toward the political forum look at are only those that "confirm" the point of view they already hold. I could provide links that "prove" just about anything I'd want to. I'm sure there are links that "prove" man was created in one day by a Supreme Being and there are links that "prove" we evolved from an amoeba in pond water. :(

Not sure what "posting very rarely now" means?
As far as wanting links for proof, I believe Angie is the one who quite often requests links that prove the point being made. She prefers not to just take someone's word for it and she has been praised for such.

[Guest]

And just where do you get the majority of your oil from??:posting: I believe that would be-What is Canada?, Alex!

[Guest]

Not sure what "posting very rarely now" means?
As far as wanting links for proof, I believe Angie is the one who quite often requests links that prove the point being made. She prefers not to just take someone's word for it and she has been praised for such.

Links are a dime a dozen. Providing links is almost worthless now. You can pick a link to support your point like a lawyer picks an "expert witness" to support his case.

[Guest]

Links are a dime a dozen. Providing links is almost worthless now. You can pick a link to support your point like a lawyer picks an "expert witness" to support his case.

For once we agree on something. :D

[Guest]

Not sure what "posting very rarely now" means?
As far as wanting links for proof, I believe Angie is the one who quite often requests links that prove the point being made. She prefers not to just take someone's word for it and she has been praised for such.


:D :thumbup:

[Guest]

When anyone's, regardless of party affiliation or none, job approval tanks something is drastically wrong.

[Guest]

When anyone's, regardless of party affiliation or none, job approval tanks something is drastically wrong.

Yes, and Obama's is tanking more every day. Let us hope that is is indeed a one term president. Carter was one term and Obama is always compared to him.:thumbup:

[Guest]

Yes, and Obama's is tanking more every day. Let us hope that is is indeed a one term president. Carter was one term and Obama is always compared to him.:thumbup:

Polls say Obama beats Perry 49-43. We shall see. :D

[Guest]

Polls say Obama beats Perry 49-43. We shall see. :D

The polls I seen were much closer.

[Guest]

Perry and Obama tied, at this point by Gallup.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149114/Obama-Close-Race-Against-Romney-Perry-Bachmann-Paul.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20Politics%20http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2009/01/26/abc-vs-abc-excited-over-obama-inaugural-not-so-much-bush

[Guest]

Why do we continue to create long threads such as this? My guess is that every poster in this thread has made up his or her mind on who they'll vote for--or who they won't vote for--in 2012. At the same time Barack Obama will be our President until he's either voted out of office or re-elected.

That being the case, the U. S. will have the same President for at least the next year and possibly for five more years. Whatever happens will be the result of democratic elections. If we really believe in our system of government, is it right for people who's candidate loses a free election to run down and attempt to weaken the person who the majority chooses?

It seems to me that such an attitude, such actions, are not in the best interests of our country.

[Guest]

If we really believe in our system of government, is it right for people who's candidate loses a free election to run down and attempt to weaken the person who the majority chooses?

It seems to me that such an attitude, such actions, are not in the best interests of our country.

Is it in the best interests of the country to support a President who doesn't have the "best interests of the country" as his agenda?

For the longest time the voting majority of this country didn't want to give voting rights to women, or human rights to African-Americans. Should we have acquiesced to the judgement of the majority then?

[Guest]

Why do we continue to create long threads such as this? My guess is that every poster in this thread has made up his or her mind on who they'll vote for--or who they won't vote for--in 2012. At the same time Barack Obama will be our President until he's either voted out of office or re-elected.

That being the case, the U. S. will have the same President for at least the next year and possibly for five more years. Whatever happens will be the result of democratic elections. If we really believe in our system of government, is it right for people who's candidate loses a free election to run down and attempt to weaken the person who the majority chooses?

It seems to me that such an attitude, such actions, are not in the best interests of our country.

You, sir, are to be commended. Many posters, including myself, should take your words to heart. :BigApplause:

[Guest]

Why do we continue to create long threads such as this?

It's just a way of exchanging opinions, like having a beer at the Pub. Better than talking about sports. I enjoy the political banter and learn a lot from the exhanges.

[Guest]

Why do we continue to create long threads such as this? My guess is that every poster in this thread has made up his or her mind on who they'll vote for--or who they won't vote for--in 2012. At the same time Barack Obama will be our President until he's either voted out of office or re-elected.

That being the case, the U. S. will have the same President for at least the next year and possibly for five more years. Whatever happens will be the result of democratic elections. If we really believe in our system of government, is it right for people who's candidate loses a free election to run down and attempt to weaken the person who the majority chooses?

It seems to me that such an attitude, such actions, are not in the best interests of our country.

I do understand the point that is being made here and in most cases i would concur. However, Obama's policies are so over the top and so far left that the majority of Americans have a right to react and rebel. For example how do you expect taxpayers to act when Admin officials tell you with a straight face that for every $1.00 spent on food stamps it will returns $1.84, This is a portion of Obama's redistribution agenda. If Obama's right then he just found a way to reduce the debt..simply put everyone in America on food stamps. How should taxpayers react when Obama continues to push for the VAT tax as a way to reduce the debt. Europeans are now running double digits % in VAT plus income, property, etc taxes. All VAT will do is increase spending. Keep in mind that the VAT tax applies everytime value is increased in a product

So to say that we need to get behind Obama with policies like the above and others such as ObamaCare is simply counter-intuitive. Taxpayers would do right to get this guy out of office in 2012

[Guest]

I do understand the point that is being made here and in most cases i would concur. However, Obama's policies are so over the top and so far left that the majority of Americans have a right to react and rebel. For example how do you expect taxpayers to act when Admin officials tell you with a straight face that for every $1.00 spent on food stamps it will returns $1.84, This is a portion of Obama's redistribution agenda. If Obama's right then he just found a way to reduce the debt..simply put everyone in America on food stamps. How should taxpayers react when Obama continues to push for the VAT tax as a way to reduce the debt. Europeans are now running double digits % in VAT plus income, property, etc taxes. All VAT will do is increase spending. Keep in mind that the VAT tax applies everytime value is increased in a product

So to say that we need to get behind Obama with policies like the above and others such as ObamaCare is simply counter-intuitive. Taxpayers would do right to get this guy out of office in 2012

Oh Rubicon, you are so mean spirited and hateful, surely you must be a racist. LOL :D Only kidding. I wish I could write so sincerely as you do. Sometimes my passion is mistaken for harshness.

[Guest]

Oh Rubicon, you are so mean spirited and hateful, surely you must be a racist. LOL :D Only kidding. I wish I could write so sincerely as you do. Sometimes my passion is mistaken for harshness.

What I don't understand is why folks want to bring up race. Not mentioning any names, but "someone" keep accusing others of doing just this.

Don't know . . . I just saying.

[Guest]

What I don't understand is why folks want to bring up race. Not mentioning any names, but "someone" keep accusing others of doing just this.

Don't know . . . I just saying.

Gee almighty, cannot a person joke around here? Besides my post was directed jokingly to Rubicon.

But yes, I agree that race is a used as a comeback when one doesn't have an explanation or defense for some people's actions.
I think your accusation is a stretch, at best, but keep up the vigilance, we appreciate it.

[Guest]

For the longest time the voting majority of this country didn't want to give voting rights to women, or human rights to African-Americans. Should we have acquiesced to the judgement of the majority then?

Salut!

:BigApplause:

[Guest]

Richie and Plong -

In reference to Richie's post, "For the longest time the voting majority of this country didn't want to give voting rights to women, or human rights to African-Americans. Should we have acquiesced to the judgement of the majority then?

The Founding Fathers of the USA did not include either civil rights to African-Americans or voting to women in the Constitution. It was not in the Bill of Rights, either. The uber-conservatives are always quoting things from the Founding Fathers like they were gospel but lots of their ideas left entire groups of citizens out of the picture.

It was the "liberals" who fought for civil rights and women's right to vote - not the uber-conservatives.

I am glad to see that RichieLion has seen the light and is coming over from the Dark Side.

[Guest]

Republicans freed the slaves.

[Guest]

I did not say Democrat or Republican. I said liberal.

Personally, I would call Abraham Lincoln a liberal. Lincoln was not one of the Framers of the Constitution either.

Village Golfer - you are most welcome to the side of the liberals. Come over from the Dark Side and join me, Dale, Waynet, and RichieLion.

[Guest]

But it's a blind alley. The terms "liberal" and conservative" are so slippery as to be basically useless, changing so much across space and time that almost no intellectually sound use for them can be found. And trying to shoehorn each and every idea and policy decision into such narrow ideological categories is simplistic and fatally limited.

http://alincolnblog.blogspot.com/2006/08/conservative-or-liberal-silliness.html


I personally think that men in those days really tried to be a president and not a party leader.

[Guest]

I did not say Democrat or Republican. I said liberal.

Personally, I would call Abraham Lincoln a liberal. Lincoln was not one of the Framers of the Constitution either.

Village Golfer - you are most welcome to the side of the liberals. Come over from the Dark Side and join me, Dale, Waynet, and RichieLion.

Richie had seen the light for a long time. He will brighten your little meeting considerably.

[Guest]

"Spin" in my opinion is the ability to utilize hyperbole importing it as fact and hence as being authorative. Campaign advisers, politicians, journalist, lawyers and actors are really good in its application.

For example Jose Baez says the reason so many people hate Casey Anthony is because she is white, beautiful and middle class. He did that with a straight face.

These type of folks have lost all credibility with me and I include both Democrats and Republicans. I believe my instincts before I believe anything they say.

[Guest]

I've defended President Obama for some of his work and am particularly disappointed in how some posters here have been so incredibly negative toward the man and his 32 months in office.

But criticizing the 'boss' is perhaps America's favorite sport. This clip is a bit dated, but IMHO, it's clever, funny and appropriate...

http://www.247comedy.com/obama-musical

I like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=aiGg8D4hFLc&vq=medium

[Guest]

Richie and Plong -

In reference to Richie's post, "For the longest time the voting majority of this country didn't want to give voting rights to women, or human rights to African-Americans. Should we have acquiesced to the judgement of the majority then?

The Founding Fathers of the USA did not include either civil rights to African-Americans or voting to women in the Constitution. It was not in the Bill of Rights, either. The uber-conservatives are always quoting things from the Founding Fathers like they were gospel but lots of their ideas left entire groups of citizens out of the picture.

It was the "liberals" who fought for civil rights and women's right to vote - not the uber-conservatives.

I am glad to see that RichieLion has seen the light and is coming over from the Dark Side.


Don't spin the Constitution, please. Your post is a little deceitful. The Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing. The Founding Fathers said "all men are created equal, with rights endowed by the Creator"; they didn't exclude blacks or women. They knew, in time, that equality would catch up because it was mandated into the Constitution.

Now you can say; oooooooohhhhhhhhhhh, of course.

[Guest]

Here we go again..."All men are created equal" is not in the Constitution. It is found in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is set up to protect the rights of white land owners,those were the voters, not women,blacks or native Americans. Everyone was equal some were more equal than others.

[Guest]

Here we go again..."All men are created equal" is not in the Constitution. It is found in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is set up to protect the rights of white land owners,those were the voters, not women,blacks or native Americans. Everyone was equal some were more equal than others.

The Founder's created the documents of which I speak. It is flagrantly cynical and deceitful to believe that the Founders created this most perfect of all countries for only the "white land owner". What a crock.

[Guest]

Here we go again..."All men are created equal" is not in the Constitution. It is found in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is set up to protect the rights of white land owners,those were the voters, not women,blacks or native Americans. Everyone was equal some were more equal than others.

Wayne, take a few minutes and read this. The part about "America's Founders and Slavery" is about halfway down the page on the link I provided at the bottom. This is just a snippet of the facts provided by this wonderful website and organization. Wall Builders.

"The Founders Believed Slavery Was Fundamentally Wrong.
"The overwhelming majority of early Americans and most of America's leaders did not own slaves. Some did own slaves, which were often inherited (like George Washington at age eleven), but many of these people set them free after independence. Most Founders believed that slavery was wrong and that it should be abolished. William Livingston, signer of the Constitution and Governor of New Jersey, wrote to an anti-slavery society in New York (John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and President of the Continental Congress, was President of this society):

" 'I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the anti-slavery society] 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.' 11

"John Quincy Adams, who worked tirelessly for years to end slavery, spoke of the anti-slavery views of the southern Founders, including Jefferson who owned slaves:

" 'The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves. “Nothing is more certainly written,” said he, “in the book of fate, than that these people are to be free.'12

"The Founding Fathers believed that blacks had the same God-given inalienable rights as any other peoples. James Otis of Massachusetts said in 1764 that 'The colonists are by the law of nature freeborn, as indeed all men are, white or black.' ... ” 13



http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=120#R24

[Guest]

Do not forget it is written in the Constitution that slaves are counted as 3/5 of a white person for representation purposes. Indians are not counted at all.

Women did not get the right to vote until the 20th century.

[Guest]

Do not forget it is written in the Constitution that slaves are counted as 3/5 of a white person for representation purposes. Indians are not counted at all.

Women did not get the right to vote until the 20th century.

If you're speaking of the "Dread Scott Decision", which was a Supreme Court decision and not a Constitutional tenet, you are, again, being disingenuous.

The 3/5's designation was instituted, by compromise, for the benefit of the enslaved people. The Southern slave states wanted to count slaves as a whole number for purposes of Federal Representation, while denying slaves the rights of a citizen.

The North did not want to count the slave at all so that the Southern slave states couldn't pad their rosters of slave promoting representatives in the Houses.

Liberals have a long and time honored tradition of misrepresenting the purpose of the fight to limit the census significance of a slave in it's historical perspective.

[Guest]

Wayne, take a few minutes and read this. The part about "America's Founders and Slavery" is about halfway down the page on the link I provided at the bottom. This is just a snippet of the facts provided by this wonderful website and organization. Wall Builders.

"The Founders Believed Slavery Was Fundamentally Wrong.
"The overwhelming majority of early Americans and most of America's leaders did not own slaves. Some did own slaves, which were often inherited (like George Washington at age eleven), but many of these people set them free after independence. Most Founders believed that slavery was wrong and that it should be abolished. William Livingston, signer of the Constitution and Governor of New Jersey, wrote to an anti-slavery society in New York (John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and President of the Continental Congress, was President of this society):

" 'I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the anti-slavery society] 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.' 11

"John Quincy Adams, who worked tirelessly for years to end slavery, spoke of the anti-slavery views of the southern Founders, including Jefferson who owned slaves:

" 'The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves. “Nothing is more certainly written,” said he, “in the book of fate, than that these people are to be free.'12

"The Founding Fathers believed that blacks had the same God-given inalienable rights as any other peoples. James Otis of Massachusetts said in 1764 that 'The colonists are by the law of nature freeborn, as indeed all men are, white or black.' ... ” 13



http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=120#R24

Excellent site BK. It would do for many to read more before posting "facts"

[Guest]

If you're speaking of the "Dread Scott Decision", which was a Supreme Court decision and not a Constitutional tenet, you are, again, being disingenuous.

The 3/5's designation was instituted, by compromise, for the benefit of the enslaved people. The Southern slave states wanted to count slaves as a whole number for purposes of Federal Representation, while denying slaves the rights of a citizen.

The North did not want to count the slave at all so that the Southern slave states couldn't pad their rosters of slave promoting representatives in the Houses.

Liberals have a long and time honored tradition of misrepresenting the purpose of the fight to limit the census significance of a slave in it's historical perspective.

Excellent and well thought out, Richie.:beer3:

[Guest]

Do not forget it is written in the Constitution that slaves are counted as 3/5 of a white person for representation purposes. Indians are not counted at all.

Women did not get the right to vote until the 20th century.

If you're speaking of the "Dread Scott Decision", which was a Supreme Court decision and not a Constitutional tenet, you are, again, being disingenuous.

The 3/5's designation was instituted, by compromise, for the benefit of the enslaved people. The Southern slave states wanted to count slaves as a whole number for purposes of Federal Representation, while denying slaves the rights of a citizen.

The North did not want to count the slave at all so that the Southern slave states couldn't pad their rosters of slave promoting representatives in the Houses.

Liberals have a long and time honored tradition of misrepresenting the purpose of the fight to limit the census significance of a slave in it's historical perspective.

I don't comment on political opinions here, but occasionally will clarify any apparent misstatement of facts.


The word "slavery" is never used in the constitution.



The 3/5 designation was in U.S. Contitution and was not, that I know of, mentioned in the Dred Scott Decision. It was, as Richie stated, a compromise between northern and southern states. It did not confer "benefit to the enslaved people". Depending on which side you were on at the time, it either gave the southern states more representation in the U. S. House by allowing them to count slaves as partial people; or it denied southern states some representation in the U.S. House by not allowing them to count slaves as whole people. It also affected how much tax the federal government collected from the southern states.

U.S. Contitution Article 1, Section 2: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/glossary.html#APPORTIONMENT) 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.


Though the word is not used, the issue of slavery was alluded to in the Constitution in two other places:

Article 1, Section 9: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. Article 4, Section 2: No Person held to Service or Labour (http://www.usconstitution.net/constmiss.html) in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour (http://www.usconstitution.net/constmiss.html), But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour (http://www.usconstitution.net/constmiss.html) may be due.


The U.S. Constitution did not specifically prohibit women from voting. Nor did it require land ownership for voting. Qualifications for voting were left to the states. So, in effect, women and most non-land owners could not vote.

According to Wikipedia: "At the time of ratification of the Constitution, most states used property qualifications to restrict the franchise; the exact amount varied by state, but by some estimates, over half of white men were barred from voting. [14] (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/#cite_note-13) In some states, free men of color (though the property requirement in New York was eventually dropped for whites but not for blacks) also possessed the vote."

So, opinions may vary, but these are some of the facts related to the discussion.

[Guest]

Here's what I see. We have a few posters constantly bad mouthing the President. So be it. Here is what I and many middle of the road people see,a bunch of real losers on the republican side. Obama is definately beatable for all the obvious reasons but not by these right wing evangelicals who deplore evolution,mock global warming,and want to end any program that helps the middle class yet in tough economic times will not discuss closing tax loopholes or taxing the rich at pre Bush rates. Your candidates are weak willed and in some cases really stupid and cave in at the first sign of a tea party person. Until they catch on with the independant voter Obama will win again.

:agree:
May I add their position on stem cell research?

[Guest]

I really dont have anything against Obama I just want him out of office he is ruining our country he's not doing what is good for the country and trying to distroy it from within. This has nothing to do with dem or rep Thats just my beleif thank you

Deserves repeating. Just saying.

[Guest]

I don't comment on political opinions here, but occasionally will clarify any apparent misstatement of facts.


The word "slavery" is never used in the constitution.



The 3/5 designation was in U.S. Contitution and was not, that I know of, mentioned in the Dred Scott Decision. It was, as Richie stated, a compromise between northern and southern states. It did not confer "benefit to the enslaved people". Depending on which side you were on at the time, it either gave the southern states more representation in the U. S. House by allowing them to count slaves as partial people; or it denied southern states some representation in the U.S. House by not allowing them to count slaves as whole people. It also affected how much tax the federal government collected from the southern states.

U.S. Contitution Article 1, Section 2: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/glossary.html#APPORTIONMENT) 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.


Though the word is not used, the issue of slavery was alluded to in the Constitution in two other places:

Article 1, Section 9: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. Article 4, Section 2: No Person held to Service or Labour (http://www.usconstitution.net/constmiss.html) in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour (http://www.usconstitution.net/constmiss.html), But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour (http://www.usconstitution.net/constmiss.html) may be due.


The U.S. Constitution did not specifically prohibit women from voting. Nor did it require land ownership for voting. Qualifications for voting were left to the states. So, in effect, women and most non-land owners could not vote.

According to Wikipedia: "At the time of ratification of the Constitution, most states used property qualifications to restrict the franchise; the exact amount varied by state, but by some estimates, over half of white men were barred from voting. [14] (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/#cite_note-13) In some states, free men of color (though the property requirement in New York was eventually dropped for whites but not for blacks) also possessed the vote."

So, opinions may vary, but these are some of the facts related to the discussion.

WOW....very informative and well researched post.

Nice job, PTurner!

[Guest]

Don't spin the Constitution, please. Your post is a little deceitful. The Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing. The Founding Fathers said "all men are created equal, with rights endowed by the Creator"; they didn't exclude blacks or women. They knew, in time, that equality would catch up because it was mandated into the Constitution.

Now you can say; oooooooohhhhhhhhhhh, of course.

Right on!!!!

[Guest]

as you can all see no rebuttal for pturner post just more blah,blah,blah.

[Guest]

as you can all see no rebuttal for pturner post just more blah,blah,blah.

More blah,blah, blah? Interesting.

[Guest]

Thanks for the clarifications PTurner. I haven't been in an American History class since 1966, so I'm a little rusty, but I remember the basics and what was important; most times anyway.

I not sure what Waynet want's a rebuttal for. It seems you clarified, but did not disagree with my important conclusions of cause and effect of these constitutional issues. Unless I'm missing something here.