Hey GOP! If you don't broaden the party...

[DiveCon]

Open your eyes. The Founding Fathers who were Southern Gentlemen, and who stood the most to gain, kept slaves while sometimes denouncing the institution...in private. IT was all about deceit, power, cowardice, morality and ethics. I do not judge them as harshly as their own words do, but at the same time I do not make excuses for them as most Americans do.

Slaves are not mentioned in the Articles of Confederation. They were considered property. Why would property be considered as equal to property owners?

are you drunk?

Nope! and that my dear friend may be a problem. It is illegal to be drunk in public in California.

i was wondering because it doesnt seem like you were actually READING my posts
because nothing you have said contradicts anything i said
LOL

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

are you drunk?

Nope! and that my dear friend may be a problem. It is illegal to be drunk in public in California.

i was wondering because it doesnt seem like you were actually READING my posts
because nothing you have said contradicts anything i said
LOL

nothing to contradict. your twisting and stating things out of context, and dabbling in obfuscation and other tactics are usually ignored by men like me.

 

[DiveCon]

Nope! and that my dear friend may be a problem. It is illegal to be drunk in public in California.

i was wondering because it doesnt seem like you were actually READING my posts
because nothing you have said contradicts anything i said
LOL

nothing to contradict. your twisting and stating things out of context, and dabbling in obfuscation and other tactics are usually ignored by men like me.

no, i wasnt
i was stating the FACTS
and you just went off on tangents that agreed with what i said

thats why i thought you were drunk

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

i was wondering because it doesnt seem like you were actually READING my posts
because nothing you have said contradicts anything i said
LOL

nothing to contradict. your twisting and stating things out of context, and dabbling in obfuscation and other tactics are usually ignored by men like me.

no, i wasnt
i was stating the FACTS
and you just went off on tangents that agreed with what i said

thats why i thought you were drunk

maybe you've been on forums for too long? These places are filled with the type that think stating facts is having a duscussion or making a point.

Let me do an impression:

"50% of Americans piss sitting down. Discuss"

 

[jreeves]

The Constitution provided an avenue for slaves to become free. Without the Constitution and the founding fathers we would be a nation of racial divisions. Fortunately our founding fathers had the fortitude to know the Constitution would need to change with the times. Hence, they allowed amendments, from that fortitude sprung the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause.

The Constitution did no such thing...activist judges did. The Supreme Court had to overturn itself.

And better not let those strict constructionists hear you say 'the constitution would need to change' pssst, they are always arguing over what the signers meant as if their thoughts and the federalist papers are cemented in law.

The Civil Rights Movement in this nation was fueled by the 14th amendment. If the original Constitution didn't have a provision for amendments, then we wouldn't have had the Civil Rights Movement in this country. I don't believe activist judges provided an avenue. Judges saw injustices and rectified them using our founding documents. I am not a strict constructionist....

I guess your lack of response, means that the Constitution didn't in fact curtail rights.

 

[DiveCon]

nothing to contradict. your twisting and stating things out of context, and dabbling in obfuscation and other tactics are usually ignored by men like me.

no, i wasnt
i was stating the FACTS
and you just went off on tangents that agreed with what i said

thats why i thought you were drunk

maybe you've been on forums for too long? These places are filled with the type that think stating facts is having a duscussion or making a point.

Let me do an impression:

"50% of Americans piss sitting down. Discuss"

if i was twisting things out of context, please explain what i was twisting


because i wasnt

 

[Hillbilly]

Social security should be done away with. The government should also be stopped from 'allowing' us to plan for retirement in only certain ways. But they won't, so privitization is the best option. The privitization plan they came up with was so minute that there would even be a current dip in anyone's 'portfolio' to speak of. What your 401k is worth today is completely irrelevant. There are always ups and downs, over the long haul you'll do far better in the market. If you are really going to stick with the idea that not privitizing has saved SS because of the losses then you must think the market will not recover. If that is the case then SS has not been saved at all. It's the same either way.

Worst case scenario: you were planning on retiring in the next 2 years and now have to work for two more years. Whoopdeedoo. A 76 year old woman won Celebrity Apprentice a few days ago. Able bodied people retiring and doing nothing is an unnatural abomination unknown before recent times and should be shunned. That and it'll kill you.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If you don't broaden the party, there won't be much of a party left.

Listen to the Hyper-Patriots, Rush Boil-on-his-butt-draft dodger Limbaugh and Dick Chickenhawk-In-Chief Cheney and Karl Rove's new permanent majority will not only have been a pipe-dream (what was he smoking?), but the GOP will be right up there in the history books with the Whig Party and others.

There are not enough, blue-eyed, blond guys and girls who go to church three times on Sunday and once on Wednesday to make up a majority for the Republican party...]


the above is a direct quote right out of a former state party leader's sob story. hoooooooey!

 

[Iriemon]

I don't know what is going to happen with the former Grand Old Party. The problem with it is that it is currently dominated by religious folks who will not compromise on social issues and tax cut zealots who will not compromise on budet issues. And so the few moderates left are being outed.

By putting up McCain, one of the few more moderate voices (and even he was caving hard to the right to get the nomination) in a year when any Republican would have had a very tough time winning, the purists got a sacrificial lamb moderate with whom they could blame the ills of the party.

I expect them to put up a charismatic but very right wing candidate in 2012, someone like Palin. And unless the economy is still in the pits, that hard right candidate will be crushed. That will force a catharsis in the Republican party in which they may have to accept a more compromising view in order to survive as a major force in the political sphere.

Because I don't see a great religious right revival of the scope to propel them back, and while the boomers loved their tax cuts when they were earning, as they retire they are not going to support candidates who talk about cutting their retirement benefits. Eventually the GOP is going to have to adapt to these conditions or become a permanent minority.

Of course, if the economy still sucks, all bets are off. There is a reason the Murdoch outlets are doing the best they can to undermine confidence and economic growth.

 

[dilloduck]

Y'all say that like somebody cares. It doesn't guarantee the democrats a damn thing. You partisan hacks crack me up.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

no, i wasnt
i was stating the FACTS
and you just went off on tangents that agreed with what i said

thats why i thought you were drunk

maybe you've been on forums for too long? These places are filled with the type that think stating facts is having a duscussion or making a point.

Let me do an impression:

"50% of Americans piss sitting down. Discuss"

if i was twisting things out of context, please explain what i was twisting


because i wasnt

Maybe not intentionally you weren't.

Slaves were not counted under the Articles of Confederation. The only reason slave holders wanted to then count slaves was for power...yet how could a slave count as both a citizen to be represented and be a slave (chattel) at the same time? The inherent conflict was what doomed slavery. The Northerners arguments were based on power too, but they did not own slaves...they were not trying to make power by holding fellow humans as chattel.

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the population of slaves would be counted for enumeration purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College; taxation was only a secondary issue.[citation needed] The final compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but increased it over the northern position.

-Three-fifths compromise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

most interesting and what I was getting at...

Background

The three-fifths ratio was not a new concept. It originated with a 1783 amendment proposed to the Articles of Confederation. The amendment was to have changed the basis for determining the wealth of each state, and hence its tax obligations, from real estate to population, as a measure of ability to produce wealth. The proposal by a committee of the Congress had suggested that taxes "shall be supplied by the several colonies in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, sex, and quality, except Indians not paying taxes."[1][2] The South immediately objected to this formula since it would include slaves, who were viewed primarily as property, in calculating the amount of taxes to be paid. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his notes on the debates, the southern states would be taxed "according to their numbers and their wealth conjunctly, while the northern would be taxed on numbers only."[3]

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

On the latest episode of Lost on USMBc...DiveCon and DevNell contain a nuke that was set to blow up the Republic as we know IT.

um, why did you number this when you only had one point?


come on dev

that point was poor anyway
that was to punish those states not the actual people
that way they didnt get to have representation equal to those they held as slaves

so southern slave holders believed slaves were equal?

2) equals fill in the blank.

anything I've left you thinking about was meant as a free teaching point. Now get your head out of your ass and think!

no, dev
they didnt want them to use the slaves to get more represenitives in congress because they were slaves
you've lost it dev
this isnt partisan at all
you are showing its your head that is suffering from rectal/cranial inversion

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Oh Daffy Dildo Duck, you care....you care enough to prove that sometimes water does not roll off an ass's back so easily.

Y'all say that like somebody cares. It doesn't guarantee the democrats a damn thing. You partisan hacks crack me up.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I don't know what is going to happen with the former Grand Old Party. The problem with it is that it is currently dominated by religious folks who will not compromise on social issues and tax cut zealots who will not compromise on budet issues. And so the few moderates left are being outed.

By putting up McCain, one of the few more moderate voices (and even he was caving hard to the right to get the nomination) in a year when any Republican would have had a very tough time winning, the purists got a sacrificial lamb moderate with whom they could blame the ills of the party.

I expect them to put up a charismatic but very right wing candidate in 2012, someone like Palin. And unless the economy is still in the pits, that hard right candidate will be crushed. That will force a catharsis in the Republican party in which they may have to accept a more compromising view in order to survive as a major force in the political sphere.

Because I don't see a great religious right revival of the scope to propel them back, and while the boomers loved their tax cuts when they were earning, as they retire they are not going to support candidates who talk about cutting their retirement benefits. Eventually the GOP is going to have to adapt to these conditions or become a permanent minority.

Of course, if the economy still sucks, all bets are off. There is a reason the Murdoch outlets are doing the best they can to undermine confidence and economic growth.

very good post. may hat is off to you. let me now go and eat that hat and pen you a poem.

 

[DiveCon]

thanks for admitting i was right

 

[KittenKoder]

If SS is done away with completely then there are millions who will be broke and homeless, living directly on the system and needing more tax dollars to support ... it needs to be a weening system, and the government needs to stop stealing from it in the first place.

 

[JohnStOnge]

The Social Security system should not even exist. It's basically a program for forcing people to participate in a system to guarantee their security; particuarly when they are older. Nobody should be forced to participate in such a thing. I know that I, personally, would much prefer to have gotten the money I've paid into the Social Security system than to be eligible for the "benefits" it offers.

Not to mention the fact that it's a Ponzi scheme that can't be sustained indefinitely. The Social Security system is not a good thing. It was wrong to establish it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

you are right even when you're wrong.

thanks for admitting i was right

 

[KittenKoder]

The Social Security system should not even exist. It's basically a program for forcing people to participate in a system to guarantee their security; particuarly when they are older. Nobody should be forced to participate in such a thing. I know that I, personally, would much prefer to have gotten the money I've paid into the Social Security system than to be eligible for the "benefits" it offers.

Not to mention the fact that it's a Ponzi scheme that can't be sustained indefinitely. The Social Security system is not a good thing. It was wrong to establish it.

Do you really think they have enough to pay off everyone they owe with inflation and interest added?

 

[DiveCon]

If SS is done away with completely then there are millions who will be broke and homeless, living directly on the system and needing more tax dollars to support ... it needs to be a weening system, and the government needs to stop stealing from it in the first place.

The Social Security system should not even exist. It's basically a program for forcing people to participate in a system to guarantee their security; particuarly when they are older. Nobody should be forced to participate in such a thing. I know that I, personally, would much prefer to have gotten the money I've paid into the Social Security system than to be eligible for the "benefits" it offers.

Not to mention the fact that it's a Ponzi scheme that can't be sustained indefinitely. The Social Security system is not a good thing. It was wrong to establish it.

the point is we have it and people have paid into it
you cant just cut those people off
the plans to take SS to private accounts was a good idea, but the dems fought it every step of the way till they killed it