• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans mount shock comeback, erase Democrats’ edge in eyes of Americans

That 3/5ths intent was about representation, but you have admit that it was also used by certain people who actually believed in racial superiority and objected to giving slaves their freedom.

i believe the estimate during the founding was about 2 million whites in america, with about 750,000 slaves.......but dont quote that figure

since slavery at that time being a southern institution, it would have meant the south paying most of the governments funding, and given the south a great amount of representation in the house if the clause had not been put into the constitution.

yes there were people who thought themselves racially superior, and those not needed to be controlled, they were not exclusive in their thoughts........times have not changed, we have people who believe their are intellectually superior today, and believe they should decide for the rest of us, using the power of government to do it.

the agenda has not changed ..
 
Q

Personally, I'd prefer to lose a dozen states, all of them South of I-40. But, other than that, I'm not the one griping about the government doing its job like you wingnuts.

I live in a state that if it were a nation would be around number 11 in GDP and one that is quite sustainable on its own but I don't propose nor support secession nor do I support the massive Central govt that apparently you do. Wonder how that will change however if a Republican was in the WH and what exactly were the cries when Bush was in power about the excessive power of the Federal Govt?

Fortunately only people like you believe that a govt. that has created a 17 trillion dollar debt is doing its job and apparently that is 40% today. What I have seen from you is someone who really doesn't understand the history of this country nor the foundation that made this country great and it wasn't liberalism. Rather telling how people like you have no concept as to the role of the Federal Govt.
 
I haven't decided yet. But the goal would be for it to eventually be eliminated.

This is at least the second time I have asked you what you proposed to do with a so called "problem" that you identify in the American system. Both times you really have nothing to offer.

Please do not change a thing. I have learned to love the right leaning conservatives and libertarians who really do nothing to advance their agenda other than use these forums as some sort of internet aping of the Jehovah's Witnesses going door to door to proselytize about their "beliefs". But in this case, they don't even get the one on one face time so their message is even less powerful.

The people I worry about are the warriors of the right who actually have what they believe to be solutions and are out there advocating for them and doing the nuts and bolts work in the real life political arena to get them enacted into law. Those are the people I concern myself with as being dangerous.

The ones who think the internet is the way to brainwash the masses into turning themselves into Randroids are laughable by comparison.
 
oh,.....that same old tired line.....where is chuck71 when you need him, to witness this?

Thank you for showing that you have no idea what you are talking about either.
 
Thank you for showing that you have no idea what you are talking about either.

oh i was seen, its just your usual, MO...[MODE OF OPERATION]

what are you talking about?

i dont understand what you mean?

and others you use.....just ask chuck71, he has already pointed it out.
 
oh i was seen, its just your usual, MO...[MODE OF OPERATION]

what are you talking about?

i dont understand what you mean?

and others you use.....just ask chuck71, he has already pointed it out.

If you had a point - you would have made it.

And just to let you in on the joke - I used to teach sixth graders my first year of teaching so i know darn well about the silly type of YES OR NO YOU HAVE TO SAY ONE OR THE OTHER tactics such children use.

I was onto you from the start of your question EB. :roll:;)

here you are in 358

do you want me to make you look bad again.....yes or no...?

that is what kids do EB. You have to answer yes or no. And the whole time you sit back thinking you have won some great victory because if I say YES - then you jump up and down in glee claiming that I just admitted you already have made me look bad. And if I say NO you still jump up and down claiming that I am a coward and no longer want to look bad and just admitted that I did.

Its rather easy to see through EB and anybody who ever taught sixth graders can see it a mile away. :roll:

But it certainly exposes what you think are clever tactics in debate.

And speaking of debate - I did so for two years in college and nobody ever tried to pull silly kid stuff like that. Nobody.
 
Last edited:
If you had a point - you would have made it.

And just to let you in on the joke - I used to teach sixth graders my first year of teaching so i know darn well about the silly type of YES OR NO YOU HAVE TO SAY ONE OR THE OTHER tactics such children use.

I was onto you from the start of your question EB. :roll:;)


haymarket, you have a bad reputation on the forum, many people know it.

you have no ability to answer simple questions with one word.

you sleight of hand moves, reverse positions, asking for people to state their beliefs, and then saying you dont care when they tell you...after asking

its to easy with you with you when you say things, and then dont know what you said..

your teaching of minds of young children is very frightening to me, and many other people...how many collect ideas have to filled their heads with, and told them america was evil?
 
False. Congress passed it legally, the president signed it into law and SCOTUS ruled it constitutional.

Obviously you're not going to listen to facts. You are stuck in your fantasyland. Bye.

For the purpose of evaluating this unconstitutional law it does not matter that tyrants passed it into law and other tyrants upheld it. They will all get what is owed them eventually. There is no basis in the Constitution. The acts of each of these tyrants do not make Obamacare any less tyrannical. Nor can their acts make an unconstitutional law any more constitutional.

Nor can I help that many of you cannot see what is transpiring or somehow believe that you can escape the fate of this nation. You are what you are and nothing I say will change you. I just wish I could be present when you realize, too late, that you approved of your own destruction.
 
For the purpose of evaluating this unconstitutional law it does not matter that tyrants passed it into law and other tyrants upheld it. They will all get what is owed them eventually. There is no basis in the Constitution. The acts of each of these tyrants do not make Obamacare any less tyrannical. Nor can their acts make an unconstitutional law any more constitutional.
now you are simply muttering nonsense, much like a homeless man on a street corner. When 3/3 of the branches of government approved something, and when the majority of the people voted to reelect 2/3 of them, then you are simply a malcontent grumbling from the outside while looking in. In other words: no one takes you serious.

Nor can I help that many of you cannot see what is transpiring or somehow believe that you can escape the fate of this nation. You are what you are and nothing I say will change you. I just wish I could be present when you realize, too late, that you approved of your own destruction.
See my comment above. Homeless men rambling on street corners always say they can see what others can't--promising doom in on the horizon.
 
Wow, so the Constitution says what you want it to say? Please provide for us the clause in the Constitution that "defines Blacks as 3/5ths of a person"
Our Leftist enemies, oops, friends, believe that declaring slaves to count as 3/5ths of a person for determining the number of representatives, increased the South's political power. I cannot understand such thinking. Instead it lowered the count and reduced the south's proportional representation. It was intended to do so to prevent the spread of slavery. To admit as much would somehow diminish their dislike of the nation and its founding. We cannot have that.
 
I live in a state that if it were a nation would be around number 11 in GDP and one that is quite sustainable on its own but I don't propose nor support secession nor do I support the massive Central govt that apparently you do. Wonder how that will change however if a Republican was in the WH and what exactly were the cries when Bush was in power about the excessive power of the Federal Govt?
Bush, who is a Republican from Texas, increased the size of government. Obama, OTOH, has reduced it.
9.10.12-Strain-Post-2.png

You really need to come to terms with your misconceptions.


Fortunately only people like you believe that a govt. that has created a 17 trillion dollar debt is doing its job and apparently that is 40% today. What I have seen from you is someone who really doesn't understand the history of this country nor the foundation that made this country great and it wasn't liberalism. Rather telling how people like you have no concept as to the role of the Federal Govt.
False. See above
 
Our Leftist enemies, oops, friends, believe that declaring slaves to count as 3/5ths of a person for determining the number of representatives, increased the South's political power. I cannot understand such thinking. Instead it lowered the count and reduced the south's proportional representation. It was intended to do so to prevent the spread of slavery. To admit as much would somehow diminish their dislike of the nation and its founding. We cannot have that.

Counting people who are not allowed to vote as 3/5ths a person helped the South who would otherwise not have been allowed to count the slaves at all.
 
now you are simply muttering nonsense, much like a homeless man on a street corner. When 3/3 of the branches of government approved something, and when the majority of the people voted to reelect 2/3 of them, then you are simply a malcontent grumbling from the outside while looking in. In other words: no one takes you serious.
I am not surprised that you do not. You are not a serious person.

It makes no difference that you approve of tyrannical acts. You still will not escape the fate that is ours as a result of this horrible, tyrannical act.

See my comment above. Homeless men rambling on street corners always say they can see what others can't--promising doom in on the horizon.
The doom is already here. Just because it has not yet harmed you does not mean that your turn will not come. Given that you believe it is a good thing I wish twice as much of it upon you as upon the rest of us.
 
i give you praise any way, because you knew there were, i believe Washington had whites slaves working for him.

as to whites being counted has 3/5ths i have not researched this.

but remember that the 3/5ths is not about racism, its about taxes and representation.

people dont want to pay taxes, but they want as much representation as they can get.

The 3/5th's were for negroes for the purpose of the census Indians not at all. Women were not allowed to vote, but were counted s people.

I have always Lincoln's "all men are created equal" as being the biggest lie ever by a politician.
 
Counting people who are not allowed to vote as 3/5ths a person helped the South who would otherwise not have been allowed to count the slaves at all.
No. They would have been counted as whole people for representation. You are mistaken. But I can be convinced. Show me from the historical arguments.
 
This is at least the second time I have asked you what you proposed to do with a so called "problem" that you identify in the American system. Both times you really have nothing to offer.

Did you not see my proposed solution? It was to eliminate the program.
 
Counting people who are not allowed to vote as 3/5ths a person helped the South who would otherwise not have been allowed to count the slaves at all.


the southern states wanted to count blacks as 1 person for representation, but they also did not want to pay the cost in taxes for a full person....the northern states stated if they are 1 person they cannot be slaves.

the south stated they were property, a compromise was reached on 3/5ths.

if slaves would have been counted as 1 person, representation of the house would have been domination by the southern states, and many things of our history would be different.
 
Last edited:
The 3/5th's were for negroes for the purpose of the census Indians not at all. Women were not allowed to vote, but were counted s people.

I have always Lincoln's "all men are created equal" as being the biggest lie ever by a politician.


Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned 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. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
 
haymarket, you have a bad reputation on the forum, many people know it.

you have no ability to answer simple questions with one word.

If you had a point - you would have made it.

And just to let you in on the joke - I used to teach sixth graders my first year of teaching so i know darn well about the silly type of YES OR NO YOU HAVE TO SAY ONE OR THE OTHER tactics such children use.

I was onto you from the start of your question EB. :roll::wink:

here you are in 358


do you want me to make you look bad again.....yes or no...?


that is what kids do EB. You have to answer yes or no. You have to cause I say you do cause I laid a trap for you and I wanna see it sprung so I can look sooooo cooool. nanananana . And the whole time you sit back thinking you have won some great victory because if I say YES - then you jump up and down in glee claiming that I just admitted you already have made me look bad. And if I say NO you still jump up and down claiming that I am a coward and no longer want to look bad and just admitted that I did.

Its rather easy to see through EB and anybody who ever taught sixth graders can see it a mile away. :roll:

But it certainly exposes what you think are clever tactics in debate.

And speaking of debate - I did so for two years in college and nobody ever tried to pull silly kid stuff like that. Nobody.
 
Did you not see my proposed solution? It was to eliminate the program.

You did say you would phase it out but when I pressed you for the details......... and the devil is always in the details .......... you backed away.
 
If you had a point - you would have made it.

And just to let you in on the joke - I used to teach sixth graders my first year of teaching so i know darn well about the silly type of YES OR NO YOU HAVE TO SAY ONE OR THE OTHER tactics such children use.

I was onto you from the start of your question EB. :roll::wink:

here you are in 358





that is what kids do EB. You have to answer yes or no. And the whole time you sit back thinking you have won some great victory because if I say YES - then you jump up and down in glee claiming that I just admitted you already have made me look bad. And if I say NO you still jump up and down claiming that I am a coward and no longer want to look bad and just admitted that I did.

Its rather easy to see through EB and anybody who ever taught sixth graders can see it a mile away. :roll:

But it certainly exposes what you think are clever tactics in debate.

And speaking of debate - I did so for two years in college and nobody ever tried to pull silly kid stuff like that. Nobody.


hmmmmm. only a re-post of post 381

if you wish to talk with me about constitutional issues, that is fine, i welcome it, however your justification to repute my statements about your MO.....does not move me.
 
hmmmmm. only a re-post of post 381

You missed the new material..... go back and read it again..... and truth does not need to change.

But if I am wrong - just tell us why it was so important for you to keep pressing to answer your yes or no question that was set up dishonestly to try and make me look bad either way? :roll::doh:shock:
 
Last edited:
No. They would have been counted as whole people for representation. You are mistaken. But I can be convinced. Show me from the historical arguments.

My bad. THe North did not want to count slaves as people at all. THe South wanted them counted, but also enslaved. So, the compromise counting them as 60% was reached.
 
Back
Top Bottom