Bachmann: Founding fathers ‘worked tirelessly’ to end slavery

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...everytime the character of the founding fathers (gag) comes up, it always turns into a debate about them owning slaves... its an old and boring distraction technique that works very well at keeping the focus off of the most damning fact that the ff were pro-genocide, which makes them lower than scum...

Yeah.

Let's run down the list of atrocities....

Fighting off Imperialistic Europe, Freedom of speech, Freedom of Religion, Separation of Church and State, The Right to bear arms, Freedom of assembly etc etc etc .....

Yup but all of that and more was ruined by them having slaves just like many of the European powers of the period.

edit on 28-1-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

As I thought, nationalistic catnip

...everyone loves to play -

You would think Michelle Bachman is a politician or something

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Truthfully, I believe that the Democrats don't have an agenda anymore.

You mean like they're on autopilot? The lights are on but no one is home?
Now THOSE are scary thoughts!

That indeed appears to be the case. It almost seems like the majority in the Congress chose to bask in their newfound glory and not take any serious risks. The Healthcare Reform (granted controversial) did not get the overwhelming traction among the dems, and what came out was worse than nothing at all -- such as, my own premiums will rise, I will pay taxes on my plan, but we STILL won't have universal coverage which in my eyes would justify my own personal pain. I can hear GOP saying "heads, I win, tails, you lose".

I didn't see massive public works started which are badly needed according to National Association of Civil Engineers. We have rotting schools, bridges that collapse and kill people, and tunnels about as old and scary as Tolkien's caves. Many people who travel (including yours truly) are ashamed to see how much we are behind, when we cross the border of our country. How many tunnels Obama and his crew built or fixed? It's either a PR failure, or a very real failure of leadership, patriotism and common sense among these people (dems). I'm not talking about Repubs because these are ogres.

China built more modern rail in one year than we did in 30. This concerns me a lot more than a peculiarity in gun laws, gay marriage or peculiarity in gays carrying guns, or Kim Kardashian or Jersey Shore. Those who scream bloody government interference are idiots because exactly lack of such led to the sad situation we are now in. And don't get me started on the very real cause and effect thing, in that lax regulation of financial sector led to crazy speculation and bubbles. I know that stuff.

So the dems are not up to the snuff, and I don't think anybody is. So let's listen to the last piece played by the orchestra why bundling up in blankets on the top deck of our Titanic. The idiots are heading towards their watery grave.

reply to post by Janky Red

reply to post by glome

reply to post by MrXYZ

reply to post by Wyn Hawks



Are you even Americans or live in the US.
Strange, I cant help but get the feeling that some of you if not all are not even Americans and are just simply trying to stir the pot. Which party if any do any of you belong to or how have you voted say in the past 35 years or at least the last 8 elections as I have?


Because none of you state your locations or even imply that you're American.

Just curious...

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Janky Red

 

reply to post by glome

 

reply to post by MrXYZ

 

reply to post by Wyn Hawks

 

Are you even Americans or live in the US.
Strange, I cant help but get the feeling that some of you if not all are not even Americans and are just simply trying to stir the pot. Which party if any do any of you belong to or how have you voted say in the past 35 years or at least the last 8 elections as I have?


Because none of you state your locations or even imply that you're American.

Just curious...

TRANSLATION: You are not entitled to have opinions on past American atrocities however objective they might be if you don't live in America.

@ Slayer I presume the gym was enjoyable. You seem to be pumping a lot of irony.

Originally posted by kinda kurious
TRANSLATION: You are not entitled to have an opinion on past American atrocities however objective they might be if you don't live in America.

Interesting assumption....

I haven't said nor implied that.
I asked a rather simple question.


It still stands.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
I asked a rather simple question. It still stands.

Translation: Papers please?

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by SLAYER69
I asked a rather simple question. It still stands.

Translation: Papers please?

Another assumption?

I missed the guestion , could you repeat it ,please?

Michele Bachman=The Right-Wing Nutjob Quote-O-Matic
HERE

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by SLAYER69
I asked a rather simple question. It still stands.

Translation: Papers please?

Another assumption?

Can't we all just get along?

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Are you even Americans or live in the US.
Strange, I cant help but get the feeling that some of you if not all are not even Americans and are just simply trying to stir the pot.

...how tacky of you - tsk, tsk, tsk...

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Which party if any do any of you belong to or how have you voted say in the past 35 years or at least the last 8 elections as I have?

...if it was any of your biz, you'd already know...

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Because none of you state your locations or even imply that you're American.

...you cant read...

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Just curious...

...yeah, right... heres something for your friday night whine...

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...yeah, right... heres something for your friday night whine...

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Janky Red

 

reply to post by glome

 

reply to post by MrXYZ

 

reply to post by Wyn Hawks

 

Are you even Americans or live in the US.
Strange, I cant help but get the feeling that some of you if not all are not even Americans and are just simply trying to stir the pot. Which party if any do any of you belong to or how have you voted say in the past 35 years or at least the last 8 elections as I have?


Because none of you state your locations or even imply that you're American.

Just curious...

Lets stir up that good ol American nationalism and question the origins of the opinions to validate them before we move on to step two; attack the patriotism of the opinionated poo poo faces who are probably not American or do not deserve to be American!?

I will reiterate my stance - Michelle Bachman often times relies on identity politics much in the way Bush did (contrary to someone like Ron Paul of Bob Barr for example)...
Given her stances on abortion and other issues of personal conduct I find it disconcerting that she is the spokes person for what was once a libertarian movement, this libertarian aspect is what initially defined the GOP and the TEA party. At one point I was glad that libertarians had a substantial platform, I think people like Bachman destroyed the TEA party and I think her rhetorical flare further diminishes the original encompassing aspects of the movement. My personal opinion, she sounds a whole lot like a redressed, FOX endorsed, Neoconservative
who uses unsaid cultural inroads to divide and conquer by establishing identity by pandering to cultural nationalistic populism. Liberals achieve similar ends with the immigration debate for example.

I think the thematic basis of Bachmans rhetoric is very much akin to Bush's "you are with us or against us", although deeply coded against a well established backdrop, people who do NOT accept her categorical statement as categorical truth must hate the Founding Fathers, America, Freedom or something... In this instance the politician has just divided the field and cultivated an emotional subject to their advantage - "you are with us or against us" - well I assure you SLAYER they hate America and they are evil... hell, are they even American?

Just read your second sentence where you are are drawing the ever famous line in the sand. Low and Behold 10 pages in you went there... Bachman never EVER instructed you do this - yet pages back I focused on this exact
method of division. The enemy has gone from loving terrorists, to hating the founding fathers - more importantly,
we hate terrorist and love the founding fathers. From there it is a short walk to the grazing area and a small hike to the ballot with choices A and B pre populated

IT is clear that the founding fathers were composed of pro slavery advocates and anti slavery advocates...
But I am certain now that was not the point, Since you asked, I was born in the USA and I am with you!

Originally posted by Janky Red
Lets stir up that good ol American nationalism and question the origins of the opinions to validate them before we move on to step two; attack the patriotism of the opinionated poo poo faces who are probably not American or do not deserve to be American!?

I was just curious because we all know [well those of us who have been on this site now for a few years] have seen it before. It was a fair question and I appreciate your honest and open answer.

I will reiterate my stance - Michelle Bachman often times relies on identity politics much in the way Bush did (contrary to someone like Ron Paul of Bob Barr for example)...
Given her stances on abortion and other issues of personal conduct I find it disconcerting that she is the spokes person for what was once a libertarian movement, this libertarian aspect is what initially defined the GOP and the TEA party. At one point I was glad that libertarians had a substantial platform, I think people like Bachman destroyed the TEA party and I think her rhetorical flare further diminishes the original encompassing aspects of the movement.

Well now there is a fair assessment. I can appreciate your stance. It's refreshing to hear actual opinions rather than simple mudslinging.

My personal opinion, she sounds a whole lot like a redressed, FOX endorsed, Neoconservative
who uses unsaid cultural inroads to divide and conquer by establishing identity by pandering to cultural nationalistic populism. Liberals achieve similar ends with the immigration debate for example.

This part here makes since to me and I can see how one would feel as such.

I think the thematic basis of Bachmans rhetoric is very much akin to Bush's "you are with us or against us", although deeply coded against a well established backdrop, people who do accept her categorical statement as categorical truth must hate the Founding Fathers, America, Freedom or something... In this instance the politician has just divided the field and cultivated an emotional subject to their advantage - "you are with us or against us" - well I assure you SLAYER they hate America and they are evil... hell, are they even American?

Well you can tie those two together and speculate about connections and make any number of assumptions that's your right.

I asked that question earlier because many seem to be lacking in their understanding of the politics or the history of the parties. We've seen this here before at ATS during the last Presidential campaign. Also it is funny to note that many will refrain from stating their country of origins and simply bash the US over it's politics while avoiding their own countries history. That whole people in glass houses throwing stones bit.

Many will sit in judgment while avoiding their own political skeletons.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Are you even Americans or live in the US.
Strange, I cant help but get the feeling that some of you if not all are not even Americans and are just simply trying to stir the pot. Which party if any do any of you belong to or how have you voted say in the past 35 years or at least the last 8 elections as I have?


Because none of you state your locations or even imply that you're American.

Just curious...

Originally posted by SLAYER69
I was just curious because we all know [well those of us who have been on this site now for a few years] have seen it before. It was a fair question and I appreciate your honest and open answer.

Yes I've been around even longer than you and I too am kurious so would you mind sharing your party affiliation and location? Strangely it does not appear on your own Avatar. :shk: Seems like a fair question since you've asked others same, no?

This is a difficult thread in that it seems to exist merely to castigate a politician and is done so in a partisan manner, but at the same time presents itself as a thread that is demanding intellectual honesty, historical accuracy, and intelligence. The original post failed to show any intellectual honesty, historical accuracy, or intelligence in spite of its pretensions. The Raw Story article that seemed to inspire this thread did better than the O.P. of this thread did in offering a more balanced view of the "event", although why Bachmann asserting that the Founding Fathers "worked tirelessly" to end slavery is news at all is beyond me.

Bachmann is first and foremost a politician. The very nature of her profession makes her fair game to extreme scrutiny, character assassination, and unsavory epitaphs, just as her political opponents are fair game as well. Whether or not engaging in attacks on politicians is desirable or not, it is, it seems, the American way.

That said, it is worth noting that the deeper issue of this thread, that underlying form that has driven this thread up to 10 pages now, is the question of Founding Fathers and original intent. It is obvious that the country was as divided then as it is today. Had it not been there would not have been "patriots" (revolutionaries), and "loyalists" (those loyal to the Crown of England). One of the great divisions among Americans then was the issue of slavery. There were slave holders, and it would seem to be obvious that these slave holders were proponents of slavery, and yet, while Benjamin Franklin began as a slave holder, he at some point changed his mind and in his later years became an abolitionist. Thomas Jefferson, that great equivocator, was a slave holder, but did much hand wringing over the issue. Even among the slave holders, there was a great divide.

However, there were plenty of American's who were not slave holders, who were Founding Fathers. To ignore this and lump all the Founding Fathers into one camp or the other is to do a great disservice to them, and to us. Us being all Americans. As stupid as some people want to believe Bachmann is, (and I do not know one way or the other the level of intelligence of this person because she is a politician and I tend to ignore politicians), her assertions have led to the creation of this thread and the debate - in some instances less of a debate and more of a playground argument - that has followed. That can't be such a bad thing.

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Yes I've been around even longer than you and I too am kurious so would you mind sharing your party affiliation and location? Strangely it does not appear on your own Avatar. :shk: Seems like a fair question since you've asked others same, no?

I'll answer the question....

Even though now so far the others have avoided it. I'm not ashamed to say I'm a registered Republican and voted for Bush jr the first time around and did not the second time for obvious reasons. I'm about as liberal of a conservative as you'll ever find.

Examples but not limited too:
I'm against the wars but support the troops. I feel a female has the right to choose

reply to post by SLAYER69


Accepted. I knew I couldn't help but like you.

I apologize for the papers comment. I crossed the line. Sorry.

reply to post by kinda kurious


It's all good.
Not everything is black and white

reply to post by nenothtu


In 1980 I found myself saying "Right on!" to an elderly GOP woman's talk on the radio; however, she sadly said that voices like hers were not being listened to anymore by the GOP. Maybe that's the old GOP to me.

Romney's father (a moderate) was a part of that GOP, having even run for pres in the late 1960s. IMO today's Romney (son) wasn't chosen to run, because his religion is not "Christian" according to the voting block religious base nurtured 30 years ago and is not far right enough for them either. We're left with Huckabee and possible candidates like Bachmann and Pawlenty.

The neocons great influence on the GOP came via Cheney's alignment with them (PNAC) and his self-choice for vice-presidency. (late 1990's to mid 2000's)

As the GOP grew more authoritarian in demanding lock step talking points and votes by its elected members, moderate politicians fell in line in order to receive funding and to remain faithful to the party they loved. Unable to speak out publicly for fear of retribution by their own party or the voting block, moderates remained silent. What a terribly abusive relationship.

Until about 30 years ago, corporations always expected the Republican Party to be the party of "big business" but started to throw more money at the Democratic Party as campaigns needed greater funding, thereby starting to have greater influence over Democrats. Corporate strategy placed bets on who was going to be the likely winner.

Manufactured consent relies on Bachmann and her followers to remain ignorant of facts or nuances but be big on ideas fed to them.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I think that is a quite fair assessment of this topic and this thread so far. Very eloquent and well stated.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Bachmann is first and foremost a politician. The very nature of her profession makes her fair game to extreme scrutiny, character assassination, and unsavory epitaphs, just as her political opponents are fair game as well. Whether or not engaging in attacks on politicians is desirable or not, it is, it seems, the American way.

And therein lies the rub. As you've noted Ms. Bachman is fair game and it is exacerbated by her highly vocal and polarizing demeanor. Like her counterpart Sarah Palin she is an enigma and firebrand of TPM, hence the rigorous consternation. This article is a pretty interesting read comparing the two: (although mired in pop culture infused infotainment)

Why Michele Bachmann Is the Real Sarah Palin

Palin is a former sportscaster; Bachmann is a tax attorney. Palin just wrapped Season 1 of her lifestyle show on TLC; Bachmann just hosted a congressional seminar headlined by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

More important, Palin watched the State of the Union from the comfort of her own living room in Wasilla, Alaska. Bachmann, on the other hand, is a sitting three-term congresswoman and was, if only for a day, spokesperson of the Tea Party movement on one of the biggest days of the political calendar.

LINK

As stupid as some people want to believe Bachmann is, (and I do not know one way or the other the level of intelligence of this person because she is a politician and I tend to ignore politicians), her assertions have led to the creation of this thread and the debate - in some instances less of a debate and more of a playground argument - that has followed. That can't be such a bad thing.

Regarding Ms Bachmann's intellect, it was pointed out that she is a Tax Lawyer (requires some smarts) which makes some of her extreme quotes (hat tip to Ex for link) that much more curious.

What troubles me most about her is the veiled rhetoric and her questionable grasp of history. As I alluded before, if the TPM wants to be recognized as a legitimate party, they would do well to appoint a representative that commands more respect and represents their goals, agenda and real solutions to cure the ills of our great land. As opposed to a spokesmodel that simply spouts off rebel yells and bumper sticker slogans. My .02¢