• 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!

Chris Matthews at it again... What an idiot.

sawdust said:
I guess if Lincoln changed parties you'd blame Bush.
Click to expand...
Lincoln did this in the 1850's when he split from the Southern Whigs..
The truth is that modern day liberalism didn't exist and was unimaginable in Lincoln's day.
Click to expand...
Lincoln began the saving of our National Parks, called liberal today..He even broke from the 'Radical Republicans' in 1864 to start his own party..
They actually cared about the individual.
Click to expand...
You're right, Lincoln despised slavery from an early adult age after his time in New Orleans..
The Missouri Compromise and Kansas/Nebraska act sealed the deal..
Those days were different times with different issues and problems. Assigning a political party to someone long dead and thinking that if they were brought back they would even recognize our political choices is either strange or foolish.
Click to expand...
political party NO, conservative/liberal yes
 
ernst barkmann said:
thing about it, many do not even know what the 3/5ths clause is about, and think it involves racism...those that do are wrong.
Click to expand...

I think it was an attempt to NOT be racist, or at least not fully, say only 2/5ths. ;)
 
Matthew's statement betrays the historical ignorance of many of the people on the left.

They don't understand that the 2/3rds formuation was introduced to limit the power of the slave states and make it easier to abolish slavery. The slave states wanted slaves to count as a full person so they would have more representatives in Congress.

"Progressives" don't even bother to check the historical context of this. They prefer to believe lies and nonsense.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the 3/5ths was about taxes, and representation in the house.
Click to expand...
Yeah, part of being human and a citizen. So how is it not racist? Not all racism equates to 100% negative results for the victim. Evenso, you're trying to suggest they only paid 3/5ths taxes, but there weren't taxes in the beginning to the feds, iirc.
 
Summerwind said:
Yeah, part of being human and a citizen. So how is it not racist? Not all racism equates to 100% negative results for the victim. Evenso, you're trying to suggest they only paid 3/5ths taxes, but there weren't taxes in the beginning to the feds, iirc.
Click to expand...


these people on t.v who give out info, are lying to you.

it takes reading to know what the 3/5ths clause is about, and it is not about racism, again its about how much taxes are going to be paid by each state according to population, and how many representatives of each state there shall be based on population, because of census.

all matthews is doing to fueling the fire of hate, with false info.
 
ernst barkmann said:
these people on t.v who give out info, are lying to you.

it takes reading to know what the 3/5ths clause is about, and it is not about racism, again its about how much taxes are going to be paid by each state according to population, and how many representatives of each state there shall be based on population, because of census.

all matthews is doing to fueling the fire of hate, with false info.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see where you're going. But why were states paying taxes to the feds? I mean I know that states even now have to turn over any taxes collected that are actually federal taxes collected at the state level, but since there were no federal taxes, why would the states need to pay taxes or hand over collected taxes?

Hmm. Though I'm not suggesting you know anything, clearly I need to do some research as to how the federal gov't was funded in it's infancy.

Regardless at to the reason why they did it, it nonetheless is 2/5 racist. It matters not why a full human only counts as 3/5ths, only that there was discrimination, ie racism
 
Last edited:
sawdust said:
That's some funny ****. I guess if Lincoln changed parties you'd blame Bush.

The truth is that modern day liberalism didn't exist and was unimaginable in Lincoln's day. Neither would modern day conservatism for that matter. There were classical liberals but they were a far cry from the foolishness that exists today. They actually cared about the individual.

Those days were different times with different issues and problems. Assigning a political party to someone long dead and thinking that if they were brought back they would even recognize our political choices is either strange or foolish.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is so hard to imagine Lincoln NOT being a republican in this day and age. Here's how you imagine it in today's day and age; take his overall political philosophy and apply it today's political climate. What would he be, a Republican or Democrat? God, do any of you read or remember any of your basic education. It's a free country, screw the facts. Modern day liberalism vs. abolitionists? You are right . . . Liberals today are nothing compared to them. Although I do not include Lincoln in the abolitionist mindset, he was a member of their party.
 
Summerwind said:
Oh, I see where you're going. But why were states paying taxes to the feds? I mean I know that states even now have to turn over any taxes collected that are actually federal taxes collected at the state level, but since there were no federal taxes, why would the states need to pay taxes or hand over collected taxes?

Hmm. Though I'm not suggesting you know anything, clearly I need to do some research as to how the federal gov't was funded in it's infancy.
Click to expand...


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

.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.
 
NIMBY said:
Lincoln did this in the 1850's when he split from the Southern Whigs..Lincoln began the saving of our National Parks, called liberal today..He even broke from the 'Radical Republicans' in 1864 to start his own party..You're right, Lincoln despised slavery from an early adult age after his time in New Orleans..
The Missouri Compromise and Kansas/Nebraska act sealed the deal..political party NO, conservative/liberal yes
Click to expand...

Search classical liberal on the net.
 
ernst barkmann said:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

.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.
Click to expand...
That doesn't exclude the idea that it's racist.

Furthermore it doesn't say how the feds got the funds back then. Not sure why you posted it. People didn't pay taxes to the feds in those days so Indians weren't taxed but neither were whites, not by the feds. Income tax started much later. There's never been a fed sales tax, so what were they taxing, tariffing, etc to get funds.

Again, note that this is nothing like what you're trying to present, that somehow it was a boon for blacks because they only paid 3/5ths taxes, that's simply not true.
 
Summerwind said:
That doesn't exclude the idea that it's racist.

Furthermore it doesn't say how the feds got the funds back then. Not sure why you posted it. People didn't pay taxes to the feds in those days so Indians weren't taxed but neither were whites, not by the feds. Income tax started much later. There's never been a fed sales tax, so what were they taxing, tariffing, etc to get funds.

Again, note that this is nothing like what you're trying to present, that somehow it was a boon for blacks because they only paid 3/5ths taxes, that's simply not true.
Click to expand...

tax were voluntary, there on commerce which the people engage in voluntary, and based on the population of the state taxes are apportioned, and of coarse representatives to the house are based on the population.

if there had been no 3/5ths clause the house would have be dominated by the south and no civil war would have happen, slavery would have lasted longer.
 
ernst barkmann said:
tax were voluntary, there on commerce which the people engage in voluntary, and based on the population of the state taxes are apportioned, and of coarse representatives to the house are based on the population.

if there had been no 3/5ths clause the house would have be dominated by the south and no civil war would have happen, slavery would have lasted longer.
Click to expand...
I'm not taking your word for anything, I'll do my own research, thank you.

And again, nothing you write changes the fact that it's racism. To not be racist would be to allow all be counted fully and assured voting for all regardless of social status. Our laws were also sexist. This idea that the original document didn't have -isms present in alignment with the values of the day, is simply wrong.
 
Summerwind said:
I'm not taking your word for anything, I'll do my own research, thank you.

And again, nothing you write changes the fact that it's racism. To not be racist would be to allow all be counted fully and assured voting for all regardless of social status. Our laws were also sexist. This idea that the original document didn't have -isms present in alignment with the values of the day, is simply wrong.
Click to expand...

that is fine, in fact I would ask you do reading, research.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1062437710 said:
Historical facts contrary to your agenda is irrelevant if you're a democrat; got it.

Bush did it?
Click to expand...

Bless your heart.
 
Captain America said:
I'm not sure most people in the Tea Party actually understand fractions.
Click to expand...


Μολὼν λαβέ;1062437710 said:
Historical facts contrary to your agenda is irrelevant if you're a democrat; got it.

Bush did it?
Click to expand...


Having said that Matthews is a tool (because he is), he's not the problem. Bull**** sentiments like these, whether delivered sincerely or to troll, are. They contribute to the hysteria and incivility of American politics.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Having said that Matthews is a tool (because he is), he's not the problem. Bull**** sentiments like these, whether delivered sincerely or to troll, are. They contribute to the hysteria and incivility of American politics.
Click to expand...

So you hold hands and sing Kumbaya around your political campfire. How inspiring...
 
Summerwind said:
Regardless at to the reason why they did it, it nonetheless is 2/5 racist. It matters not why a full human only counts as 3/5ths, only that there was discrimination, ie racism
Click to expand...

Abolitionists (i.e. the ones fighting AGAINST slavery and racism) wanted them to be counted as 0.
 
pbrauer said:
It's about slaves, how is it not about racism?
Click to expand...

Oh, it IS about racism. Democrats actually believed black people weren't human beings at all. Yes, I know it pisses off liberals and progressives when people point out that their party name is founded on racism, slavery and lynching. Tough cookies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom