[/B]
Well its simple - the order of succession would be followed. I mean we are talking about politicians - just how far down the line of succession do you think we'd have to go before we find someone left behind? My bet - not far at all
Depends on who she appoints, and who do you think that will be?
HAH! too late! by the new rules you've already made a gaffe, making you an utter moron and completely invalidating anything else you say afterwards!!! :mrgreen:
I think you are putting too high a bar on "tirelessly", then; many of the founders did indeed work to end slavery until the end of their public (or actual) lives. Franklin for example.
Certainly Bachmann was correct in that she corrected the narrative that the founders were either ambivalent towards or in favor of slavery.
i think it is relevant in discussing those who attack Bachmann on this sort of issue.
generally, no, i don't think this stuff is relevant. I've said it about people from both sides - you don't generally climb this high in a competitive field unless you are above average smarts. some later deteriorate (joe biden, i think, has done so), but you don't get up there unless you're on the ball. People who get Sarah Palin confused with Tina Fey are the fools, not she.
Obama can't even pronounce the word "Corpsman" right. He pronounces it "Corpseman".
She was dead serious, and she would NOT back down.
God. You saying that is SOOOOOO child-like. Pathetic.
But I admitted my error. :2razz:
Most of the founders backed away from addressing slavery, either publicly or privately. The did so for political reasons... they needed the south to commit to supporting the Revolution and the Constitution.
No. Everything that Bachman said was referencing JQ Adams. I've read a bit about JQ and what she said was about him, NOT about the founders. She just go it wrong around him not being a founder.
I don't.
I agree... I don't think that getting some of these historical details correct, off the cuff, is really that important in assessing a candidate.
A lot of these GOP guys never want to admit their wrong. During that CNN debate Romney was asked "You said earlier in this op ed that the bailout will cause the complete failure of the american auto industry, it seems now they are doing better than ever since the bailout, do you believe that was incorrect"? And he's like "No i stand by that" <<< What????
A lot of these GOP guys never want to admit their wrong. During that CNN debate Romney was asked "You said earlier in this op ed that the bailout will cause the complete failure of the american auto industry, it seems now they are doing better than ever since the bailout, do you believe that was incorrect"? And he's like "No i stand by that" <<< What????
In fact, John Quincy Adams was just 8 when the Declaration of Independence was signed and just 20 when the Constitution was being cobbled together at a convention that agreed to a “compromise” that identified a slave as three-fifths of a human being. He did not sign either document. Nor did he participate in any significant manner in the debates regarding those documents—or the compromises contained in them—until the last years of his life.
John Quincy Adams was not considered a prominent ally of American abolitionists in his teens or his 20s, or his 30s, or his 40s, or his 50s. Only as he approached the age of 70, after finishing his one term as president, did Adams emerge as an outspoken critic of human bondage. When he did so, his was a radical act of departure from the corrupt political consensus that allowed slavery to be maintained. Adams’s courageous stance in opposition to states rights and in favor of a strong federal government with a commitment to liberty and justice for all is surely worthy of note.
And Bachman, a Presidential candidate, doesn't know that J.Q Adams was not only NOT a founding father, but was born LONG after the founding fathers founding this country. So, what do each of these things prove? Just that partisan hacks on each side will make big deals out of them because they are... partisan hacks.
From my limited understanding of US history, I don't think she was wrong at all in her views of John Quincy Adams. John Quincy Adams may very well have been involved in the many protests and shows of support against imperial rule as a young boy. I mean there's no proof of it to my knowledge but it's not unlikely. As for her comments on slavery, I'm surprised anybody would claim that the Founding Fathers worked to end it when many had their fortunes had been built on slavery. However, that seems to be the new fad in Conservative history. Rewrite history and make sure we look like a nation who really took the worlds "All men are created equal" seriously.
Maybe JQA was the guy shooting his gun off while Paul Revere was ringing the bells and riding his horse.
She gave a dumb answer. It's about as dumb as "57 states." Both are incorrect and dumb statements, but if one doesn't disqualify a candidate from being President, then the other one doesn't either. I think you liberals should give up the chase. Your candidate leads the parade. And let's not forget the current VEEP too. Woof!
Maybe this is just evidence that American History should be better taught in schools and those schools should be public, private, and parochial.
Obama can't even pronounce the word "Corpsman" right. He pronounces it "Corpseman".
Maybe JQA was the guy shooting his gun off while Paul Revere was ringing the bells and riding his horse.
I suppose if the populace needs a political blogger to discuss American history, that's their prerogative. "Just the facts, Jack", yeah, sure, but this is kind of.....sigh..
Folks, pick up some books not written by popular historians or journalists, please.
Bachman thinks you can pray away the 'gay'.
But can you pray away the 'stupid'??
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?