I reiterate Michelle Bachmann is a Dumb Ass!!

**Nitro Express** · 01-26-2011, 11:08 PM

Actually they used to praise the founding fathers to the hilt in the past. They even have George Washington painted as a god like figure up on the top of the capitol dome. Bachman is just repeating what I heard growing up and until a few years ago, nobody would call her out on it. Things have changed and Chris Mathews now can get away with taking that little corner and exploiting it. You couldn't even get away with that in the 1990's because it would look like you were pissing on the founding fathers.

The truth of the matter is some of the founding fathers wanted to continue slavery and others didn't. The Continental Congress couldn't resolve the issue. The civil war was never about slavery and that is not what caused the war but Abraham Lincoln used the opportunity of conquering the Confederacy to free the slaves since it fell under union control after the war.

**Nitro Express** · 01-26-2011, 11:14 PM

Also this would not happen in the past before cable news networks. News was neutral in those days and acting like Chris Mathews would be considered unprofessional. The newsman was supposed to be neutral and let the guests talk and let the viewer decide for themselves. They left the hashing it out to the political debates. I can't stand to watch FOX or MSNBC for this reason. It's annoying.

**Nitro Express** · 01-27-2011, 12:01 AM

John Adams, our first Vice President and second President, was a lifelong opponent of slavery. Even though he opposed the system of slavery, he did not oppose removing Jefferson's condemnation of slavery in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence. He felt uniting the colonies for independence was more important at that time, than causing the Continental Congress to debate the issue of slavery.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_Jo...#ixzz1CCjXirXa

Where Bachman slipped up was saying the founding fathers fought tirelessly until slavery was repealed. She was right on John Adams but in order to get all the state on board the slavery issue had to be put on the back burner and it stayed on the back burner until Abraham Lincoln. Mathews hit that slip like a pit bull and wouldn't let go. That's his job. It's what he gets paid to do. He's there to make the Democrat party look good and make the Republican party look bad. MSNBC is not neutral news and neither is FOX. What did it accomplish? Not much. The people who vote for Bachman don't watch MSNBC, so in a political reality, this has no real effect.

**sadaist** · 01-27-2011, 12:23 AM

Originally posted by Nitro Express

I can't stand to watch FOX or MSNBC for this reason. It's annoying.

Matthews, Olbermann & Maddow are so far left it's ridiculous. And not just that, but rather than just push the left agenda, they spend much more time breaking down the right.

As far as FOX, Shep is great & a unbiased news guy. O'Reilly has gotten much more moderate in the last couple of years. He has a huge ego and realized the more moderate he became, the more viewers he got. He brags about his rating always. Hannity & Beck are pretty much the ones I can't watch. Hannity is a right side mirror of Matthews, and Beck thinks he is some type of professor with his 1-hour class every day. And just like every professor, they already know everything and can't learn anything new.

**Satan** · 01-27-2011, 12:52 AM

Tweety Matthews is not REMOTELY "left wing".

**Nitro Express** · 01-27-2011, 02:39 AM

Rachel Maddow is decent to her guests. She will state facts or take a liberal position but she doesn't get nasty or lose it. The best person on FOX is Gretta Van Susteren. I just think it's unprofessional to belittle guests on a show. Let them have their say and the interviewer should stay neutral. They shouldn't even call these channels news channels, they are too biased to be real news.

**Nitro Express** · 01-27-2011, 02:48 AM

What Chris Mathews should have done was clarify the point that Johns Adams was anti slavery but stopped pushing the issue because the slave states would have pulled out of the Continental Congress and the main goal of creating united states would have failed. Instead he goes nuts and gets nasty. Then he acts like an asshole to his guests. Very unprofessional.

**knuckleboner** · 01-27-2011, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Nitro Express

The civil war was never about slavery and that is not what caused the war but Abraham Lincoln used the opportunity of conquering the Confederacy to free the slaves since it fell under union control after the war.

dude, you know that in south carolina's secession statement, they specifically mention slavery as a main cause, right?

south carolina's secession declaration

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

was state's rights a major issue? yes. and was the right to own slaves one of the major rights they were worried about? yes.

**ELVIS** · 01-28-2011, 12:48 AM

Chris Mathews is the dumb ass...

**Nitro Express** · 01-28-2011, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by knuckleboner

dude, you know that in south carolina's secession statement, they specifically mention slavery as a main cause, right?

was state's rights a major issue? yes. and was the right to own slaves one of the major rights they were worried about? yes.

The rich owned slaves in the south but the average southerner could not afford them. So what would make the average poor southerner fight for a cause they had no benefit from? Slavery did not set off the civil war. Lincoln raising an army did. You are right about states rights but what really set the south off was they being taxed unfairly. It started as a tax revolt.

**Nitro Express** · 01-28-2011, 01:38 AM

Following the Missouri Compromise, there were fears in the South that tariffs which protected Northern manufacturing profits were causing economic difficulty in the slave-holding South. Because of these tariffs, they argued, Southerners had to pay much higher prices for imported manufactured goods. A recession in the South during the 1820's was essentially blamed on the country's tariff policies. The South Carolina Senator and then Vice President under John Quincy Adams, John C. Calhoun, was among the leaders in the fight against there protective tariffs. As feelings of nationalism began to diminish among Southerners, Calhoun issued a doctrine that proclaimed it was "the right of any state overrule or modify not only the tariff but also any federal government law deemed unconstitutional. Nullification was a complete theory of government that placed the greatest powers on the state level rather than the national. With this proclamation of states' rights, Calhoun had come full circle in his political philosophy" (Davis, 38).

Although Calhoun was bold in his thinking, his proclamation failed its major test in 1832 when South Carolina formally rejected two national tariffs. President Andrew Jackson deemed the rejection as treasonous, and threatened the use of force to uphold the tariffs. After much debate, and because Calhoun could not gain enough support, a compromise had to be agreed to. However, despite this first failure, Calhoun began a campaign to muster support for solidarity among all the Southern states, and thus began the fight for states' right. The issue would not be fully resolved until the Civil War was won by the Union in 1865.

Source Used: Brother Against Brother: The War Begins. William C. Davis, 1983.

Many things led up to the civil war but taxes and tariffs were a main factor.

**BigBadBrian** · 01-28-2011, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by Satan

Tweety Matthews is not REMOTELY "left wing".

Most rational people in America would say he is. Nobody is more left-wing than you, FORD. That's why your view is so tainted.

**BigBadBrian** · 01-28-2011, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by knuckleboner

dude, you know that in south carolina's secession statement, they specifically mention slavery as a main cause, right?

was state's rights a major issue? yes. and was the right to own slaves one of the major rights they were worried about? yes.

Slavery was the main issue used by the South for the main argument for secession: states rights.

**BigBadBrian** · 01-28-2011, 08:28 AM

More "hit and run" babble from Carla.

She can't argue the points against Bachmann, however.

I reiterate Michelle Bachmann is a Dumb Ass!!

I reiterate Michelle Bachmann is a Dumb Ass!!

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment