Paris attack.... how might we protect ourselves?

[Anthony]

Yep, and I believe that there are more of us in this unrepresented middle ground than on either left or right. It's part of why the vast majority of Americans stay home on election day.

Except for Kerry, and then Obama, most candidates ARE pretty centrist. Clinton, abd both Bush's were, as were McCain, and Romney.

Obama is the most radical, far left candidate, and President we've ever had. He got elected twice. So what I am hearing is that being far left is now "centrist" or "moderate" but wanting the Constitution upheld is far right.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

I never stayed home - I really don't agree that not voting is a good idea. I expect that people would feel some candidate would be better than the other, by however small a margin. But, it is your right to vote and thus your right not to.

Wow you're old . Unfortunately I likely won't be voting because I dont want to be "responsible" (maybe not the right word) for any candidate being in charge considering I'm unlikely to agree with either.

So what I am hearing is that being far left is now "centrist" or "moderate" but wanting the Constitution upheld is far right.

that's painting with a broad stroke. There are many issues along social and fiscal ideals (without going into them) that I'm split on many, and many more could have a better compromise than the extremes EITHER side offers. I'm not really sure what your point was but those of us that are moderate are still moderate.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

I never stayed home - I really don't agree that not voting is a good idea. I expect that people would feel some candidate would be better than the other, by however small a margin.

I don't vote (not a registered voter) and I think it is a fine idea.
The electoral college will choose for me regardless of which lever I pull.
It's a silly system.

I voted 1 time. It was for Clinton and there were a hundred other names to pick from that I had never heard of so I just picked my favorite names. Then I decided voters need to be way more educated on who these folks are to make these choices. Also decided most people probably don't know all of those names either and likely a good portion just push the R or D lever because their daddy did.

I gave up caring about voting and then learned more about the EC after the Gore/ Bush deal and decided it is a smoke and mirrors system setup to make people feel like they have an impact.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Seems like someone needs a bit of a history lesson.

What was the life expectancy for the average 3/5 of a person in the colonies?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dell30rb]

I don't mind voting for someone I don't entirely agree with. I vote for the person who has the right ideas on what I deem to be the most important issues at the time.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Except for Kerry, and then Obama, most candidates ARE pretty centrist. Clinton, abd both Bush's were, as were McCain, and Romney.



Obama is the most radical, far left candidate, and President we've ever had. He got elected twice. So what I am hearing is that being far left is now "centrist" or "moderate" but wanting the Constitution upheld is far right.

Obama was way more centrist than his supporters hoped for.

He put Republicans on his cabinet and appointed them to other positions.

He put in place a health plan that was to the benefit of large insurance companies.

Etc.... Etc....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Jose.....are you drinking again?

 

[JoseCuervo]

8 hours bottle to throttle.

32 seconds throttle to bottle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Norman]

8 hours bottle to throttle.

32 seconds throttle to bottle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your posts reflect that.

(Not a personal attack, just an observation.)

 

[SkyDog58]

So many people have no true understanding of the 3/5 of a person clause in the US Constitution and what it really meant. They think it means that the founding fathers only considered a slave to be 3/5 of a person and that simply is not the case. The truth is that it was all about determining a state's population for determining representation in Congress. Both the northern states and the southern states agreed in principle that representation should be based upon population with one sticking point. The North did not believe that slaves should be counted at all in a state's population for the purposes of representation in Congress. The South thought that they should be. Remember that the higher a state's population, the more representatives they get. The more representatives, the more power they have. Including slaves (who were almost all in the south) in the population count for purposes of representation would give the South more power. Not counting them at all would give the North more power. After much debate the 3/5 compromise was reached. This still gave the south more power than they deserved in my opinion.

The funny thing is that by the reasoning of some idiots today, the folks in the north who did not want to count slaves at all for all intents and purposes were considering them to be 0/5 of a person while the folks in the south considered them to be 5/5 of a person. Now, who do you really think actually considered a slave to be a real person and not just a piece of property or an animal to be held captive and beaten? The answer is of course the northerners who did not want slaves to count at all. Their reason was not so as to truly consider the slave to be less of a person but rather to reduce the power and influence of slave owning states.

But I guess that some folks think that the slave owning southerners who wanted the slaves to count as 5/5 or a whole person truly were the good guys. Interesting notion.

Well, at least that is how I remember learning it. Maybe they teach it differently these days.

 

[Gerhardt]

Well, at least that is how I remember learning it. Maybe they teach it differently these days.

Thanks for the education. I had not read that before. Now I'm off to see if there's any more about this I didn't know.

 

[JoseCuervo]

So many people have no true understanding of the 3/5 of a person clause in the US Constitution and what it really meant. They think it means that the founding fathers only considered a slave to be 3/5 of a person and that simply is not the case. The truth is that it was all about determining a state's population for determining representation in Congress. Both the northern states and the southern states agreed in principle that representation should be based upon population with one sticking point. The North did not believe that slaves should be counted at all in a state's population for the purposes of representation in Congress. The South thought that they should be. Remember that the higher a state's population, the more representatives they get. The more representatives, the more power they have. Including slaves (who were almost all in the south) in the population count for purposes of representation would give the South more power. Not counting them at all would give the North more power. After much debate the 3/5 compromise was reached. This still gave the south more power than they deserved in my opinion.

The funny thing is that by the reasoning of some idiots today, the folks in the north who did not want to count slaves at all for all intents and purposes were considering them to be 0/5 of a person while the folks in the south considered them to be 5/5 of a person. Now, who do you really think actually considered a slave to be a real person and not just a piece of property or an animal to be held captive and beaten? The answer is of course the northerners who did not want slaves to count at all. Their reason was not so as to truly consider the slave to be less of a person but rather to reduce the power and influence of slave owning states.

But I guess that some folks think that the slave owning southerners who wanted the slaves to count as 5/5 or a whole person truly were the good guys. Interesting notion.

Well, at least that is how I remember learning it. Maybe they teach it differently these days.

What was the life expectancy of those 3/5 of a person during the time in question?

 

[SkyDog58]

What was the life expectancy of those 3/5 of a person during the time in question?

You still want to harp on the 3/5 thing don't you? I guess some folks just can't comprehend.

 

[paflyer]

Seems like someone needs a bit of a history lesson.

forget it, people like that are uneducable. They have their agenda and not much else.

 

[paflyer]

I don't vote (not a registered voter) and I think it is a fine idea.
The electoral college will choose for me regardless of which lever I pull.
It's a silly system.

I voted 1 time. It was for Clinton and there were a hundred other names to pick from that I had never heard of so I just picked my favorite names. Then I decided voters need to be way more educated on who these folks are to make these choices. Also decided most people probably don't know all of those names either and likely a good portion just push the R or D lever because their daddy did.

I gave up caring about voting and then learned more about the EC after the Gore/ Bush deal and decided it is a smoke and mirrors system setup to make people feel like they have an impact.

The EC votes based on the state count results.

 

[JoseCuervo]

You still want to harp on the 3/5 thing don't you? I guess some folks just can't comprehend.

It was germane to the point being made on life expectancy of the population during the time of the signing of the Dec of Ind, vs the age of the signors.

What is your reluctance to share the information?

 

[paflyer]

You still want to harp on the 3/5 thing don't you? I guess some folks just can't comprehend.

Funny, I saw another comment referencing the "3/5" thing on another thread, I think by a "different" poster. Sock puppetry on PoA? Say it ain't so!

 

[PPC1052]

What was the life expectancy for the average 3/5 of a person in the colonies?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was referring to your use of the 3/5, not the life expectancy. (Although life expectancy is one of the most poorly understood statistic bandied about in history classes.) Typically, I hear people throw that 3/5 reference out there without really understanding what it is.

 

[PPC1052]

So many people have no true understanding of the 3/5 of a person clause in the US Constitution and what it really meant. They think it means that the founding fathers only considered a slave to be 3/5 of a person and that simply is not the case. The truth is that it was all about determining a state's population for determining representation in Congress. Both the northern states and the southern states agreed in principle that representation should be based upon population with one sticking point. The North did not believe that slaves should be counted at all in a state's population for the purposes of representation in Congress. The South thought that they should be. Remember that the higher a state's population, the more representatives they get. The more representatives, the more power they have. Including slaves (who were almost all in the south) in the population count for purposes of representation would give the South more power. Not counting them at all would give the North more power. After much debate the 3/5 compromise was reached. This still gave the south more power than they deserved in my opinion.

The funny thing is that by the reasoning of some idiots today, the folks in the north who did not want to count slaves at all for all intents and purposes were considering them to be 0/5 of a person while the folks in the south considered them to be 5/5 of a person. Now, who do you really think actually considered a slave to be a real person and not just a piece of property or an animal to be held captive and beaten? The answer is of course the northerners who did not want slaves to count at all. Their reason was not so as to truly consider the slave to be less of a person but rather to reduce the power and influence of slave owning states.

But I guess that some folks think that the slave owning southerners who wanted the slaves to count as 5/5 or a whole person truly were the good guys. Interesting notion.

Well, at least that is how I remember learning it. Maybe they teach it differently these days.

This.

 

[PPC1052]

The EC votes based on the state count results.

Usually. But what most don't know is that that isn't necessarily true. When you vote for the President, you are actually voting for certain electors who have pledged to vote for that Presidential candidate. But those electors don't always keep their promise. Those electors that do not keep their promise and vote for different candidates are called "faithless electors."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

 

[SkyDog58]

It was germane to the point being made on life expectancy of the population during the time of the signing of the Dec of Ind, vs the age of the signors.

What is your reluctance to share the information?

No, if you were sincerely interested in just discussing the life expectancy of a slave in America during that period, you would have simply asked "what was the life expectancy of slave". By phrasing it as you did you showed an ignorance of history in regards to what the 3/5 meant and what its purpose was. You seem to just want to distort history and pick a fight for some perverse reason which I doubt anyone here understands.

But to answer the question that perhaps you might actually have been honestly interested in knowing; I do not know what the average life expectancy of a slave was then. I assume it was far far less than that of non slaves which I consider to be a tragedy as was slavery as a whole. However if you know the answer, please enlighten us. However do not expect anyone to be shocked by it or to be embarrassed by it. We as a country have long ago come to an agreement that slavery was abhorrent but those of us today hold no responsibility for it and therefore are not accountable or embarrassed by it as we did not participate in the crime. We have learned from history and have moved forward. I suggest you do the same.

 

[SkyDog58]

Funny, I saw another comment referencing the "3/5" thing on another thread, I think by a "different" poster. Sock puppetry on PoA? Say it ain't so!

Certain folks in the race baiting business twist the 3/5 language into something that it was not and their gullible followers buy into it. It is sad really. If they had only paid attention in high school or junior high history class.

 

[EppyGA]

I don't vote (not a registered voter) and I think it is a fine idea.
The electoral college will choose for me regardless of which lever I pull.
It's a silly system.

I voted 1 time. It was for Clinton and there were a hundred other names to pick from that I had never heard of so I just picked my favorite names. Then I decided voters need to be way more educated on who these folks are to make these choices. Also decided most people probably don't know all of those names either and likely a good portion just push the R or D lever because their daddy did.

I gave up caring about voting and then learned more about the EC after the Gore/ Bush deal and decided it is a smoke and mirrors system setup to make people feel like they have an impact.

So it is just too much trouble to study and understand any local elections or state elections that are most likely to directly affect you?

 

[nddons]

So many people have no true understanding of the 3/5 of a person clause in the US Constitution and what it really meant. They think it means that the founding fathers only considered a slave to be 3/5 of a person and that simply is not the case. The truth is that it was all about determining a state's population for determining representation in Congress. Both the northern states and the southern states agreed in principle that representation should be based upon population with one sticking point. The North did not believe that slaves should be counted at all in a state's population for the purposes of representation in Congress. The South thought that they should be. Remember that the higher a state's population, the more representatives they get. The more representatives, the more power they have. Including slaves (who were almost all in the south) in the population count for purposes of representation would give the South more power. Not counting them at all would give the North more power. After much debate the 3/5 compromise was reached. This still gave the south more power than they deserved in my opinion.



The funny thing is that by the reasoning of some idiots today, the folks in the north who did not want to count slaves at all for all intents and purposes were considering them to be 0/5 of a person while the folks in the south considered them to be 5/5 of a person. Now, who do you really think actually considered a slave to be a real person and not just a piece of property or an animal to be held captive and beaten? The answer is of course the northerners who did not want slaves to count at all. Their reason was not so as to truly consider the slave to be less of a person but rather to reduce the power and influence of slave owning states.



But I guess that some folks think that the slave owning southerners who wanted the slaves to count as 5/5 or a whole person truly were the good guys. Interesting notion.



Well, at least that is how I remember learning it. Maybe they teach it differently these days.

Exactly. It says a lot about the public education system today that this needs to be said.

On the other hand, saying slaves were considered only3/5ths of a person is so much more fun.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

So it is just too much trouble to study and understand any local elections or state elections that are most likely to directly affect you?

Yes. I have no interest in any if it.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Exactly. It says a lot about the public education system today that this needs to be said.

On the other hand, saying slaves were considered only3/5ths of a person is so much more fun.

So, do you think the Southern states were trying to be benevolent by pushing for a 5/5 counting?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JoseCuervo]

No, if you were sincerely interested in just discussing the life expectancy of a slave in America during that period, you would have simply asked "what was the life expectancy of slave". By phrasing it as you did you showed an ignorance of history in regards to what the 3/5 meant and what its purpose was. You seem to just want to distort history and pick a fight for some perverse reason which I doubt anyone here understands.



But to answer the question that perhaps you might actually have been honestly interested in knowing; I do not know what the average life expectancy of a slave was then. I assume it was far far less than that of non slaves which I consider to be a tragedy as was slavery as a whole. However if you know the answer, please enlighten us. However do not expect anyone to be shocked by it or to be embarrassed by it. We as a country have long ago come to an agreement that slavery was abhorrent but those of us today hold no responsibility for it and therefore are not accountable or embarrassed by it as we did not participate in the crime. We have learned from history and have moved forward. I suggest you do the same.

Now, go back and look at the original post about the signers of the Dec of Ind and their age, vs average age. And the preceding posts about old guys making bad decisions to leave future generations to fix.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bflynn]

I was referring to your use of the 3/5, not the life expectancy. (Although life expectancy is one of the most poorly understood statistic bandied about in history classes.) Typically, I hear people throw that 3/5 reference out there without really understanding what it is.

For those who aren't aware of the truth behind the 3/5 clause in the Constitution...here's the scoop. Be educated.

When Congress was deciding how to apportion membership of Congress, there was disagreement regarding slaves. The Northern alliance of states wanted to count slaves as zero, that is, not at all. They proposed excluding slaves entirely. It was the Southern states that wanted to count slaves as a full person. Make sure you understand that - the North wanted to exclude slaves. The South want to count them equally. Neither side was willing to give but eventually a compromise was reached. Each side would give up a little and a fraction of 3/5 was arrived at. Without this compromise, it is unlikely the Constitution would have been agreed to.

So, when you talk about a side only counting a slave as 3/5 of a person, please remember that it was the North that forced this AND that they didn't want to count slaves as a person at all! Their intent was to deprive the South of equal representation in Congress so that the North could dictate terms to the South more easily...a circumstance that later led to the Civil War.

 

[JoseCuervo]

For those who aren't aware of the truth behind the 3/5 clause in the Constitution...here's the scoop. Be educated.



When Congress was deciding how to apportion membership of Congress, there was disagreement regarding slaves. The Northern alliance of states wanted to count slaves as zero, that is, not at all. They proposed excluding slaves entirely. It was the Southern states that wanted to count slaves as a full person. Make sure you understand that - the North wanted to exclude slaves. The South want to count them equally. Neither side was willing to give but eventually a compromise was reached. Each side would give up a little and a fraction of 3/5 was arrived at. Without this compromise, it is unlikely the Constitution would have been agreed to.



So, when you talk about a side only counting a slave as 3/5 of a person, please remember that it was the North that forced this AND that they didn't want to count slaves as a person at all! Their intent was to deprive the South of equal representation in Congress so that the North could dictate terms to the South more easily...a circumstance that later led to the Civil War.

Creative history interpretation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SkyDog58]

Now, go back and look at the original post about the signers of the Dec of Ind and their age, vs average age. And the preceding posts about old guys making bad decisions to leave future generations to fix.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You certainly are a lost cause.

 

[Gerhardt]

So, when you talk about a side only counting a slave as 3/5 of a person, please remember that it was the North that forced this AND that they didn't want to count slaves as a person at all! Their intent was to deprive the South of equal representation in Congress so that the North could dictate terms to the South more easily...a circumstance that later led to the Civil War.

It seems to me that the north was saying that if black people couldn't vote then they shouldn't be counted as a person w/ respect to the number of congressional representatives. Which makes sense.

 

[PPC1052]

It seems to me that the north was saying that if black people couldn't vote then they shouldn't be counted as a person w/ respect to the number of congressional representatives. Which makes sense.

Or, stated slightly differently, the North didn't want to give disproportionate representation to the white slave owners of the South based upon their ownership of slaves under a system that would further incentivize the South to increase slave ownership.

 

[SkyDog58]

For those who aren't aware of the truth behind the 3/5 clause in the Constitution...here's the scoop. Be educated.

When Congress was deciding how to apportion membership of Congress, there was disagreement regarding slaves. The Northern alliance of states wanted to count slaves as zero, that is, not at all. They proposed excluding slaves entirely. It was the Southern states that wanted to count slaves as a full person. Make sure you understand that - the North wanted to exclude slaves. The South want to count them equally. Neither side was willing to give but eventually a compromise was reached. Each side would give up a little and a fraction of 3/5 was arrived at. Without this compromise, it is unlikely the Constitution would have been agreed to.

So, when you talk about a side only counting a slave as 3/5 of a person, please remember that it was the North that forced this AND that they didn't want to count slaves as a person at all! Their intent was to deprive the South of equal representation in Congress so that the North could dictate terms to the South more easily...a circumstance that later led to the Civil War.

Well at least you got the part right about the North not wanting to count slaves at all while the South did but you sure as hell twisted it around, didn't you?

I never knew that the South led the way for equality way back then and it was the evil North that wanted to deprive the slaves / black man of equality.

That is a perverse interpretation.

As has been previously explained, the reason that the North did not want count slaves for purposes of representation is that it did not want to reward the South with extra political power gained via the immoral institution of slavery. It was not a move against slaves or blacks but against slavery itself.

If the South wanted equal representation for their blacks, maybe they should have considered giving them their freedom and the right to vote first. But I guess they felt that giving them a job, a place to sleep and a beating every so often was enough.

 

[SkyDog58]

It seems to me that the north was saying that if black people couldn't vote then they shouldn't be counted as a person w/ respect to the number of congressional representatives. Which makes sense.

Or, stated slightly differently, the North didn't want to give disproportionate representation to the white slave owners of the South based upon their ownership of slaves under a system that would further incentivize the South to increase slave ownership.

Well, I'm glad that some folks get it!!

 

[Norman]

How in hell did we get from discussing a terrorist attack in Paris to re-fighting The Civil War?

 

[GrampaMark]

How in hell did we get from discussing a terrorist attack in Paris to re-fighting The Civil War?

Because Internet.

 

[EdFred]

How in hell did we get from discussing a terrorist attack in Paris to re-fighting The Civil War?

Because some peo-

SQUIRREL!!

 

[Dav8or]

Gotta agree with this also. I can't recall ever voting "for" someone in a presidential election and I don't see any great choices in the upcoming one.

The only time I voted for someone I liked was for Reagan. Since then it has been voting against the other candidate by voting for whoever.

 

[Dav8or]

The EC votes based on the state count results.

They usually do, but they are in no way required to. They can vote however they want, however it is an honor to be called to do that job and the parties that send them there keep them in line.

 

[nddons]

So, do you think the Southern states were trying to be benevolent by pushing for a 5/5 counting?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, benevolence had nothing to do with it. Representation in Congress and representation in Electors for the President (Article II, Section 1, Clause 3) had everything to do with it.

More Congressmen = more Electors = greater number of votes for President.

It was about power, not benevolence.