Comments on: Contrary to popular belief, America is not a democracy, it is a Chucktatorship.

By: Roxie

Roxie — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 23:35:17 +0000

Yeah. So are only 3/5ths a person, right?
And this is the SAME Thomas Jefferson that had a family with Sally Hemmings, right?

Cause you know, if it was good enough for the founding fathers….srlsy, wtf?

By: bushfire

bushfire — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:32:33 +0000

There should be a DSM diagnosis for people who think a Day of Silence to acknowledge victims of violence could condone immoral “lifestyles”.

By: Jasmine

Jasmine — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:10:37 +0000

Jasmine – I’m assuming you meant to ask what Fraser book my post was referring to? That was “The Weaker Vessel”, about women in 17th Century Britain (the Civil War and the Restoration).

Thanks, I actually managed to track that one down on Amazon , just haven’t gotten around to starting it :)

By: Bitter Scribe

Bitter Scribe — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:57:29 +0000

Conservatives sneer at us for having people on our side like Sean Penn and Geroge Clooney, who at least, you know, can act. Then they turn around and venerate this guy, whose only talent seems to be fake-kicking people in the head.

By: Danakitty

Danakitty — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:22:17 +0000

True, but before the 1700s, a big majority of the colonies were puritan. I could be wrong about this, but I think that sense of ‘religion as a part of government’ has trickled down through the generations and the highly-religious still feel today that religion has a central part to play in government relations. Maybe the founding fathers themselves weren’t as religious as some say they are, but the population in America at the time certainly was.

By: sizzle

sizzle — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:45:12 +0000

Founding fathers conversations always remind me of a Thurgood Marshall quote that I can’t remember exactly, along the lines of “The founding fathers didn’t mean anything for me” That in reference to him not being a white male landowner, and I know they didn’t mean anything for me either. At least not in the practical at the time, perhaps in the abstract.

Also, from what I’ve read of Jefferson, he was very conflicted about slavery and the “humanness” of blacks. Gross, I know that one can be conflicted, but he was. He almost seemed to force himself to believe they were inferior so as to justify the way they were treated and would continue to be treated in this grand new experiment. How could he believe so strongly in the absolute right to freedom for every soul? (well male soul at least) And then continue to have slaves and help create a “free” society that kept slaves. He had to try and make himself believe they were inferior, soul less, not fully human. As evident from his writing, he wasn’t very successful.

By: Vail

Vail — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:15:22 +0000

Actually a lot of the founding fathers were Deist or influenced by Deism i.e. God is the Great Watchmaker who wound up the Universe and let it go (no interference in human affairs). Which is supposedly why they wanted a separation between church and state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

By: Cara

Cara — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:00:39 +0000

I’m not sure why that always get brought up as an example of the founders’ villainy. Three-fifths was the best the northern delegates could do. Ideally they wouldn’t have counted at all, since what we’re talking about is apportioning representatives for slave states based on a non-voting population.

I’m not sure why you think that being three-fifth of a person for the purposes of giving the men who literally owned them more power in government (and therefore more time to own them) would in any way be preferable to legally being not a person at all. And really, if only slaves had actually been considered a whole three-fifths of a person — they would have been treated a hell of a lot better.

By: Hot Tramp

Hot Tramp — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:38:38 +0000

I brought it up because it’s a particularly sharp example of what happens when rational, “enlightened” politicians attempt to build legislation around kidnapping, rape, and murder. “Hmm, well, you think your chattel should count as people and I don’t think your chattel should count as people. Clearly, we should compromise and count your chattel as partially people. Five-eighths? No, that’ll never do.” That’s the kind of stellar leadership we got from the Founding Fathers: Morally bankrupt absurdity.

By: Henry

Henry — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 05:58:53 +0000

I’m sure his African-American fans will be pleased to know that he considers them three-fifths of a person. Because, you know, if it was good enough for the Founding Fathers, it’s good enough for us!

I’m not sure why that always get brought up as an example of the founders’ villainy. Three-fifths was the best the northern delegates could do. Ideally they wouldn’t have counted at all, since what we’re talking about is apportioning representatives for slave states based on a non-voting population.