US Politics: the Lying Liars Who Lie edtion

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, A True Kaniggit said:

Your Planatir lets you see the future? All others I've heard of only let you see other places in the present or the past. 

Oh, yeah, I forgot about that.

I think all I can do here is do my best Rick Perry and go "Oops"

[Fragile Bird]

It was a well- named thread!  

If I say so myself.....

[Zorral]

3 hours ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Your Planatir lets you see the future? All others I've heard of only let you see other places in the present or the past. 

It edits, according to your inclination and fears.  Thus, Donethar.  Tragedy.  Palintirs in those days were ruled by the One.  Are -- we?  i.e. twitter, fb and etc.

 

[DMC]

4 hours ago, Zorral said:

Read, among others, Slavery's Constitution: From Revolution to Ratification by the brilliant historian, David Waldstreicker.

See here, and here, and other places.

I am sorry to say that I've learned The Root's writers are very often wrong about matters of history, even those one would think their writers would be right about.  And this doesn't leave out Skip Gates either, alas.

 

I am not familiar with Waldstreicher's work, but from the links you provided I don't see your point.  In the Atlantic article you linked, he is arguing against the notion the Constitution was somehow "antislavery," a position I totally agree with.  In doing so he mischaracterizes the three-fifths compromise and seems preoccupied with proving Madison helped to perpetuate slavery (which is, ya know, more a given than an argument), but his main thrust works for me.  The article, however, makes no mention of the 2nd amendment as part of this, which was the topic at hand.

Also, while I haven't read his book, the review by Owen Williams you linked to again bears (heh) no mention of the 2nd amendment.  And, in fact, lays down some pretty scathing criticism for a scholarly journal writeup:

Quote

It is many pages into the second chapter, “The Great Compromises of the Constitutional Convention,” before Waldstreicher focuses on the “three-fifths” and “slave trade” clauses. Curiously, this is done without even once referencing the article, section, or clause of the document in which those compromises are located. Odder still, there is scant consideration of the Constitution’s other major “compromise,” the “fugitive slave” clause, the very clause produced by the Somerset case. This whole chapter seems rushed. The Virginia, New Jersey, and Connecticut plans are not clearly defined, important matters such as the work of the Committee on Detail, or the “Yankee-Carolina alliance” (96) are fleetingly addressed, and, despite passing observations about the people involved (as when inexplicably tagging Oliver Ellsworth as “unctuous”), there is almost no character development. The chapter concludes that the Constitution clothed slavery in “vagueness” (101), which undermines the book’s primary claim that it is “Slavery’s Constitution.”

 

[Fragile Bird]

Last post.

[LongRider]

No it's not!  

[Fragile Bird]

Yes it is.