You usually seem pretty reasonable, don't you think that he is a little too extreme for most Americans? The "pray for rain" and "ponzi scheme" statements should turn most independants and moderates away.
The South vs. the North is a convenient story line for the media, but as usual it's just shorthand. Obama would be the favorite vs. Perry, certainly, but don't kid yourselves: Perry will attract plenty of voters, and states, in the North. Michigan and Ohio, for example.
There's a LOT about Perry that turns me off, especially the God stuff and moralizing. My point is this: this isn't a normal election. In times of economic distress, independents and moderates will ignore what they consider obnoxious about a candidate in favor of economics. And if the economy is still dragging, or worse, Perry stands a decent chance of winning.
As someone who lives in Texas - Rick Perry is one of the worst things to happen to Texas. Cuts 75% of our fire departments and thinks it is best to pray to god when Texas is covered in wildfires. Our school systems are atrocious and many Texans are slowly falling below the poverty line.
I don't care if Obama, Ron Paul, or even RuPaul wins the election, just please, please no Perry in the whitehouse.
I don't understand why wanting to meet Robert E. Lee is a bad thing? I mean I certainly and under no circumstances would I ever, EVER support Rick Parry, but it seems like this article tries to portray R.E.L as the President of the South who invented slavery and controlled everything. Read some history, learn about Lee and maybe you won't see him as a Black and White skinhead idolized super-racist.
Constriction /= collapse. A ponzi scheme by definition eventually collapses because it runs out of investors. That will only happen if there is zero immigration and nobody ever has a baby again.
The constriction element can easily be solved by a number of solutions, for instance ending the tax cap for income over $100,000 on SS taxes. Problem solved with money to spare.
Forever Free the Story Emancipation & Reconstruction by Eric Foner. (by the way this is a book I have had to read in a College History class about Civil War Era)
"Wesley Norris, a slave of Confederate General Robert E. Lee, later recalled how after he and his family had attempted to run away, Lee ordered the local constable "to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each." Lee, Norris, added, "stood by, and frequectly enjoined the constable to 'lay it on well,' then ordered him "to thoroughly wash our backs," with sal****er to increase the pain." pg 14
And that class is how you pwn someone on the internet.
Not really sure he was an abolitionist at all. He owned slaves and also had them beaten when they tried to escape. After they were whiped he had their backs washed with salt water. Something tells me Gen. Lee was not above some good old fashioned white power and did not really like the African American.
Do not forget what Alexander Stephens had to say in his corner-stone speech about the souths new found government.
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." March 21, 1861
Who is Alexander Stephens some of you ask? Well he was vice president of the CSA (Confederate States of America).
My point by the way that the south over all view was that they wanted slavery to remain strong and well. Lee who happened to side with the south deep down carried those very same sentiments.
History is going to remember the tea party about as fondly as they do the Confederates. Only Confederates didn't whine, throw fits, and play victim as much.
Depends on the exaggeration. It was a valid point. If you don't see the old battle lines of the civil war in the red/blue map from Obama's election, you aren't being honest with what you are seeing.
Moreover, I don't think it's that big of an exaggeration. The right hated Bill Clinton, but they never pulled this s**t. Put Obama in the white house and it's tea party city. And don't give me any crap about what caused it. They formed almost immediately, took them some time before the 'found' the debt cause (a cause they didn't give a damn about when Bush ran it up). The Tea baggers are racist first. Then they found an excuse. It think it's a pretty fair analogy.
Actually, I'm sorry but publiclurker is 100% correct on this one. By the constitutional definition of the word traitor they could have put Lee's picture beside it. He was a member of the US military, he took the oath. He broke that oath and made war on his nation. You are free to find him admirable, but he is a traitor.
And contrary to much misinformation out there, the civil war was indeed about slavery as proven by the 'declarations of independence' statements of the states who became the confederacy. I cut and paste from the the South Carolina declaration, but they all say the same thing to one extent or another:
"The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. "
timelessbwSep 19, 2011Buried
You usually seem pretty reasonable, don't you think that he is a little too extreme for most Americans? The "pray for rain" and "ponzi scheme" statements should turn most independants and moderates away.
blinker1315Sep 19, 2011Buried
The South vs. the North is a convenient story line for the media, but as usual it's just shorthand. Obama would be the favorite vs. Perry, certainly, but don't kid yourselves: Perry will attract plenty of voters, and states, in the North. Michigan and Ohio, for example.
blinker1315Sep 19, 2011Buried
There's a LOT about Perry that turns me off, especially the God stuff and moralizing. My point is this: this isn't a normal election. In times of economic distress, independents and moderates will ignore what they consider obnoxious about a candidate in favor of economics. And if the economy is still dragging, or worse, Perry stands a decent chance of winning.
RyanmoarSep 19, 2011Buried
I just want to make sure Perry doesn't run America into the ground like he is currently doing with Texas.
austinjameshereSep 19, 2011Buried
No person who understands what a ponzi scheme is and what social security is would agree they are the same. It's not even close to the same thing.
RyanmoarSep 19, 2011Buried
As someone who lives in Texas - Rick Perry is one of the worst things to happen to Texas. Cuts 75% of our fire departments and thinks it is best to pray to god when Texas is covered in wildfires. Our school systems are atrocious and many Texans are slowly falling below the poverty line.
I don't care if Obama, Ron Paul, or even RuPaul wins the election, just please, please no Perry in the whitehouse.
shingoexSep 19, 2011Buried
http://www.wisebread.com/social-security-is-not-a-ponzi-scheme
ridgerunner5Sep 19, 2011Buried
No, they just insist they won the war 135 years after the fact.
sandersdamnitSep 19, 2011Buried
I don't understand why wanting to meet Robert E. Lee is a bad thing? I mean I certainly and under no circumstances would I ever, EVER support Rick Parry, but it seems like this article tries to portray R.E.L as the President of the South who invented slavery and controlled everything. Read some history, learn about Lee and maybe you won't see him as a Black and White skinhead idolized super-racist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee
novenatorSep 19, 2011Buried
Constriction /= collapse. A ponzi scheme by definition eventually collapses because it runs out of investors. That will only happen if there is zero immigration and nobody ever has a baby again.
The constriction element can easily be solved by a number of solutions, for instance ending the tax cap for income over $100,000 on SS taxes. Problem solved with money to spare.
laurahoustonSep 19, 2011Buried
history still remembers the tea party as those dudes that dressed up as native americans to try to put the blame as tea tossers, on innocents.
thorspowerSep 19, 2011Buried
Just to make you happy here is my source.
Forever Free the Story Emancipation & Reconstruction by Eric Foner. (by the way this is a book I have had to read in a College History class about Civil War Era)
"Wesley Norris, a slave of Confederate General Robert E. Lee, later recalled how after he and his family had attempted to run away, Lee ordered the local constable "to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each." Lee, Norris, added, "stood by, and frequectly enjoined the constable to 'lay it on well,' then ordered him "to thoroughly wash our backs," with sal****er to increase the pain." pg 14
And that class is how you pwn someone on the internet.
thorspowerSep 19, 2011Buried
Not really sure he was an abolitionist at all. He owned slaves and also had them beaten when they tried to escape. After they were whiped he had their backs washed with salt water. Something tells me Gen. Lee was not above some good old fashioned white power and did not really like the African American.
thorspowerSep 19, 2011Buried
Do not forget what Alexander Stephens had to say in his corner-stone speech about the souths new found government.
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." March 21, 1861
Who is Alexander Stephens some of you ask? Well he was vice president of the CSA (Confederate States of America).
thorspowerSep 19, 2011Buried
My point by the way that the south over all view was that they wanted slavery to remain strong and well. Lee who happened to side with the south deep down carried those very same sentiments.
austinjameshereSep 19, 2011Buried
History is going to remember the tea party about as fondly as they do the Confederates. Only Confederates didn't whine, throw fits, and play victim as much.
roguegeniusSep 20, 2011Buried
Depends on the exaggeration. It was a valid point. If you don't see the old battle lines of the civil war in the red/blue map from Obama's election, you aren't being honest with what you are seeing.
Moreover, I don't think it's that big of an exaggeration. The right hated Bill Clinton, but they never pulled this s**t. Put Obama in the white house and it's tea party city. And don't give me any crap about what caused it. They formed almost immediately, took them some time before the 'found' the debt cause (a cause they didn't give a damn about when Bush ran it up). The Tea baggers are racist first. Then they found an excuse. It think it's a pretty fair analogy.
particleman420Sep 19, 2011Buried
no, they lied again:
http://youtu.be/4eyWg_fJPeM
(if you can post unrelated videos, so can i)
publiclurkerSep 19, 2011Buried
Well, as a self admitted retard, that's not saying much.
roguegeniusSep 19, 2011Buried
Actually, I'm sorry but publiclurker is 100% correct on this one. By the constitutional definition of the word traitor they could have put Lee's picture beside it. He was a member of the US military, he took the oath. He broke that oath and made war on his nation. You are free to find him admirable, but he is a traitor.
And contrary to much misinformation out there, the civil war was indeed about slavery as proven by the 'declarations of independence' statements of the states who became the confederacy. I cut and paste from the the South Carolina declaration, but they all say the same thing to one extent or another:
"The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. "
This was signed and ratified by all involved.