WILL BHO leave office in January 2017?

[champions77]

I know, the question in itself is pretty out there. But is this supposition a lot more believable today than it would have been 4-5 years ago?

BHO has acted in ways that has obviously exceeded his authority, the latest being as to Immigration. He knows he didn't have the Authority to usurp the current Immigration Laws, Laws that were passed by Congress. But he did it anyway. So in view of his actions to date, is it really that inconceivable to think that he might try and "extend" his stay in the WH?

If we had a catastrophic event, like a 9-11, late in his Term, I could see him make an argument that "at this critical time, it is in the best interest of the American people that we not lose the continuity of our fight, and that in leaving the fight now, would not be in the best interest of the American people, nor the incoming Administration."

The thought of this is not so extreme today. Not with this extremist President.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I know, the question in itself is pretty out there. But is this supposition a lot more believable today than it would have been 4-5 years ago?

BHO has acted in ways that has obviously exceeded his authority, the latest being as to Immigration. He knows he didn't have the Authority to usurp the current Immigration Laws, Laws that were passed by Congress. But he did it anyway. So in view of his actions to date, is it really that inconceivable to think that he might try and "extend" his stay in the WH?

If we had a catastrophic event, like a 9-11, late in his Term, I could see him make an argument that "at this critical time, it is in the best interest of the American people that we not lose the continuity of our fight, and that in leaving the fight now, would not be in the best interest of the American people, nor the incoming Administration."

The thought of this is not so extreme today. Not with this extremist President.

That might be enough to start an uprising. I've read that there's speculation Hillary will have him as VP...who knows. Absolutely nothing would surprise me with these dem's...

[SoonerProphet]

Almost as bat **** crazy as the liberals who claimed Dick and company were gonna stage a coup. I reckon partisans gonna herp and derp.

[SicEmBaylor]

Almost as bat **** crazy as the liberals who claimed Dick and company were gonna stage a coup. I reckon partisans gonna herp and derp.

I remember the same talk at the end of the Clinton administration.

[BoulderSooner79]

I also recall conservative talk radio pushing the point that there should not be an election in '04 because of the crisis (war) in Iraq. There was similar tin hat fear that Bush/Cheney would declare marshal law or something and suspend elections. It was quickly pointed out that we still held elections during WWII, so we don't always forget history.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I also recall conservative talk radio pushing the point that there should not be an election in '04 because of the crisis (war) in Iraq. There was similar tin hat fear that Bush/Cheney would declare marshal law or something and suspend elections. It was quickly pointed out that we still held elections during WWII, so we don't always forget history.

Any links for that?...or just from recall?

[champions77]

I remember the same talk at the end of the Clinton administration.

I agree it's out there. But you know what, so is BHO. At this juncture, I would not put anything past him, nothing. I think he is a power hungry narcissist who would do or say anything, and has had me thinking, so this is tyranny looks like?
I never thought that about Bill Clinton. I knew he was a liar and philanderer, but I never saw him as a radical leftist like I do BHO. Don't recall him having a problem with the Constitution either. Clinton was a politician first, liberal second.

[BoulderSooner79]

Any links for that?...or just from recall?

Just from recall. if you search for "DeForst Soaries" you'll get various hits on postponing the 2004 election due to terror attacks. It's understandable that would cause concern of an administration staging a fake terror attack to stay in power - the tin hats still think 9/11 was an inside job. But the funny part to me was I distinctly remember Bush supporting shock jocks going with that story and claiming we *should* postpone elections given the extreme terror threat we faced. I'd guess Limbaugh, but I don't know for sure. No one took this seriously on either side except for the extremists. But the noise was loud enough that Condeleza Rice had to make a public statement refuting the rumor.

This whole BHO staying in office nonsense has Limbaugh written all over it, BTW.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Just from recall. if you search for "DeForst Soaries" you'll get various hits on postponing the 2004 election due to terror attacks. It's understandable that would cause concern of an administration staging a fake terror attack to stay in power - the tin hats still think 9/11 was an inside job. But the funny part to me was I distinctly remember Bush supporting shock jocks going with that story and claiming we *should* postpone elections given the extreme terror threat we faced. I'd guess Limbaugh, but I don't know for sure. No one took this seriously on either side except for the extremists. But the noise was loud enough that Condeleza Rice had to make a public statement refuting the rumor.

This whole BHO staying in office nonsense has Limbaugh written all over it, BTW.man, are you ever one horseblinded pathetic phk!

[BoulderSooner79]

man, are you ever one horseblinded pathetic phk!

Calm down - by "Limbaugh", I didn't mean you. I meant the guy making millions by spouting this non-sense; not someone doing it for free on a message board.

So people like me that don't believe there is conspiracy at every turn by either the likes of Bush or Obama are horseblinded?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/election.day.delay/

http://www.wnd.com/2011/09/349629/

[BigTip]

If we want to talk history, think back to the multitude of historic situations where the populace was saying, "Oh, that could never happen" ...and then it did.

History should have taught us to consider every possible scenario and prepare for all of them.

As a sort of solace to this scenario, don't you think our military is anti-liberal? Don't you think that someone in the Pentagon would step and say, "oh no you di'int!"

[Turd_Ferguson]

I distinctly remember Bush supporting shock jocks going with that story and claiming we *should* postpone elections given the extreme terror threat we faced.Any link to this or just another recollection?

[Serenity Now]

Any link to this or just another recollection?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-12-postpone-elections_x.htm

[BoulderSooner79]

Any link to this or just another recollection?

Just recollection but a vivid one, but the Rice statement in response is well documented. Just because the shock jocks says something doesn't mean it's taken seriously - it just means they have a microphone and attract attention. I don't personally know anyone that believed Bush was going to postpone or suspend elections. Likewise, I don't think anyone other than an extremist thinks Obama will attempt such a stunt.

[Turd_Ferguson]

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-12-postpone-elections_x.htm

Thanks, Boulder...I still didn't see where Bush was supporting shock jocks to push a hold on the elections.

[Serenity Now]

I could see W joking about it. I liked him hat way.

[BoulderSooner79]

Thanks, Boulder...I still didn't see where Bush was supporting shock jocks to push a hold on the elections.

I didn't say that - in fact I explicitly said that Rice publicly had to refute the speculation. I said (or tried to say) that the conservative shock jocks were saying that Bush should do this and that it was justified. I remember listening to a call in show with callers falling in line saying it would be dangerous to hold an election while we were under orange/red terror alerts. The response from Rice that the US didn't stop elections during the civil war or WWII pretty much quieted the debate. But do recall the times in '04 - it had been long enough since 9/11, that people were getting over their fear and starting to realize the anti-terror tactics by the government was starting to really impact liberty. The idea that we should be prepared if a terror attack happens at election time seems rational, but it's easy to see how it could create a loophole for a bigger power grab.

In case I'm not being clear, I'm crediting the Bush administration for doing a good job on this issue. I'm also saying the question in the title of this thread looks just as wacky as it did when it came up in '04. But I'm just a horseblinded fool and everyone here can send me a big I-told-you-so when BHO is president come Feb. 2017.

[Serenity Now]

I"ll take the field.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Just from recall. if you search for "DeForst Soaries" you'll get various hits on postponing the 2004 election due to terror attacks. It's understandable that would cause concern of an administration staging a fake terror attack to stay in power - the tin hats still think 9/11 was an inside job. But the funny part to me was I distinctly remember Bush supporting shock jocks going with that story and claiming we *should* postpone elections given the extreme terror threat we faced. I'd guess Limbaugh, but I don't know for sure. No one took this seriously on either side except for the extremists. But the noise was loud enough that Condeleza Rice had to make a public statement refuting the rumor.

This whole BHO staying in office nonsense has Limbaugh written all over it, BTW.


You didn't say that?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Calm down - by "Limbaugh", I didn't mean you. I meant the guy making millions by spouting this non-sense; not someone doing it for free on a message board.

So people like me that don't believe there is conspiracy at every turn by either the likes of Bush or Obama are horseblinded?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/election.day.delay/

http://www.wnd.com/2011/09/349629/You are a fool who doesn't have a clue about Limbaugh's show, yet believes the insanity from the koolaid providers about him. Perhaps even more of a fool if you think I believed you were ignorantly attacking me personally. Dang man, that drivel is so silly it truly is sad for our country that there are more besides you who think that way.

[Serenity Now]

You are a fool who doesn't have a clue about Limbaugh's show, yet believes the insanity from the koolaid providers about him. Perhaps even more of a fool if you think I believed you were ignorantly attacking me personally. Dang man, that drivel is so silly it truly is sad for our country that there are more besides you who think that way.Saul Alinsky has a very fitting quote for you. If I can find it. Better call Saul.

[BoulderSooner79]

You didn't say that?

Ah, now I get it. I meant "Bush-supporting" not "Bush supporting" - as in shock jocks that supported Bush. My bad.

[BoulderSooner79]

You are a fool who doesn't have a clue about Limbaugh's show, yet believes the insanity from the koolaid providers about him. Perhaps even more of a fool if you think I believed you were ignorantly attacking me personally. Dang man, that drivel is so silly it truly is sad for our country that there are more besides you who think that way.

All I said about Limbaugh's show was that he was one of the ones spreading the paranoia that Obama would somehow cheat the election system. And I gave you a link to prove it. If you read any more than that into my post, that's on you.

[Ton Loc]

All I said about Limbaugh's show was that he was one of the ones spreading the paranoia that Obama would somehow cheat the election system. And I gave you a link to prove it. If you read any more than that into my post, that's on you.

You crossed a line with him and made it personal when you used the term/name/word Limbaugh. Ha, of course he's going to read more into it. That's his Jesus.

On point - if anyone believes any of this nonsense they need to be examined. Staying in office or stopping elections? So so so ridiculous...

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Leftists that get their talking points and negative energy from media sources that constantly demonize America and its laws and culture, and who rarely if ever listen to Limbaugh, apparently believe a lot of things about him and others that are wrong.

[TAFBSooner]

I know, the question in itself is pretty out there. But is this supposition a lot more believable today than it would have been 4-5 years ago?

BHO has acted in ways that has obviously exceeded his authority, the latest being as to Immigration. He knows he didn't have the Authority to usurp the current Immigration Laws, Laws that were passed by Congress. But he did it anyway. So in view of his actions to date, is it really that inconceivable to think that he might try and "extend" his stay in the WH?

If we had a catastrophic event, like a 9-11, late in his Term, I could see him make an argument that "at this critical time, it is in the best interest of the American people that we not lose the continuity of our fight, and that in leaving the fight now, would not be in the best interest of the American people, nor the incoming Administration."

The thought of this is not so extreme today. Not with this extremist President.


First, it's very (very, very, very, very, very) unlikely that Obama or any other president would try to stay in office past the Constitutional limit. Reagan and B Clinton joked about a third term, Bush the Lesser and Obama both joked about how much easier it would be to be a dictator. Nobody that aspires to the office just plain wants to give up the power, but neither event has occurred.

Second, I second the idea that the military would intervene, if a president was crazy enough to try to stay on. Not because they're conservative, but because they swear an oath to the Constitution, not to any person.

I don't know this to be the case, but I would certainly hope that preventing this is also covered during training for the presidential detail of the Secret Service.

[Ton Loc]

Leftists that get their talking points and negative energy from media sources that constantly demonize America and its laws and culture, and who rarely if ever listen to Limbaugh, apparently believe a lot of things about him and others that are wrong.

Replace the word Limbaugh or Leftists in your sentence with any politician, entertainer, artist, group, etc and the sentence remains true. It's America, we're all too damn busy with our own **** and form many of our opinions based on what others we "trust" tell us.

[champions77]

First, it's very (very, very, very, very, very) unlikely that Obama or any other president would try to stay in office past the Constitutional limit. Reagan and B Clinton joked about a third term, Bush the Lesser and Obama both joked about how much easier it would be to be a dictator. Nobody that aspires to the office just plain wants to give up the power, but neither event has occurred.

Second, I second the idea that the military would intervene, if a president was crazy enough to try to stay on. Not because they're conservative, but because they swear an oath to the Constitution, not to any person.

I don't know this to be the case, but I would certainly hope that preventing this is also covered during training for the presidential detail of the Secret Service.

And I don't mean to infer that I believe this in fact will happen. The point I was making is that early in his Presidency we heard this, and nobody even thought a second about it's possibility. But after seeing BHO, and what he has done with respect to exceeding his authority, to me today, it doesn't seem as out there like it did 5-6 years ago. This guy has done some things that no one would have ever seen done 20-30 years ago. He is "different" I think most anyone can agree on that. And he is good friends with Bill Ayers, despite what he said during his first campaign about Ayers just being some guy in the neighborhood. Ayers has advocated revolution and an overthrow of the US government back 40 years ago, and recent interviews led me to believe that he has not strayed terribly far from his radical roots. BHO has associated himself with some real hard left characters. The media never spent much time on those associations for some reason (wink, wink)

[BoulderSooner79]

I sure remember a big media sh.it storm about Ayers, so I don't understand your definition of "not spending much time".

My only point was that this fear of a power grab happened in '04 and the one that involved Limbaugh I referenced was for the '12 election. I'm assuming it has happened more times in the past too. I'm sure it came up during the depression when we had a 4 term president and during WWII. It was even more understandable during the Civil war since it was hard to even define what the country was. (I don't know if the confederacy held elections during that time). And yet we still managed to hold elections. So label me naive to think this is utter nonsense this time around. Come to think of it, this thread is first mention I've seen for this election. Has this really come up nationally or is this just some mini-paranoia here?

[SicEmBaylor]

I sure remember a big media sh.it storm about Ayers, so I don't understand your definition of "not spending much time".

My only point was that this fear of a power grab happened in '04 and the one that involved Limbaugh I referenced was for the '12 election. I'm assuming it has happened more times in the past too. I'm sure it came up during the depression when we had a 4 term president and during WWII. It was even more understandable during the Civil war since it was hard to even define what the country was. (I don't know if the confederacy held elections during that time). And yet we still managed to hold elections. So label me naive to think this is utter nonsense this time around. Come to think of it, this thread is first mention I've seen for this election. Has this really come up nationally or is this just some mini-paranoia here?

Yes, the Confederacy held elections -- both Congressional and Presidential.

[champions77]

Yes, the Confederacy held elections -- both Congressional and Presidential.

SicEm you seem to be knowledgeable of the Civil War. I watched a documentary the other day that stated that the US Constitution was actually more pro-slavery than the Confederate Constitution. They went on to say that the Confederate Constitution allowed slavery to be decided by the states individually. If a Confederate State, say Florida voted to abolish slavery, then that was their choice. The Emancipation Proclamation only addressed slavery in the "rebellion states". Thought that was interesting.

Also most people are not aware of the high Tariffs on manufactured goods that existed. It was many times less expensive for the South to trade with foreign countries, even with the tariffs, than to ship goods down from the North, where the cost were higher because of shipping costs. This was a major revenue source for the North and many canals and train tracks were built with these monies, a lot of at the expense of the Southern States. These tariffs played a huge role in the American Civil War. Something you do not hear much about. Usually what you hear is it's all about slavery. It was not.

[Serenity Now]

Usually what you hear is it's all about slavery. It was not.In my experience this is usually typed by someone with an affinity for the confederate flag, who refers to Lincoln as a terrorist and uses the phrase "the war of northern aggression". That's not what I get from reading your writing, generally. I'm sure it was not ALL about slavery but that was the main issue, hence, the Emancipation thingee. From a brief reading, he was being careful to couch the emancipation in terms of saving the Union and not simply being a humanitarian. There were a handful of states that were under Union control that he needed as part of the Union and not part of the confederacy. Pretty skillful on his part at the time. That said, slavery was outlawed in all of those states in short order. Still, I learned something today. Thanks.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I'm sure it was not ALL about slavery

How can you be so sure?

[champions77]

In my experience this is usually typed by someone with an affinity for the confederate flag, who refers to Lincoln as a terrorist and uses the phrase "the war of northern aggression". That's not what I get from reading your writing, generally. I'm sure it was not ALL about slavery but that was the main issue, hence, the Emancipation thingee. From a brief reading, he was being careful to couch the emancipation in terms of saving the Union and not simply being a humanitarian. There were a handful of states that were under Union control that he needed as part of the Union and not part of the confederacy. Pretty skillful on his part at the time. That said, slavery was outlawed in all of those states in short order. Still, I learned something today. Thanks.

I might add that thousands of confederate soldiers died that never had slaves and didn't realty care. The economy of the south was an agrarian economy and it's success was based in large part on cheap labor. Without the slave labor, the South's production of cotton, tobacco and idigo would be reduced greatly, and their standard of living would obviously suffer. Think of what the outrage would be today if Washington took control of the oil fields, or made some law that would limit their production or a company's income? Probably be a few folks around here wanting to go to war about that too.

[Serenity Now]

How can you be so sure?

Time traveler here.

[Soonerjeepman]

SicEm you seem to be knowledgeable of the Civil War. I watched a documentary the other day that stated that the US Constitution was actually more pro-slavery than the Confederate Constitution. They went on to say that the Confederate Constitution allowed slavery to be decided by the states individually. If a Confederate State, say Florida voted to abolish slavery, then that was their choice. The Emancipation Proclamation only addressed slavery in the "rebellion states". Thought that was interesting.

Also most people are not aware of the high Tariffs on manufactured goods that existed. It was many times less expensive for the South to trade with foreign countries, even with the tariffs, than to ship goods down from the North, where the cost were higher because of shipping costs. This was a major revenue source for the North and many canals and train tracks were built with these monies, a lot of at the expense of the Southern States. These tariffs played a huge role in the American Civil War. Something you do not hear much about. Usually what you hear is it's all about slavery. It was not.

I just saw a piece on the History channel in reference to the Catholic Church/Popes/Vatican etc....both Lincoln and Jackson wrote letters to the Pope in 1863. Lincoln didn't mention a thing about the devastation of the war whereas Jackson wrote all about it. Guess Lincoln's was more of a formal type letter and Jackson's seemed more personal. The take is Jackson wanted the Pope to recognize the Confederate Government..giving them legitimize. The Pope returned a correspondence referring to Jackson as "President of the Confederacy".

Getting WAY off point...obama is a frickin dictator and will do what he can to stay in power...(that's more like it!)

[SicEmBaylor]

SicEm you seem to be knowledgeable of the War for Southern Independence. I watched a documentary the other day that stated that the US Constitution was actually more pro-slavery than the Confederate Constitution. They went on to say that the Confederate Constitution allowed slavery to be decided by the states individually. If a Confederate State, say Florida voted to abolish slavery, then that was their choice. The Emancipation Proclamation only addressed slavery in the "rebellion states". Thought that was interesting.
It's in my wheel house yes! I'm a former national officer in the Children of the Confederacy, and I'm currently a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. The actual war history of the conflict doesn't interest me nearly as much as the political history and the political theory of the conflict (I'm much more a WWII buff when talking actual war history). But the politics of the war are front and center in my wheel house. I don't know that I'd go so far as to say the US Constitution was more pro-slavery, but the rest of that is absolutely true. There were slave holding Union states (remember the Union did not go to war to end slavery; the Union went to war to preserve the Union), and the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in territory that wasn't even the United States. It was a PR stunt. The war was not going horribly well for the Union, and public will to continue fighting people who just wanted their own government was waning. So Lincoln moved the goal posts. Instead of fighting to deny people the right to form a government of their own choosing; he convinced the public to fight to ensure freedom. One is clearly a more erstwhile goal than the other.


Also most people are not aware of the high Tariffs on manufactured goods that existed. It was many times less expensive for the South to trade with foreign countries, even with the tariffs, than to ship goods down from the North, where the cost were higher because of shipping costs. This was a major revenue source for the North and many canals and train tracks were built with these monies, a lot of at the expense of the Southern States. These tariffs played a huge role in the American Civil War. Something you do not hear much about. Usually what you hear is it's all about slavery. It was not.

This is 100% right. It went both ways, in fact. The south could ship its raw goods to Europe and import finished products cheaper with a higher profit than by shipping raw material north and buying northern goods. It's why the south favored free-trade. The north always wanted higher tarrifs which would have cut into the south's profits and made goods more expensive to import which would allow the north to set even higher prices. The south had little means of production, but they had the raw goods. The situation was reversed for the north. The abolitionist movement was even started and encouraged, in part, by northern farmers (and even industrial workers) who resented the south's source of 'free' labor. Which, despite the lack of political and legal freedom, slaves often lived under better living conditions than inner-city factory workers. Even after the war, those northern factory workers did NOT want former slaves coming north because they would work for less and would steal jobs. Which is another thing you don't hear about...

[Serenity Now]

Even after the war, those northern factory workers did NOT want former slaves coming north because they would work for less and would steal jobs. Which is another thing you don't hear about...Damned immigrants.

Interesting stuff, actually.

[SicEmBaylor]

I just saw a piece on the History channel in reference to the Catholic Church/Popes/Vatican etc....both Lincoln and Jackson wrote letters to the Pope in 1863. Lincoln didn't mention a thing about the devastation of the war whereas Jackson wrote all about it. Guess Lincoln's was more of a formal type letter and Jackson's seemed more personal. The take is Jackson wanted the Pope to recognize the Confederate Government..giving them legitimize. The Pope returned a correspondence referring to Jackson as "President of the Confederacy".

Getting WAY off point...obama is a frickin dictator and will do what he can to stay in power...(that's more like it!)

The Vatican was actually the only foreign government to formally recognize the Confederate States of America.

The Confederate Cabinet also had a Jewish Secretary of State and Secretary of War (Judah Benjamin) loooong before the US Cabinet would have the same. More Jews fought for the south than the north. There were also more Hispanics who fought for the south. There were more American Indians who fought for the south than the north. There were, of course, more blacks who fought for the North; however, when the south did allow blacks to freely served -- they were paid the same wages as their white counterparts. The Union Army, by contrast, only paid black troops 2/3 of what their white counterparts made. After the war, the Confederate veterans association never segregated black veterans at their functions; however, the Union veteran organization did segregate.

[SicEmBaylor]

Oddly enough, there were also about half a dozen Chinese in the Confederate Army...

[champions77]

It's in my wheel house yes! I'm a former national officer in the Children of the Confederacy, and I'm currently a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. The actual war history of the conflict doesn't interest me nearly as much as the political history and the political theory of the conflict (I'm much more a WWII buff when talking actual war history). But the politics of the war are front and center in my wheel house. I don't know that I'd go so far as to say the US Constitution was more pro-slavery, but the rest of that is absolutely true. There were slave holding Union states (remember the Union did not go to war to end slavery; the Union went to war to preserve the Union), and the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in territory that wasn't even the United States. It was a PR stunt. The war was not going horribly well for the Union, and public will to continue fighting people who just wanted their own government was waning. So Lincoln moved the goal posts. Instead of fighting to deny people the right to form a government of their own choosing; he convinced the public to fight to ensure freedom. One is clearly a more erstwhile goal than the other.



This is 100% right. It went both ways, in fact. The south could ship its raw goods to Europe and import finished products cheaper with a higher profit than by shipping raw material north and buying northern goods. It's why the south favored free-trade. The north always wanted higher tarrifs which would have cut into the south's profits and made goods more expensive to import which would allow the north to set even higher prices. The south had little means of production, but they had the raw goods. The situation was reversed for the north. The abolitionist movement was even started and encouraged, in part, by northern farmers (and even industrial workers) who resented the south's source of 'free' labor. Which, despite the lack of political and legal freedom, slaves often lived under better living conditions than inner-city factory workers. Even after the war, those northern factory workers did NOT want former slaves coming north because they would work for less and would steal jobs. Which is another thing you don't hear about...

There is a lot that our children are NOT taught about the Civil War. A lot.
WW II buff? My wife and I toured Normandy summer of 2013, staying at Bayeux, France four nights. Also got up to Berchtesgaden, Germany and toured the "Eagles nest". Had a fantastic time. Planning to get back in the next few years. A lot we were not able to see due to time constraints. Don't recall ever have the feeling I had when walking down Omaha Beach (Fox Green Sector, eastern end of Omaha) knowing what occurred there and the courage and bravery our soldiers displayed. Gives me goose bumps just thinking of it.

[Serenity Now]

I watched the first 30 minutes of Private Ryan last night while I was letting the NBA game get out in front of the commercials (first world problems). Heart breaking to think about the human loss in that time on both sides.

[TAFBSooner]

Oddly enough, there were also about half a dozen Chinese in the Confederate Army...

Among the first 'Germans' captured at Normandy were several Koreans. They had been forced to fight for the Japanese Army until they were captured by the Russians and forced to fight for the Russian Army until they were captured by the Germans and forced to fight for the German Army until they were captured by the US Army.

[champions77]

I watched the first 30 minutes of Private Ryan last night while I was letting the NBA game get out in front of the commercials (first world problems). Heart breaking to think about the human loss in that time on both sides.

With ALL that went wrong in Operation Overlord and the carnage that ensued, makes me wonder if the media we have today covered that operation, what would be the response? Eisenhower asked to resign, planners of the invasion vilified for their incompetency, Anti-War protestors marching on the White House, investigations as why so many things went wrong?

[Turd_Ferguson]

With ALL that went wrong in Operation Overlord and the carnage that ensued, makes me wonder if the media we have today covered that operation, what would be the response? Eisenhower asked to resign, planners of the invasion vilified for their incompetency, Anti-War protestors marching on the White House, investigations as why so many things went wrong?

Of course that would happen. There's no common sense anymore. We had it back in the day.

[olevetonahill]

Back to OP Question, Of course he will leave, If not we just call This Guy
http://r.ddmcdn.com/w_622/u_0/gif/turtleman-pictures7.jpg

[Turd_Ferguson]

DAMN!!!

[TAFBSooner]

With ALL that went wrong in Operation Overlord and the carnage that ensued, makes me wonder if the media we have today covered that operation, what would be the response? Eisenhower asked to resign, planners of the invasion vilified for their incompetency, Anti-War protestors marching on the White House, investigations as why so many things went wrong?

WWII was a just war.

Iraq 2.0 was not.




There's also the fact that D-Day went a lot more wrong for Fritz than it did for the Allies. :triumphant:

[TAFBSooner]

It's in my wheel house yes! I'm a former national officer in the Children of the Confederacy, and I'm currently a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. The actual war history of the conflict doesn't interest me nearly as much as the political history and the political theory of the conflict (I'm much more a WWII buff when talking actual war history). But the politics of the war are front and center in my wheel house. I don't know that I'd go so far as to say the US Constitution was more pro-slavery, but the rest of that is absolutely true. There were slave holding Union states (remember the Union did not go to war to end slavery; the Union went to war to preserve the Union), and the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in territory that wasn't even the United States. It was a PR stunt. The war was not going horribly well for the Union, and public will to continue fighting people who just wanted their own government was waning. So Lincoln moved the goal posts. Instead of fighting to deny people the right to form a government of their own choosing; he convinced the public to fight to ensure freedom. One is clearly a more erstwhile goal than the other.



This is 100% right. It went both ways, in fact. The south could ship its raw goods to Europe and import finished products cheaper with a higher profit than by shipping raw material north and buying northern goods. It's why the south favored free-trade. The north always wanted higher tarrifs which would have cut into the south's profits and made goods more expensive to import which would allow the north to set even higher prices. The south had little means of production, but they had the raw goods. The situation was reversed for the north. The abolitionist movement was even started and encouraged, in part, by northern farmers (and even industrial workers) who resented the south's source of 'free' labor. Which, despite the lack of political and legal freedom, slaves often lived under better living conditions than inner-city factory workers. Even after the war, those northern factory workers did NOT want former slaves coming north because they would work for less and would steal jobs. Which is another thing you don't hear about...

The primary reason for South Carolina (the first and the worst) attempting to secede from the Union, as given in their "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union " of 24 December 1860:

... increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery ...

While later claims have been made after the war's end that the South Carolinian decision to secede was prompted by other issues such as tariffs and taxes, these issues were not mentioned at all in the declaration.



And a more minor quibble:


"Which, despite the lack of political and legal freedom, slaves often lived under better living conditions than inner-city factory workers. "

Maybe, except for that whole whip thing.

[Serenity Now]

The primary reason for South Carolina (the first and the worst) attempting to secede from the Union, as given in their "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union " of 24 December 1860:

... increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery ...

While later claims have been made after the war's end that the South Carolinian decision to secede was prompted by other issues such as tariffs and taxes, these issues were not mentioned at all in the declaration.



And a more minor quibble:



Maybe, except for that whole whip thing.

And the selling of children. I had a soft moment this morning as I looked at our cat who just had 5 kittens. We've got them all homes but she's going to have to part with them when they are just babies. :(

[BoulderSooner79]

With ALL that went wrong in Operation Overlord and the carnage that ensued, makes me wonder if the media we have today covered that operation, what would be the response? Eisenhower asked to resign, planners of the invasion vilified for their incompetency, Anti-War protestors marching on the White House, investigations as why so many things went wrong?

Given the technology differences between then and now, such criticism would be justified. But I'm sure large military operations still have tons of screw-ups; the technology just moves where the human errors happen.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

With ALL that went wrong in Operation Overlord and the carnage that ensued, makes me wonder if the media we have today covered that operation, what would be the response? Eisenhower asked to resign, planners of the invasion vilified for their incompetency, Anti-War protestors marching on the White House, investigations as why so many things went wrong?Eisenhower would never have been president, either. Ugly to contemplate how things would have gone from there.

[ouwasp]

BHO will leave on time...And not a moment too soon.

If HRC is incoming, the left will be giddy and anxious to see the ultimate glass ceiling being shattered. If it's a white GOP guy, the wistful attitude of much of the media will be delicious.

[BoulderSooner79]

BHO will leave on time...And not a moment too soon.

If HRC is incoming, the left will be giddy and anxious to see the ultimate glass ceiling being shattered. If it's a white GOP guy, the wistful attitude of much of the media will be delicious.

You only mention the "left" - so if it is HRC, how will the "right" react?

[olevetonahill]

You only mention the "left" - so if it is HRC, how will the "right" react?
Simple
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQU6LLqdEw1fjX5emIUmYiICca0a8RSu _X5gTKf3ZjzmqhH8RKVTw

[Eielson]

If we follow 8 years of BHO with 8 years of HRC, I wonder if we'll ever have anything other than white males ever again.

[BoulderSooner79]

Simple
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQU6LLqdEw1fjX5emIUmYiICca0a8RSu _X5gTKf3ZjzmqhH8RKVTw

So, we just rename Obamafest->Hillaryfest and otherwise things stay the same.

[Eielson]

So, we just rename Obamafest->Hillaryfest and otherwise things stay the same.

But then we'll all be sexist instead of racist. Personally, I welcome the change, as this racism thing is getting boring.

[Soonerjeepman]

I don't care for the white half of obama anymore than the black half...it all stinks~

[olevetonahill]

But then we'll all be sexist instead of racist. Personally, I welcome the change, as this racism thing is getting boring.

Im ambidextrous I can go either way with the Izms

[ouwasp]

You only mention the "left" - so if it is HRC, how will the "right" react?

Vet pretty much nailed it. But nobody can claim to be shocked or surprised. The US has swiftly become a nanny state...who is better positioned to be a nanny state POTUS than Granny?

[olevetonahill]

Vet pretty much nailed it. But nobody can claim to be shocked or surprised. The US has swiftly become a nanny state...who is better positioned to be a nanny state POTUS than Granny?

Since the "New Deal" we been ****ed!

[Curly Bill]

Since the "New Deal" we been ****ed!

Truth!

[Serenity Now]

Since the "New Deal" we been ****ed!

Maybe I'm wrong, but, things seemed to be pretty good post WWII until the Hawks tool over the country for Vietnam.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Maybe I'm wrong

You probably are.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Maybe I'm wrong, but, things seemed to be pretty good post WWII until the Hawks tool over the country for Vietnam.Kennedy was the last, and maybe only democrat president who wasn't TOTALLY phukced. He wasn't nearly the socialist that later democrats have been. Vietnam wasn't fully escalated when Kennedy was pres., and we'll never know if he might have gotten the wisdom to back off. LBJ went bonkers on the Vietnam fiasco AND the government as nannystate.:frown:

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Since the "New Deal" we been ****ed!FDR presided over the Depression, the Dust Bowl and WWII. Fun days for sure!

[TAFBSooner]

Vietnam wasn't fully escalated when Kennedy was pres., and we'll never know if he might have gotten the wisdom to back off.

Maybe somebody in Dallas thought he would have backed off?

[Serenity Now]

FDR presided over the Depression, the Dust Bowl and WWII. Fun days for sure!

Digging out of the depression, WWII and the recovery. They don't call them the greatest generation for nothing.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Reagan drove the left bonkers with his patriotism, dedication to rebuilding the US military after Carter, and reducing taxes to stimulate the economy. He still does. He remains the shining star of the 20th century.

[Serenity Now]

Reagan drove the left bonkers with his patriotism, dedication to rebuilding the US military after Carter, and reducing taxes to stimulate the economy. He still does. He remains the shining star of the 20th century.

LOL. I'm no Reagan hater, I just don't bow down to him. He did some good things but he also had some clunkers and, if he ran for office today, he'd be so far left of the "middle" of the GOP it would be laughable. "Reaganomics" has proven to not work. The last guy that did supply side economics right was JFK. Iran-Contra. It's really all that needs to be said to kill any Reagan worship.

[Serenity Now]

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2014/02/06/3258121/reasons-tea-party-hated-ronald-reagan/

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/if-obama-treated-israel-like-reagan-did-he-d-be-impeached-1.400542

Gun control, immigration, taxes (despite what you think), debt, Israel. He'd flunk the test today.

[olevetonahill]

LOL. I'm no Reagan hater, I just don't bow down to him. He did some good things but he also had some clunkers and, if he ran for office today, he'd be so far left of the "middle" of the GOP it would be laughable. "Reaganomics" has proven to not work. The last guy that did supply side economics right was JFK. Iran-Contra. It's really all that needs to be said to kill any Reagan worship.


http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2014/02/06/3258121/reasons-tea-party-hated-ronald-reagan/

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/if-obama-treated-israel-like-reagan-did-he-d-be-impeached-1.400542

Gun control, immigration, taxes (despite what you think), debt, Israel. He'd flunk the test today.

Is'nt it just amazing that a Lib can twist , Spin and deflect a thread about their Savior and try to cast gloom on a Great man who did what was needed BACK then.
I dont see any one slobbering all over RR's Knob. Not the way Yall do with Obammy.
Mans been dead 11 years and out of Office for over 26. Let him RIP>

[olevetonahill]

Digging out of the depression, WWII and the recovery.
They don't call them the greatest generation for nothing.

Correct me if Im wrong but wasnt that the SAME generation that got us INTO those things?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

LOL. I'm no Reagan hater, I just don't bow down to him. He did some good things but he also had some clunkers and, if he ran for office today, he'd be so far left of the "middle" of the GOP it would be laughable. "Reaganomics" has proven to not work. The last guy that did supply side economics right was JFK. Iran-Contra. It's really all that needs to be said to kill any Reagan worship.Well, you're wrong about him, and I would be tempted to bet you at least subconsciously know it. So, with that being the case, it's easy to not GAS what you said.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Correct me if Im wrong but wasnt that the SAME generation that got us INTO those things?they kept reelecting the socialist FDR.

[olevetonahill]

they kept reelecting the socialist FDR.

http://www.olevetpossehideout.com/forums/images/smilies/yes.gif

[Serenity Now]

Well, you're wrong about him, and I would be tempted to bet you at least subconsciously know it. So, with that being the case, it's easy to not GAS what you said.

I'm right that he'd be moderate and unelectable by the base today. To argue that is silly.

I liked Reagan and thought he did good things. But, he's no God.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I'm right that he'd be moderate and unelectable by the base today. To argue that is silly.

I liked Reagan and thought he did good things. But, he's no God.He's a LOT MORE conservative than anyone of either party than we have had as president since Coolidge. If Reagan, or someone like him can get the R nomination, they would win the presidency, at least they would without the new illegals voting, and other likely voter fraud that will indubitably happen in '16.

[Serenity Now]

He's a LOT MORE conservative than anyone of either party than we have had as president since Coolidge. If Reagan, or someone like him can get the R nomination, they would win the presidency, at least they would without the new illegals voting, and other likely voter fraud that will indubitably happen in '16.
So you're going to ignore the facts? Typical.

[olevetonahill]

So you're going to ignore the facts? Typical.

Typical Lib response.

[Serenity Now]

You guys are the 1 out of 5 dentists surveyed who don't think brushing with fluoride helps. If you guys were doctors in the 70s you'd be telling us all that there was no link to cigarettes and lung cancer. Keep it up. It's working out great for you!

Reagan did good things but he did them on the backs of the grandchildren at the time. He cooperated with Iran and was harsh with Israel. He supported ANY level of gun control. He amnestied immigrants. He passed EMPTALA that was a very good health law. He was Obama before it was cool to be Obama. :|

[olevetonahill]

You guys are the 1 out of 5 dentists surveyed who don't think brushing with fluoride helps. If you guys were doctors in the 70s you'd be telling us all that there was no link to cigarettes and lung cancer. Keep it up. It's working out great for you!

Reagan did good things but he did them on the backs of the grandchildren at the time. He cooperated with Iran and was harsh with Israel. He supported ANY level of gun control. He amnestied immigrants. He passed EMPTALA that was a very good health law. He was Obama before it was cool to be Obama. :|

Typical Lib response. sweeping everyone who might disagree with you up in the same dust pan. Where have I said anything thing about RR being so Great? Ive simply said and Ill say it again he was the Man needed at the time for the Job that needed doing at THAT time. Yer Obammy aint even a ****in man!

Here see for yerself!
http://lonelyconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Obama-Wimp-Throws-Like-a-Girl.jpg

[Serenity Now]

Typical Lib response. sweeping everyone who might disagree with you up in the same dust pan. Where have I said anything thing about RR being so Great? Ive simply said and Ill say it again he was the Man needed at the time for the Job that needed doing at THAT time. Yer Obammy aint even a ****in man!

Here see for yerself!
http://lonelyconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Obama-Wimp-Throws-Like-a-Girl.jpg
I don't even disagree with you that much. I think Reagan was the right man at the right time. Brought down russia. Mine is A typical "lib" response? You were responding with some smart *** comment to a discussion that I was having with the rush idolator. Typical piling on in the circle jerk. Arsehole.

My only point is that he wouldn't get the nomination in today's GOP.

[olevetonahill]

I don't even disagree with you that much. I think Reagan was the right man at the right time. Brought down russia. Mine is A typical "lib" response? You were responding with some smart *** comment to a discussion that I was having with the rush idolator. Typical piling on in the circle jerk. Arsehole.

My only point is that he wouldn't get the nomination in today's GOP.

Actually ya nim rod I was talking to you about RR and you chose to ignore my statements and poke at Rush http://www.olevetpossehideout.com/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[Serenity Now]

Correct me if Im wrong but wasnt that the SAME generation that got us INTO those things?they didn't get us into any of that.

[Serenity Now]

Is'nt it just amazing that a Lib can twist , Spin and deflect a thread about their Savior and try to cast gloom on a Great man who did what was needed BACK then.
I dont see any one slobbering all over RR's Knob. Not the way Yall do with Obammy.
Mans been dead 11 years and out of Office for over 26. Let him RIP>

I didn't bring him up. What is key is that Reagan is way too liberal to get the gop nomination today. That's a fact. Amnesty, weapons controls, works with Iran, big debt, put Israel in their place, etc.

Not sure who the savior is you're referencing.
Not sure

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Actually ya nim rod I was talking to you about RR and you chose to ignore my statements and poke at Rush http://www.olevetpossehideout.com/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gifThe left hates Limbaugh as much as they do Reagan, and love to tell falsehoods about any and all conservatives. We know that. Most libs who lurk here don't even seem to understand my user name.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Reagan didn't get the nomination in 1976, even though he clearly was the best person for the job. He did get it in 1980 and of course 1984. The republicans haven't nominated a conservative since Reagan, but of course their nominees have always been better people than the democrats who have opposed them.

As flawed as W was, he was a better choice than algore and kerry. Similarly, Dou*hebag McCain was a much better choice than Bear. Romney was too. But, neither McCain nor Romney were the best Republican candidates for the Republican nominations.These things we already know, of course.

[Serenity Now]

Since I only did a little college, please explain your username.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Since I only did a little college, please explain your username.it's tricky, of course, since it's English!:concern:

[Serenity Now]

it's tricky, of course, since it's English!:concern:

You implied that there was some story about it of which I was unaware.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Wrong again.

An aside. If you were to step away from politics and economics, you might have a better chance of veracity. Maybe OU sports?

[Serenity Now]

"Most libs who lurk here don't even seem to understand my user name."

Seeking understanding oh wise one.

[olevetonahill]

"Most libs who lurk here don't even seem to understand my user name."

Seeking understanding oh wise one.

I dont GAF .
But LOOK at his User Name and then THINK about it ok ?

[Turd_Ferguson]

I dont GAF .
But LOOK at his User Name and then THINK about it ok ?

He can't THINK unless Obama is whipping him in the chin with his ****.

[Eielson]

Are we ever going to reveal what RLIMC's username really means? I'll be honest, I'm not even sure I know what it truly means anymore, and I'm not interested in having my chin whipped with somebody's dick.

[Serenity Now]

No reason to be a bunch of dicks. Except for the circle jerk thing...

[Serenity Now]

Are we ever going to reveal what RLIMC's username really means? I'll be honest, I'm not even sure I know what it truly means anymore, and I'm not interested in having my chin whipped with somebody's dick.
I expect you'll be accosted here shortly for asking such a silly question.

[BoulderSooner79]

Are we ever going to reveal what RLIMC's username really means? I'll be honest, I'm not even sure I know what it truly means anymore, and I'm not interested in having my chin whipped with somebody's dick.

Without knowing the history, I can only assume he looks just like Rush, but that doesn't seem like something most folks would advertise.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

haha

[Serenity Now]

Curly is a p-ussy
Neg that.

[Curly Bill]

Curly is a p-ussy
Neg that.

Sure thing sunshine!

[olevetonahill]

Sure thing sunshine!

Did he get his wittle feelers hurted?

[Curly Bill]

Did he get his wittle feelers hurted?

It would seem so, and it's so cute when one of those all so tolerant liberals lash out.

Too bad he doesn't know that every time a lib does that a unicorn dies.

[olevetonahill]

It would seem so, and it's so cute when one of those all so tolerant liberals lash out.

Too bad he doesn't know that every time a lib does that a unicorn dies.

:drunk:

[olevetonahill]

It would seem so, and it's so cute when one of those all so tolerant liberals lash out.

Too bad he doesn't know that every time a lib does that a unicorn dies.

Heh, to yer message :boxing:

[Serenity Now]

I just find it entertaining that someone cares enough to track down anything I post to beg it.

[olevetonahill]

I just find it entertaining that someone cares enough to track down anything I post to beg it.

I find it equally entertaining that some one cares enough to whine and cry about it on the board!

[Serenity Now]

It's funny. I didn't even know what it was for the longest time. Good old tough guy curly bill pops up every 3-4 days to neg any post. I'm not whining about it just pointing out the pathetic nature of how you girls gang up on someone you disagree with. 8th is gone so it's my turn.

[Curly Bill]

I just find it entertaining that someone cares enough to track down anything I post to beg it.

It's really pretty easy. This one for example was remarkably easy to find. ;)

[Curly Bill]

It's funny. I didn't even know what it was for the longest time. Good old tough guy curly bill pops up every 3-4 days to neg any post. I'm not whining about it just pointing out the pathetic nature of how you girls gang up on someone you disagree with. 8th is gone so it's my turn.

This may not mean what you think it means.

[Serenity Now]

The party of great ideas.

[Curly Bill]

The party of great ideas.

I threw a great ideas party last week. It was a blast!

[olevetonahill]

It's funny. I didn't even know what it was for the longest time. Good old tough guy curly bill pops up every 3-4 days to neg any post. I'm not whining about it just pointing out the pathetic nature of how you girls gang up on someone you disagree with. 8th is gone so it's my turn.

I aint hit ya YET. so put yer wide sweeepin broom away. If you will notice I dont think many gave ya hard time till ya started Posting and acting a LOT like 8ball

[olevetonahill]

I threw a great ideas party last week. It was a blast!

Had a great time. Thanks for the invite. Did ya notice ONLY conservatives had any Great ideas?

[Turd_Ferguson]

I just find it entertaining that someone cares enough to track down anything I post to beg it.

Oh yeah? Then quitcher bitch'n, while I "entertain" ya some more. :D

[Serenity Now]

Oh yeah? Then quitcher bitch'n, while I "entertain" ya some more. :D

:)

[BoulderSooner79]

Folks really worried about this need only take up residence in Texas. Governor Gregg Abbott has the Taxas National Guard monitoring federal military exercises to guard against the impending BHO order for marshal law. Word has it that a free tin hat will be provided with proof of residency.

[Serenity Now]

I was wrong about this part.

It is laughable. Still laughable.

[olevetonahill]

Folks really worried about this need only take up residence in Texas. Governor Gregg Abbott has the Taxas National Guard monitoring federal military exercises to guard against the impending BHO order for marshal law. Word has it that a free tin hat will be provided with proof of residency.

So the guys an idiot!Does that make him WRONG to NOT trust the Govt?

[BoulderSooner79]

So the guys an idiot!Does that make him WRONG to NOT trust the Govt?

That level of paranoia is fine for some highly partisan recluse. Looks pretty dumb to bubble all the way up to the governor. At least some GOP state rep did call him on it (well, ex-state rep), so I'll give them credit for having at least one grown-up in the room:

In his letter to the governor, Todd Smith of Euless, who retired from public office in 2013, said he is “horrified that I have to choose between the possibility that my Governor actually believes this stuff and the possibility that my Governor doesn’t have the backbone to stand up to those who do.”

He said he wrote because the thought that the U.S. military would be a threat to Texas is “embarrassing” and it is important “to rational governance that thinking Republicans call you out on it.”

“Is there ANYBODY who is going to stand up to this radical nonsense that is a cancer on our State and our Party?” Smith asked.

I'm just glad to see a story like this with no association with OK.

[olevetonahill]

That level of paranoia is fine for some highly partisan recluse. Looks pretty dumb to bubble all the way up to the governor. At least some GOP state rep did call him on it (well, ex-state rep), so I'll give them credit for having at least one grown-up in the room:

In his letter to the governor, Todd Smith of Euless, who retired from public office in 2013, said he is “horrified that I have to choose between the possibility that my Governor actually believes this stuff and the possibility that my Governor doesn’t have the backbone to stand up to those who do.”

He said he wrote because the thought that the U.S. military would be a threat to Texas is “embarrassing” and it is important “to rational governance that thinking Republicans call you out on it.”

“Is there ANYBODY who is going to stand up to this radical nonsense that is a cancer on our State and our Party?” Smith asked.

I'm just glad to see a story like this with no association with OK.

My point being ! why not watch the Feds? it aint like they have never taken shait in their hands and screwed over the People is it?

While I think its a stretch I also think its very possible

[BoulderSooner79]

My point being ! why not watch the Feds? it aint like they have never taken shait in their hands and screwed over the People is it?

While I think its a stretch I also think its very possible

I don't trust the government either, but it's the one we have. A governor from Texas should feel he can request a meeting pretty high up in the administration and get the info he wants. If he doesn't, he can make a public stink about it. But sending state MILITARY to watch fed MILITARY is going too far, IMO. Does he really believe this shat or are there so many paranoids in Texas he feels he must appease them? Either way, I wouldn't want my governor to act this way.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I don't trust the government either, but it's the one we have. A governor from Texas should feel he can request a meeting pretty high up in the administration and get the info he wants. If he doesn't, he can make a public stink about it. But sending state MILITARY to watch fed MILITARY is going too far, IMO. Does he really believe this shat or are there so many paranoids in Texas he feels he must appease them? Either way, I wouldn't want my governor to act this way.BHO is an anti-American train wreck who deserves watching closely. I would imagine you don't believe that, and think there is nothing especially unusual about his behavior.

[olevetonahill]

I don't trust the government either, but it's the one we have. A governor from Texas should feel he can request a meeting pretty high up in the administration and get the info he wants. If he doesn't, he can make a public stink about it. But sending state MILITARY to watch fed MILITARY is going too far, IMO. Does he really believe this shat or are there so many paranoids in Texas he feels he must appease them? Either way, I wouldn't want my governor to act this way.

Its Politics . Pay Tention.

[BoulderSooner79]

BHO is an anti-American train wreck who deserves watching closely. I would imagine you don't believe that, and think there is nothing especially unusual about his behavior.

He's probably the most closely watched person in the world, as any president will be. You've got your own personal clone spin-off to watch him 24x7, so you should know.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

He's probably the most closely watched person in the world, as any president will be. You've got your own personal clone spin-off to watch him 24x7, so you should know.You're so full of it. The Media should be ripping Bear apart, but they don't lift a finger nor bat an eye.

[BoulderSooner79]

You're so full of it. The Media should be ripping Bear apart, but they don't lift a finger nor bat an eye.

You obviously don't watch the national Fox News, so you're smarter than I've been giving you credit. Excusez-moi.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You obviously don't watch the national Fox News, so you're smarter than I've been giving you credit. Excusez-moi.I am so thrilled for having been called smart by a Leftist. Goody goody goody

[champions77]

I don't trust the government either, but it's the one we have. A governor from Texas should feel he can request a meeting pretty high up in the administration and get the info he wants. If he doesn't, he can make a public stink about it. But sending state MILITARY to watch fed MILITARY is going too far, IMO. Does he really believe this shat or are there so many paranoids in Texas he feels he must appease them? Either way, I wouldn't want my governor to act this way.

All lefties "trust the government". The government is everything to the left, everything. It's insulting how much they try and control most of everything, all because most of us peasants out here just couldn't function without their help. That's why they feel compelled to help us. The care about us, you know like the bumper stickers "Democrats Care". Any lefty that says he "doesn't trust the government either" is not being honest. If they didn't trust the government, they wouldn't put people in power that are intent in making the government bigger, more intrusive, more controlling and more powerful. Most would be Libertarians.

[BoulderSooner79]

All lefties "trust the government". The government is everything to the left, everything. It's insulting how much they try and control most of everything, all because most of us peasants out here just couldn't function without their help. That's why they feel compelled to help us. The care about us, you know like the bumper stickers "Democrats Care". Any lefty that says he "doesn't trust the government either" is not being honest. If they didn't trust the government, they wouldn't put people in power that are intent in making the government bigger, more intrusive, more controlling and more powerful. Most would be Libertarians.

I don't trust the government any more than the next guy. But I do believe in the order of law and the government represents the law, like it or not. We have a peaceful process for changing the law and that is very frustrating given the size of the federal government, but it is far preferable to violent alternatives. That amounts to throwing in the towel and starting new (perhaps multiple) governments(s). What Mr. Doosh Texas governor is doing amounts to drawing a line in the sand with implications of using force. That should be reserved for issues that are clear and present, not some fringe conspiracy theory that are hardly even believable. This seems more out of line than typical political posturing (IMO, of course).

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Bear has done lots of illegal stuff, and the Media gives him and all democrats a pass. The American people have gone out of their way to refrain from doing anything that would start civil disobedience and disrupt the economy. They will continue to do that, little doubt, because societal breakdown is something most rational people certainly don't want. So, the democrats will keep pushing their agenda.

[BoulderSooner79]

Bear has done lots of illegal stuff, and the Media gives him and all democrats a pass. The American people have gone out of their way to refrain from doing anything that would start civil disobedience and disrupt the economy. They will continue to do that, little doubt, because societal breakdown is something most rational people certainly don't want. So, the democrats will keep pushing their agenda.

We certainly agree on the line in bold above. I do believe in civil disobedience as an effective way to get those in power to notice, but that's a far cry from taking up arms. It's also very hard to do because there is a fringe element that lusts for violence and will always show up at any peaceful protest with sole intention of turning it violent. It's the "**** in the soup to make it bad for everyone" mentality.

But when you say "the American people" you make it sound like everyone. I don't know personally know anyone that wants to start civil disobedience. All the republican and anti-Obama people I know just want to follow the process and win the next set of elections. And logically it would seem that democrats are not itching to hit the streets, so that is roughly half the populous not needing to refrain themselves. Or are democrats so evil to you they don't even count as American people even though many are your neighbors?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

There are many American citizens who don't love our country, and don't believe it has been a force for good. Some of them are in charge of political power. It is a problem for the country, and will continue to be. Don't act surprised, or like you don't understand that.

[Serenity Now]

There are many American citizens who don't love our country, and don't believe it has been a force for good. Some of them are in charge of political power. It is a problem for the country, and will continue to be. Don't act surprised, or like you don't understand that.

There's a difference in what you say and people who think that we're not perfect and that we've made mistakes. The world view of "American Exceptionalism" seems to think that any critique of our history is anti-American back to slavery, American Indian genocide, etc. I love when Dinesh and Co. try to let it be known that slaves were treated great. A great country can still have flaws.

[champions77]

There's a difference in what you say and people who think that we're not perfect and that we've made mistakes. The world view of "American Exceptionalism" seems to think that any critique of our history is anti-American back to slavery, American Indian genocide, etc. I love when Dinesh and Co. try to let it be known that slaves were treated great. A great country can still have flaws.

Slaves were not all treated great, never heard Dinesh state that, he's smarter than that. But neither were they all treated terribly. They were an asset, why damage an asset that you paid good money for? As a matter of fact, many freed slaves elected to stay with their Master, when they were free to leave after the War.

Somewhat analogous to what you see today. Dependent (opposite of independent) people elect to remain on Uncle Sam's Plantation. Free to go, free to search for a better life, a more prosperous future, but remain in a hopeless, futureless abyss of dependency and despair.

If the Great Society welfare programs were not the most ill conceived, poorly thought out, virtue damaging programs ever enacted in this country, please name me the ones worse? Nothing has undermined the virtues of self reliance and personal responsibility like the federal social programs, nothing.

[Serenity Now]

Slaves were not all treated great, never heard Dinesh state that, he's smarter than that. But neither were they all treated terribly. They were an asset, why damage an asset that you paid good money for? As a matter of fact, many freed slaves elected to stay with their Master, when they were free to leave after the War.

Somewhat analogous to what you see today. Dependent (opposite of independent) people elect to remain on Uncle Sam's Plantation. Free to go, free to search for a better life, a more prosperous future, but remain in a hopeless, futureless abyss of dependency and despair.

If the Great Society welfare programs were not the most ill conceived, poorly thought out, virtue damaging programs ever enacted in this country, please name me the ones worse? Nothing has undermined the virtues of self reliance and personal responsibility like the federal social programs, nothing.

There were surely some nice slave owners. There were some friendly Europeans to the Indians. They still killed off millions of innocents.

NAFTA?

[champions77]

There were surely some nice slave owners. There were some friendly Europeans to the Indians. They still killed off millions of innocents.

NAFTA?

I agree. Slavery is a horrible institution. No way to defend it, none. But can't you agree that the well intentioned "War on Poverty" has created enormous problems in this country? Look no further than Baltimore to see the effects of these social programs, enacted to lift the poor out of poverty so they could be better equipped to pursue a better life, but sadly we see the results. Generations on welfare, creating angry neighborhoods of folks with no hope, no future, just despair. They stay with the Dems because they are afraid of what they'll get with the GOP. Kind of like the Slaves that stayed with the Master after the War, afraid to leave, not knowing what the future would bring. Content on the present, because they know what the present brings.

[olevetonahill]

Africans been enslaving Africans for thousands of years. and they still do it.
The White southerner didnt hire a ship and go Africa and Capture him a Boat load. The Blacks there had their own slave markets set up to sell em. There for the Whites never enslaved any of em they just bot em already as slaves