Some Things Everyone Should Know About Rick Perry

[308_Husker]

Saying he actually advocated secession is a bit iffy. It's important to be accurate for stuff like this.

 

I said that he advocated Texas's right to secede, not that he advocating actually doing it. He's said more than once that Texas can withdraw from the Union if Washington keeps overstepping its bounds and so on. It's all posturing and grandstanding, of course, but I don't want a president who has ever even thought in such terms while leading one of the states.

 

Texas doesn't have a right to secede

 

 

Any state that doesn't want to be a part of the USA should have the right to secede. After all the USA is nothing without the states. How would you feel if Nebraska didn't have the right to leave the Big 12? But while the Federal government will object, Texas does have the right to secede. It's all about choice. The Federal Government won't enforce some laws and then punish states who enforce those same Federal Laws. That is what most people are pissed about.

This fight was fought (literally) and lost about 150 years ago. About a half million people died as a result. Federal supremacy won.

Which is too bad.

[husker_99]

Saying he actually advocated secession is a bit iffy. It's important to be accurate for stuff like this.

 

I said that he advocated Texas's right to secede, not that he advocating actually doing it. He's said more than once that Texas can withdraw from the Union if Washington keeps overstepping its bounds and so on. It's all posturing and grandstanding, of course, but I don't want a president who has ever even thought in such terms while leading one of the states.

 

Texas doesn't have a right to secede

 

Any state that doesn't want to be a part of the USA should have the right to secede. After all the USA is nothing without the states. How would you feel if Nebraska didn't have the right to leave the Big 12? But while the Federal government will object, Texas does have the right to secede. It's all about choice. The Federal Government won't enforce some laws and then punish states who enforce those same Federal Laws. That is what most people are pissed about.

This fight was fought (literally) and lost about 150 years ago. About a half million people died as a result. Federal supremacy won.

 

And Federal Supremacy will also collapse the nation. They almost did it finiancially.

[carlfense]

Saying he actually advocated secession is a bit iffy. It's important to be accurate for stuff like this.

 

I said that he advocated Texas's right to secede, not that he advocating actually doing it. He's said more than once that Texas can withdraw from the Union if Washington keeps overstepping its bounds and so on. It's all posturing and grandstanding, of course, but I don't want a president who has ever even thought in such terms while leading one of the states.

 

Texas doesn't have a right to secede

 

 

Any state that doesn't want to be a part of the USA should have the right to secede. After all the USA is nothing without the states. How would you feel if Nebraska didn't have the right to leave the Big 12? But while the Federal government will object, Texas does have the right to secede. It's all about choice. The Federal Government won't enforce some laws and then punish states who enforce those same Federal Laws. That is what most people are pissed about.

This fight was fought (literally) and lost about 150 years ago. About a half million people died as a result. Federal supremacy won.

Which is too bad.

Yeah . . . just think . . . if it had turned out differently half of the US might still hold slaves. Wouldn't that be something?

[carlfense]

Saying he actually advocated secession is a bit iffy. It's important to be accurate for stuff like this.

 

I said that he advocated Texas's right to secede, not that he advocating actually doing it. He's said more than once that Texas can withdraw from the Union if Washington keeps overstepping its bounds and so on. It's all posturing and grandstanding, of course, but I don't want a president who has ever even thought in such terms while leading one of the states.

 

Texas doesn't have a right to secede

 

Any state that doesn't want to be a part of the USA should have the right to secede. After all the USA is nothing without the states. How would you feel if Nebraska didn't have the right to leave the Big 12? But while the Federal government will object, Texas does have the right to secede. It's all about choice. The Federal Government won't enforce some laws and then punish states who enforce those same Federal Laws. That is what most people are pissed about.

This fight was fought (literally) and lost about 150 years ago. About a half million people died as a result. Federal supremacy won.

 

And Federal Supremacy will also collapse the nation. They almost did it finiancially.

Yeah. Which party was it that forced that particular hostage situation? Was it the party that supports "state's rights?"

[husker_99]

Saying he actually advocated secession is a bit iffy. It's important to be accurate for stuff like this.

 

I said that he advocated Texas's right to secede, not that he advocating actually doing it. He's said more than once that Texas can withdraw from the Union if Washington keeps overstepping its bounds and so on. It's all posturing and grandstanding, of course, but I don't want a president who has ever even thought in such terms while leading one of the states.

 

Texas doesn't have a right to secede

 

Any state that doesn't want to be a part of the USA should have the right to secede. After all the USA is nothing without the states. How would you feel if Nebraska didn't have the right to leave the Big 12? But while the Federal government will object, Texas does have the right to secede. It's all about choice. The Federal Government won't enforce some laws and then punish states who enforce those same Federal Laws. That is what most people are pissed about.

This fight was fought (literally) and lost about 150 years ago. About a half million people died as a result. Federal supremacy won.

 

And Federal Supremacy will also collapse the nation. They almost did it finiancially.

Yeah. Which party was it that forced that particular hostage situation? Was it the party that supports "state's rights?"

 

 

Both parties are guilty.

[husker_99]

Saying he actually advocated secession is a bit iffy. It's important to be accurate for stuff like this.

 

I said that he advocated Texas's right to secede, not that he advocating actually doing it. He's said more than once that Texas can withdraw from the Union if Washington keeps overstepping its bounds and so on. It's all posturing and grandstanding, of course, but I don't want a president who has ever even thought in such terms while leading one of the states.

 

Texas doesn't have a right to secede

 

 

Any state that doesn't want to be a part of the USA should have the right to secede. After all the USA is nothing without the states. How would you feel if Nebraska didn't have the right to leave the Big 12? But while the Federal government will object, Texas does have the right to secede. It's all about choice. The Federal Government won't enforce some laws and then punish states who enforce those same Federal Laws. That is what most people are pissed about.

This fight was fought (literally) and lost about 150 years ago. About a half million people died as a result. Federal supremacy won.

Which is too bad.

Yeah . . . just think . . . if it had turned out differently half of the US might still hold slaves. Wouldn't that be something?

 

The Civil War wasnt about slavery as much as you think it is.

[carlfense]

Saying he actually advocated secession is a bit iffy. It's important to be accurate for stuff like this.

 

I said that he advocated Texas's right to secede, not that he advocating actually doing it. He's said more than once that Texas can withdraw from the Union if Washington keeps overstepping its bounds and so on. It's all posturing and grandstanding, of course, but I don't want a president who has ever even thought in such terms while leading one of the states.

 

Texas doesn't have a right to secede

 

 

Any state that doesn't want to be a part of the USA should have the right to secede. After all the USA is nothing without the states. How would you feel if Nebraska didn't have the right to leave the Big 12? But while the Federal government will object, Texas does have the right to secede. It's all about choice. The Federal Government won't enforce some laws and then punish states who enforce those same Federal Laws. That is what most people are pissed about.

This fight was fought (literally) and lost about 150 years ago. About a half million people died as a result. Federal supremacy won.

Which is too bad.

Yeah . . . just think . . . if it had turned out differently half of the US might still hold slaves. Wouldn't that be something?

 

The Civil War wasnt about slavery as much as you think it is.

Go on . . .

[husker_99]

Saying he actually advocated secession is a bit iffy. It's important to be accurate for stuff like this.

 

I said that he advocated Texas's right to secede, not that he advocating actually doing it. He's said more than once that Texas can withdraw from the Union if Washington keeps overstepping its bounds and so on. It's all posturing and grandstanding, of course, but I don't want a president who has ever even thought in such terms while leading one of the states.

 

Texas doesn't have a right to secede

 

 

Any state that doesn't want to be a part of the USA should have the right to secede. After all the USA is nothing without the states. How would you feel if Nebraska didn't have the right to leave the Big 12? But while the Federal government will object, Texas does have the right to secede. It's all about choice. The Federal Government won't enforce some laws and then punish states who enforce those same Federal Laws. That is what most people are pissed about.

This fight was fought (literally) and lost about 150 years ago. About a half million people died as a result. Federal supremacy won.

Which is too bad.

Yeah . . . just think . . . if it had turned out differently half of the US might still hold slaves. Wouldn't that be something?

 

The Civil War wasnt about slavery as much as you think it is.

Go on . . .

 

It was to preserve the Union. It pretty much set up the Federal Government today and way too much power given Federally. There doesn't seem to be any real checks and balance anymore that was put forth in the beginning.

[carlfense]

It was to preserve the Union. It pretty much set up the Federal Government today and way too much power given Federally. There doesn't seem to be any real checks and balance anymore that was put forth in the beginning.

You have to take it a step further. Why did the Union need preserving? The Union needed preserving because 11 slave states seceded to protect their right to own other people.

 

I think you might want to look again at checks and balances. They are still alive and well. Are you thinking of the Articles of Confederation and not the Constitution?

[husker_99]

It was to preserve the Union. It pretty much set up the Federal Government today and way too much power given Federally. There doesn't seem to be any real checks and balance anymore that was put forth in the beginning.

You have to take it a step further. Why did the Union need preserving? The Union needed preserving because 11 slave states seceded to protect their right to own other people.

 

I think you might want to look again at checks and balances. They are still alive and well. Are you thinking of the Articles of Confederation and not the Constitution?

 

Except at that time states were more important than the country as a whole. Robert E. Lee only fought for the Confederacy because he couldn't fight against his home. Only about 10% of whites even owned slaves and 90% were dirt poor. It was more about states rights than slavery.

 

Checks and balances may be alive but they are on life support. If they were alive and well the Patriot act would never been allowed. Don't even get me started on the TSA and the crap they are doing. The Arizona immigration law wouln't have been a big deal except the feds don't want to do their job.

[zoogs]

Very good writeup, TexArcher! Should pass this around more.

 

-Rick Perry is in favor of teaching intelligent design

I stopped reading right there, I've heard enough. He's batsh¡t insane.

 

I agree.

 

Supporting or not supporting candidates should not be about their single positions on petty issues, but this one is all I need to know.

[carlfense]

It was to preserve the Union. It pretty much set up the Federal Government today and way too much power given Federally. There doesn't seem to be any real checks and balance anymore that was put forth in the beginning.

You have to take it a step further. Why did the Union need preserving? The Union needed preserving because 11 slave states seceded to protect their right to own other people.

 

I think you might want to look again at checks and balances. They are still alive and well. Are you thinking of the Articles of Confederation and not the Constitution?

 

Except at that time states were more important than the country as a whole. Robert E. Lee only fought for the Confederacy because he couldn't fight against his home. Only about 10% of whites even owned slaves and 90% were dirt poor. It was more about states rights than slavery.

 

Checks and balances may be alive but they are on life support. If they were alive and well the Patriot act would never been allowed. Don't even get me started on the TSA and the crap they are doing. The Arizona immigration law wouln't have been a big deal except the feds don't want to do their job.

I happen to agree about the Patriot Act and the TSA. I'm extremely disappointed that Obama actively continued those policies.

 

You are confusing the issue of why individuals fought (like Lee and the non-slave owning poor) and why the political leaders began the war in the first place. The statements from the Southern power brokers are quite clear: this war was to preserve the right to own slaves. Here are a few of the secession documents if you would like to read for yourself.

 

Also remember that Lee defended the institution of slavery and owned slaves himself.

 

Slavery is inarguably the most significant cause of the Civil War. It's not even close.

 

 

Also, what do you mean when you say checks and balances? Are you saying that you believe that the individual states have the power to check and balance the federal government? Checks and balances generally refers to the balancing of power at the federal level between the legislature, executive, and judicial branches. The Constitution granted no right to the states to check/veto/nullify federal laws.

[VectorVictor]

In case anyone happens to stumble upon a batfeces-insane politician from Texas that advocates a state's right to secession from the union, this Supreme Court case should be reference enough to shut them down:

 

Texas v. White

 

Cliff Notes version:

 

The post-Civil War Texas state government said that the bonds from the Compromise of 1850 they sold to finance their part of the Civil War during their time in the Confederacy were sold illegally, and therefore the state was not obligated to honor the bonds.

 

Supreme Court said that Texas continued to be a state from the first day of its admittance to the Union, and never ceased to be a part of the United States, despite that little 'confederacy' thing. Therefore, the state was obligated to honor the bonds accordingly.

[NUance]

Can Rick Perry Save the Big 12—and Should He? LINK

 

Rick Perry to the rescue!! Wow, Is there anything this man can't do?? The author of the article apparently doesn't think so.