The Texas Unmiracle

[Marie-Therese]

An honest question...why would anyone vote for a candidate for President of the United States when that candidate has advocated a secessionist POV [b][i]from[/i][/b] the United States? Seems that is a position that would be difficult to defend when someone is looking to vote for a leader of the union.

Btw, this statement is not an argument on the merits of secession. I am simply stating that it seems to disqualify a candidate to be the leader of a country if he has openly endorsed fragmenting that same country. IMHO that opinion pretty well trumps any other issue-related positions the man might hold.

As far as voting for a candidate on the "Catholic issues," my perspective is simple. I am not a single issue voter. I am not even a 5 issue voter. Unless there is some dramatic change in the time before the next election I won't be a voter at all. The reason is this: politics is a sham. The candidates are going to try to sell you a bill of goods, telling you all about the differences between them and their opponents. Liberals are going to call conservatives cold-hearted misers. Conservatives are going to point to liberals as foolhardy government expansionists. The honest fact is that they are all the same. They are all phonies. Only difference is which phony has on what colour hat. American politics is a shell game wherein money gets transferred to different parties (individual, corporate or political, doesn't matter) based on who wrangles power that day. Ultimately the goal is to get a President and a Congress who will legislate the power grab and who will appoint Supreme Court justices who will enforce it (or legislate from the bench, yet another discussion). As long as there is a two-party system of politics in this country, there is never going to be any change. At this point there is pretty much no hope, either, if you're into platitudes. Those two parties don't make changes and the differences between them are only superficial. Both of them are going to limit your freedom and take your money. The only real distinction is what they spend it on, so don't be fooled either way.

TL;DR Vote for whomever, it won't matter. American two-party politics is a joke.

[LinaSt.Cecilia2772]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1313550633' post='2289616']
An honest question...why would anyone vote for a candidate for President of the United States when that candidate has advocated a secessionist POV [b][i]from[/i][/b] the United States? Seems that is a position that would be difficult to defend when someone is looking to vote for a leader of the union.
[/quote]

Good question!!!

I was wondering the same thing.......

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1313550633' post='2289616']
An honest question...why would anyone vote for a candidate for President of the United States when that candidate has advocated a secessionist POV [b][i]from[/i][/b] the United States? Seems that is a position that would be difficult to defend when someone is looking to vote for a leader of the union.
[/quote]
Maybe becuase someone who doesn't believe the Union is sacred and willing to put its continuation above the well being of the people in it, is a better canadite to run such Union than one who has made it a sacred idol.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1313551398' post='2289630']
Maybe becuase someone who doesn't believe the Union is sacred and willing to put its continuation above the well being of the people in it, is a better canadite to run such Union than one who has made it a sacred idol.
[/quote]

This makes precisely zero sense. So, you believe it prudent to elect a man to a public office, which involves the administration of the affairs of a country, when that man has advocated breaking apart the same country? That's beyond counter-intuitive, that is just goofy.

Now, if you want to argue that you believe this candidate would make an excellent administrator of some new political entity, fine. Or argue that he should, in fact, lead some secession of Texas from the union, also fine. But saying "he should be president because he cares more about the people than the country" is a pretty tenuous argument. The point of being POTUS is not to take care of the people, regardless of what people might think. The point of being POTUS is to administer the affairs of the United States. If you don't think that the US is all that groovy, POTUS might not be the job you want to look into.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1313551804' post='2289639']

This makes precisely zero sense. So, you believe it prudent to elect a man to a public office, which involves the administration of the affairs of a country, when that man has advocated breaking apart the same country? That's beyond counter-intuitive, that is just goofy.

Now, if you want to argue that you believe this candidate would make an excellent administrator of some new political entity, fine. Or argue that he should, in fact, lead some secession of Texas from the union, also fine. But saying "he should be president because he cares more about the people than the country" is a pretty tenuous argument. The point of being POTUS is not to take care of the people, regardless of what people might think. The point of being POTUS is to administer the affairs of the United States. If you don't think that the US is all that groovy, POTUS might not be the job you want to look into.
[/quote]

I disagree, all rulers are obliged to seek the well being of the People they rule, above and beyond any other consideration, including the survival of the political entity in question.

That said, if you had listened to the speech in which Perry made such statement it was qualified with words to the effect of -- if the Federal government will not stop abusing Texas, and Texans, then Texas might have to seceed. Perhaps trying to takethe job of POTUS is exactly what someone who believes that should do, to prevent such a secession. I can tell you, he is not far off, MANY Texans are already that fed up.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1313550633' post='2289616']Unless there is some dramatic change in the time before the next election I won't be a voter at all. The reason is this: politics is a sham. The candidates are going to try to sell you a bill of goods, telling you all about the differences between them and their opponents. Liberals are going to call conservatives cold-hearted misers. Conservatives are going to point to liberals as foolhardy government expansionists. The honest fact is that they are all the same. They are all phonies. Only difference is which phony has on what colour hat. American politics is a shell game wherein money gets transferred to different parties (individual, corporate or political, doesn't matter) based on who wrangles power that day. Ultimately the goal is to get a President and a Congress who will legislate the power grab and who will appoint Supreme Court justices who will enforce it (or legislate from the bench, yet another discussion). As long as there is a two-party system of politics in this country, there is never going to be any change. At this point there is pretty much no hope, either, if you're into platitudes. Those two parties don't make changes and the differences between them are only superficial. Both of them are going to limit your freedom and take your money. The only real distinction is what they spend it on, so don't be fooled either way.[/quote]
pretty much how i'm feeling.

[ardillacid]

Vote ardill 2012

[MissScripture]

[quote name='ardillacid' timestamp='1313552562' post='2289656']
Vote ardill 2012
[/quote]
I tried to vote for you for Sheriff. You lost then. If you can't even make it as a Sheriff, how do you propose you'll get to the presidency?

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1313552205' post='2289646']

I disagree, all rulers are obliged to seek the well being of the People they rule, above and beyond any other consideration, including the survival of the political entity in question.

That said, if you had listened to the speech in which Perry made such statement it was qualified with words to the effect of -- if the Federal government will not stop abusing Texas, and Texans, then Texas might have to seceed. Perhaps trying to takethe job of POTUS is exactly what someone who believes that should do, to prevent such a secession. I can tell you, he is not far off, MANY Texans are already that fed up.
[/quote]


Here's my point. I agree with the premise that rulers are obliged to look after the welfare of their people. However, I challenge you to stop and look at what you just wrote.

[b][i]The POTUS is not, in fact, a ruler. [/i][/b]The position is intended to be the executor of the legislative and judicial proceedings of the country and to administer its affairs.

This is the precise reason that the country is in the shape it's in. The citizenry has been handing over power that individuals should be investing with their local, community leadership and have instead delivered it (sometimes willingly, sometimes not-so-willingly) to a rapidly morphing central State who has repaid by regulating extortion and enforcing legislative whims which directly contradict the foundational documents of the country, oftentimes by threat of prison or violence. This country was NEVER intended to have a ruler. That was the entire point of the Revolution.

Like I said, my point was not to examine the merits of the secession argument. However, no matter how he framed his statement, Perry did not use the word 'secession' as some sort of metaphor. His point was, if the US government chooses to treat Texas thusly, then Texas will consider alternative action. That is not ambiguous verbage there, it's pretty straightforward. And, as I said previously, I question the reason why anyone would consider casting a vote for a person to take a job when that person has made public statements advocating an action that would be in direct opposition to the point of that job. If Perry legitimately thinks that POTUS is the place to effect serious change, then perhaps his better discretion should have informed his word choice a little more carefully.

That said, my previous post pretty well sums up why I don't think Perry is any different from any other establishment candidate. Republican, Democrat, who cares. Both parties use Statist philosophy to prop up routes for money and, therefore, power. None of them are, imho, capable of doing anything in the actual best interest of the American people.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1313549252' post='2289610']


Actually I would descibe it is that. The amount of waste in the public school system is absolutely stagering.
[/quote]

Again, I do not consider misuse to be the same thing as over-saturation. But that's me.


[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1313551398' post='2289630']
Maybe becuase someone who doesn't believe the Union is sacred and willing to put its continuation above the well being of the people in it, is a better canadite to run such Union than one who has made it a sacred idol.
[/quote]
I agree with this. But then again, I always forget that we're not allowed to blaspheme any of St. Lincoln's teachings.

[4588686]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1313550082' post='2289613']


I am totally okay with round two. A vastly disproportionate amount of the military is from Texas, and even more of the combat infantry. We didn't lose a single battle on texas soil the fist time, and we were staggeringly outnumbered, I don't think so much anymore. Personally, I would invite Oklahoma, Mississippi and Lousiana to go with us, and maybe Arkansas for purely geographic reasons. Maybe Alabama if they asked real nice like.[/QUOTE]

And I bet you'd fight, right? [mod]personal attacks[/mod]

You're ok with round two because you know it would never happen and you know if it did you'd never be drafted.


There's weren't really many major battles in Texas. And the Western Confederacy as a whole, including Texas, was a military drag on the Eastern Confederacy as the Armies and Officers of the Western Confederacy were sub par.

Sabine being a rare exception.


[QUOTE]Have you not heard the pitiful whining about the casualties in our 2 current wars?[/QUOTE]

[mod]personal attacks[/mod]


Honestly. [mod]personal attacks[/mod]

[QUOTE]I do notthink that say new yorkers would be too keen on seeing the body bags that would come from a civil war today, it would make our 2 current wars look like a really rough game of football.
[/quote]

Why don't you just [mod]personal attacks[/mod] on the sacrifices made by the military personnel over the last ten years.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Lil Red
vulgarity, general lack of charity

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1313553204' post='2289667']


Here's my point. I agree with the premise that rulers are obliged to look after the welfare of their people. However, I challenge you to stop and look at what you just wrote.

[b][i]The POTUS is not, in fact, a ruler. [/i][/b]The position is intended to be the executor of the legislative and judicial proceedings of the country and to administer its affairs.

This is the precise reason that the country is in the shape it's in. The citizenry has been handing over power that individuals should be investing with their local, community leadership and have instead delivered it (sometimes willingly, sometimes not-so-willingly) to a rapidly morphing central State who has repaid by regulating extortion and enforcing legislative whims which directly contradict the foundational documents of the country, oftentimes by threat of prison or violence. This country was NEVER intended to have a ruler. That was the entire point of the Revolution.

Like I said, my point was not to examine the merits of the secession argument. However, no matter how he framed his statement, Perry did not use the word 'secession' as some sort of metaphor. His point was, if the US government chooses to treat Texas thusly, then Texas will consider alternative action. That is not ambiguous verbage there, it's pretty straightforward. And, as I said previously, I question the reason why anyone would consider casting a vote for a person to take a job when that person has made public statements advocating an action that would be in direct opposition to the point of that job. If Perry legitimately thinks that POTUS is the place to effect serious change, then perhaps his better discretion should have informed his word choice a little more carefully.

That said, my previous post pretty well sums up why I don't think Perry is any different from any other establishment candidate. Republican, Democrat, who cares. Both parties use Statist philosophy to prop up routes for money and, therefore, power. None of them are, imho, capable of doing anything in the actual best interest of the American people.
[/quote]

You see You have it wrong, the President of the United States is indeed a ruler, the intentions of th Founders mean nothing with regards to what he is IN FACT. Perry was not ambiguous, on that we agree, either the Federal government treats Texas better or Texas might have to seceed. I still do not see how running for the postion which could cause the federal government to stop treating Texas thusly and therefore preventing the necessity for such action would render him a poor choice.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1313553408' post='2289670']

Again, I do not consider misuse to be the same thing as over-saturation. But that's me.



I agree with this. But then again, I always forget that we're not allowed to blaspheme any of St. Lincoln's teachings.
[/quote]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1313553408' post='2289670']

Again, I do not consider misuse to be the same thing as over-saturation. But that's me.



I agree with this. But then again, I always forget that we're not allowed to blaspheme any of St. Lincoln's teachings.
[/quote]


I concider waste a symtom of over saturation, having taught in Catholic schools where we saved our scaps of construction paper becuase we could not afford more, and having taught in public school where I got handed a P card and told to go down an buy up to 600 bucks of stuff for my room. Yeah I think it is got way more money than it needs. Money is notthe answer to education.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1313553562' post='2289672']

You see You have it wrong, the [b][i]President of the United States is indeed a ruler, the intentions of th Founders mean nothing with regards to what he is IN FACT[/i][/b]. Perry was not ambiguous, on that we agree, either the Federal government treats Texas better or Texas might have to seceed. I still do not see how running for the postion which could cause the federal government to stop treating Texas thusly and therefore preventing the necessity for such action would render him a poor choice.
[/quote]

LOLWUT???

The founders had a pretty freaking clear idea of what the executive branch was. It was, to put it bluntly, an[b] executor[/b]. The Constitution pretty clearly enumerated the job of the President (that would be Article II of the Constitution) and nowhere therein did it leave any ambiguity about some potential to morph the executive into some ruler of the populace. For your reference, here is the text of the Constitution (Article II, Sections 2-4) which reference the enumerated powers attributed to the Presidency. You'll find them startlingly lacking in ambiguity.

[quote]
[b]Section. 2.[/b]
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
[b]Section. 3.[/b]
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
[b]Section. 4.[/b]
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
[/quote]

That's the job description. The President should have no more and no less authority than what is explicitly laid out here. Whether or not that is the case is obviously another discussion.

And to your last point, the answer is no. An individual wishing to take a position of authority should not openly advocate for a course of action which is in direct opposition to the position that individual wishes to hold. That is generally considered to be a conflict of interest. If he wants to change America, then let him say that. If he wants to make Texas an independent nation, then let him say that. But to somehow combine the two sentiments, I say that should disqualify him from holding the office of President.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1313553556' post='2289671']

And I bet you'd fight, right? [mod]personal attacks[/mod]

You're ok with round two because you know it would never happen and you know if it did you'd never be drafted.
[/quote]

Well I am not in the shape I was when I was say 25 that is true, but its nothing a few weeks of effort couldn't cure. And I assure you, I wouldn't have to be drafted to defend the soveriegn rights of Texas.

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1313553556' post='2289671']
There's weren't really many major battles in Texas. And the Western Confederacy as a whole, including Texas, was a military drag on the Eastern Confederacy as the Armies and Officers of the Western Confederacy were sub par.

Sabine being a rare exception.
[/quote]

Well it is true, there were not that many major battles in Texas, but what their were, we won. Hood and his army were sub par? Really, You must know something that the 50 or so books on the Civil war sitting above my head don't know.

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1313553556' post='2289671']
[mod]vulgarity[/mod]


Honestly. [mod]vulgarity[/mod]

Why don't you just [mod]vulgarity[/mod] a little more on the sacrifices made by the military personnel over the last ten years.
[/quote]


I don't recall saying anything about military personnel, It is notthe Military which is whining on the whole. What makes you think my family hasn't made such sacrifices? You have a habit of making assumptions about people which you know nothing about.

Regardless we took over a country the size of California, and held it against a persistant and violent resistance for what 7 years, during which time we had fewer dead than in many single day engagements during WWII, forget things like the War between the States. Afghanastan is an even more lopsided war. Though my family members have seen combat in Iraq, and I supspect my nephew will see it soon enough in Afghanastan it is not those in the military I here whining. The fact is that the US has absolutly trounced its opposition, and yet the american people are simply crushed by our miniscule losses. The South provides more of the military than the north, and Texas provides far more than its share, I don't think that the North has the stomach for a real war, I doubtthat most of the south does, but if I were a betting man ( and I am) I'd lay odds that Texas would endure a lot more than those who would want to keep us in the Union.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Lil Red

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1313554468' post='2289683']

LOLWUT???

The founders had a pretty freaking clear idea of what the executive branch was. It was, to put it bluntly, an[b] executor[/b]. The Constitution pretty clearly enumerated the job of the President (that would be Article II of the Constitution) and nowhere therein did it leave any ambiguity about some potential to morph the executive into some ruler of the populace. For your reference, here is the text of the Constitution (Article II, Sections 2-4) which reference the enumerated powers attributed to the Presidency. You'll find them startlingly lacking in ambiguity.



That's the job description. The President should have no more and no less authority than what is explicitly laid out here. Whether or not that is the case is obviously another discussion.

And to your last point, the answer is no. An individual wishing to take a position of authority should not openly advocate for a course of action which is in direct opposition to the position that individual wishes to hold. That is generally considered to be a conflict of interest. If he wants to change America, then let him say that. If he wants to make Texas an independent nation, then let him say that. But to somehow combine the two sentiments, I say that should disqualify him from holding the office of President.
[/quote]


I fail to see what is amusing. The Constitution has not been followed since at least 1861, ( well really 1798 but who is counting) so while I am quite well versed in what it says, what it says in meaningless. The POTUS is a ruler, and has been since old Honest Abe, and as a ruler has been accumulating power since at a pretty fair rate since Wilson, with occasional huge jumps in power like FDR. Authority and Power are not the same thing, the POTUS' Authority is formally quite limited, and while it has grown a great deal in practice it has notkept pace with his power. The President's actual power is now staggering, far greater than many kings of medieval Europe. Executive order is way out of control.

And you did not address my last point at all. I never said anything about cobining the two sentements, quite the contrary.

Perry said if things did not change then Texas might have to seceed, Perry is now running for an office in which he might be able to cause such change, thus Perry could indeed be running in an effort to prevent the dissolution of the Union, as states like Texas Oklahoma and Arizona get progressively more offended by the Federal government.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1313556211' post='2289709']


I fail to see what is amusing. The Constitution has not been followed since at least 1861, ( well really 1798 but who is counting) so while I am quite well versed in what it says, what it says in meaningless. The POTUS is a ruler, and has been since old Honest Abe, and as a ruler has been accumulating power since at a pretty fair rate since Wilson, with occasional huge jumps in power like FDR. Authority and Power are not the same thing, the POTUS' Authority is formally quite limited, and while it has grown a great deal in practice it has notkept pace with his power. The President's actual power is now staggering, far greater than many kings of medieval Europe. Executive order is way out of control.

And you did not address my last point at all. I never said anything about cobining the two sentements, quite the contrary.

Perry said if things did not change then Texas might have to seceed, Perry is now running for an office in which he might be able to cause such change, thus Perry could indeed be running in an effort to prevent the dissolution of the Union, as states like Texas Oklahoma and Arizona get progressively more offended by the Federal government.
[/quote]

1. You are missing a huge point. I never said the practical powers of the presidency weren't unchecked. In fact, I said plainly above that the misappropriation of power to the central State and thereby, to the president, was the entire reason that the country was in its present state. My point is specifically that the president was never intended to be a ruler. Such a position is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. The fact that the government has used the Constitution for little more than toilet paper is not the point here. The point is that to elect a president on the premise that his "rule" would be somehow better than another person's is to buy in to the same self-perpetuating cycle of government interventionism and usurpation of unlawful authority. The goal of the American electorate should be to GET RID OF RULERS. Full stop. We are at a precipice of choice where the country will submit to a new monarchy or we will make decisions which will return the government of the country back to the local level, where it should have remained. "Perry would be a better/more benevolent/more considerate/whatever ruler" is the entire crux of my point...if you elect someone based on that, then you submit yourself to being ruled. No equivocation. And as my initial post stated, voting for one of these clowns as opposed to another simply based on political polemics is pretty silly, because the only language they speak is money. I hold zero faith in any establishment candidate, from any party. The American political system is morally bankrupt and inherently corrupted.

2. And in terms of Perry, while I understand your argument, I think it's inherently flawed. You don't wave a red flag at a bull and then somehow state that your hope was to calm it down. Inflammatory rhetoric (which, regardless of whether people are serious, secession IS inflammatory rhetoric) doesn't give him any gravitas in terms of being a committed change agent. What it does is to tell people that this man is willing to break the mirror if the image is unsatisfactory. And as I said, multiple times, my point is not to argue the merits of secession. It is to say that that particular public position is not consistent with someone who is serious about administering the business of the country. Those statements tend to point up a considered bias toward Texas. That's not a bad thing, btw. The governor of a state ought to have some bias. However, those public statements don't engender confidence that Perry's decisions would hold the interests of the entire country at heart.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Marie-Therese

[Clare~Therese]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1313552407' post='2289653']
pretty much how i'm feeling.
[/quote]

Me too, except I can't vote yet.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1313518373' post='2289234']

Why did he cut money from public education and why is he bad for doing that? From what I understand most public education systems are over saturated with money and under performing - they simply don't work. If I give you money to do something and you don't do it, I'll probably take the money away from you. Or was there just no money in the budget and he was being fiscally conservative and not spending what he didn't have. As a Catholic I am not a fan of public education which exists for the state to make citizens of the state. I think of it as an absolute last case scenario when a family cannot home school or send their children to private school.
[/quote]
[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1313536895' post='2289438']

Sorry, but the bureaucracy is corrupted, specially where unions are involved. One local district receives over $130,000 on average per classroom. You would never know it based on the classrooms, but the BMW's and Benz's the district administrators drive is a dead give away. Reform of the use of the money they have is far more important giving more money. About 60% of my catechists are public educators and they all agree. The teachers may need more money for their classrooms and their kids, but usually the school districts as a whole do not.

[/quote]
so why phrase it as the education system needs less money? sure, improvements can be made, but that doesnt change the fact that education in the USA is severely underfunded, and as a direct result standards of literacy, knowledge, science, math are falling fast.

if you are paying a construction crew a really insultingly cheap rate and things arent happening right, and it turns out that the foreman is skimming off the top, the solution is not to give them less money. even if the division of funds is corrected, there is still an overall funding problem.


[quote]Personally, I would invite Oklahoma, Mississippi and Lousiana to go with us, and maybe Arkansas for purely geographic reasons. Maybe Alabama if they asked real nice like.
Seriously, I mean I understand that we are supporting the poorer states, Texas is a donor state but I really doubt that people would be willing to fight to hold Texas or anyone else in the union.
[/quote]
[img]http://exportingblue.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/2987025203_fc2c517522_o.jpg[/img]

It seems the majority of the states that Texas is supporting are the states that would be going with it in a seccession. the same states that have been fiscally conservative, "smart with money" right wing upstanding fellows.
the Typically liberal states are actually supporting most of the country, along with texas and a few others.

[quote]
Have you not heard the pitiful whining about the casualties in our 2 current wars? I do notthink that say new yorkers would be too keen on seeing the body bags that would come from a civil war today, it would make our 2 current wars look like a really rough game of football.
[/quote]

what in the hell are you saying here?
pitiful whining??? about soldiers lifes needlessly lost, about rampant friendly fire and coverups? about millions(!!!) of dead iraqi and afghanistan [i]civilians[/i]. if you arent unhappy with the casualty level in these wars then something is wrong with you.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1313557322' post='2289725']

1. You are missing a huge point. I never said the practical powers of the presidency weren't unchecked. In fact, I said plainly above that the misappropriation of power to the central State and thereby, to the president, was the entire reason that the country was in its present state. My point is specifically that the president was never intended to be a ruler. Such a position is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. The fact that the government has used the Constitution for little more than toilet paper is not the point here. The point is that to elect a president on the premise that his "rule" would be somehow better than another person's is to buy in to the same self-perpetuating cycle of government interventionism and usurpation of unlawful authority. The goal of the American electorate should be to GET RID OF RULERS. Full stop. We are at a precipice of choice where the country will submit to a new monarchy or we will make decisions which will return the government of the country back to the local level, where it should have remained. "Perry would be a better/more benevolent/more considerate/whatever ruler" is the entire crux of my point...if you elect someone based on that, then you submit yourself to being ruled. No equivocation. And as my initial post stated, voting for one of these clowns as opposed to another simply based on political polemics is pretty silly, because the only language they speak is money. I hold zero faith in any establishment candidate, from any party. The American political system is morally bankrupt and inherently corrupted.

2. And in terms of Perry, while I understand your argument, I think it's inherently flawed. You don't wave a red flag at a bull and then somehow state that your hope was to calm it down. Inflammatory rhetoric (which, regardless of whether people are serious, secession IS inflammatory rhetoric) doesn't give him any gravitas in terms of being a committed change agent. What it does is to tell people that this man is willing to break the mirror if the image is unsatisfactory. And as I said, multiple times, my point is not to argue the merits of secession. It is to say that that particular public position is not consistent with someone who is serious about administering the business of the country. Those statements tend to point up a considered bias toward Texas. That's not a bad thing, btw. The governor of a state ought to have some bias. However, those public statements don't engender confidence that Perry's decisions would hold the interests of the entire country at heart.
[/quote]


I fundementally disagree, I think someone saying " if we can't change this its going to have to be destroyed, so lets try to change it" is a perfectly viable and logical position. I understand exactly what you are trying to say I simply disagree, I think that says that he indeed would make his decisions with the interests of the entire country at heart, the interest of the entire country, those interest being the changing the relationship of the Federal government to the States.


I prefer the term dictatorship for what is happening here, most western monarchs were bound by custom, our President is decidedly not. The Constitution is indeed being used as toilet paper. Perry claims he intends to restore the proper relationship of the States to the central government. That seems like exactly what is needed, I don't know the man personally, I have met him, he seemed sincere enough, but he is a politician so I take that with more than a grain of Salt, but he seems like the only person in the race who has actually stated that this relationship must be changed. He has said it dramaticly, by stateing that if it doesn't the country will break. What would you have someone running for president say, if not that the Fedral government needed to return local control to the States?