- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 66,471
- Reaction score
- 47,494
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
other than his purported racist past, why don't you share with us perry's positions which cause you to be his boy
The fact that Perry is the target of a viscious smear campaign and character assasination by the Marxist left and the establishment Bush Republicans (who hate him) make me more inclined to vote for him. They are obviously taking him seriously and afraid of him or you wouldnt see all this crap. Heck doesnt anyone even know what Perry really stands for on the issues? Not really because there too busy trying to discredit him with overblown & meaningless bull****.
The fact that Perry is the target of a viscious smear campaign and character assasination by the Marxist left and the establishment Bush Republicans (who hate him) make me more inclined to vote for him. They are obviously taking him seriously and afraid of him or you wouldnt see all this crap. Heck doesnt anyone even know what Perry really stands for on the issues? Not really because there too busy trying to discredit him with overblown & meaningless bull****.
Why is the "Marxists" left against Perry? Obama has the best chances against Perry. I hope he wins.
I went to a country concert in Athens (Luke Bryan) last weekend and there were soooo many confederate flags it was hilarious. And one guy having a massive one on the end of a large bamboo pole sticking up from the crowd.
I like the flag, I understand the full meaning, it also has a lot to do with lifestyle too and southern heritage. But, my family is from the North, so I don't really participate in it; even though I like it.
Those that use it 99.9% of the time are not doing it for racist reason, but for drastically different ones... the thought doesn't even come to mind.
with a really good, really shady lawyer, I could get that to hold up in court as a "verbal contract" pay up sucka
That's probably true, but then the people flying the flag (a vast majority anyway) are not descended from slaves. .
isn't this the same perry who headed the texans for al gore presidential campaign?
You don't really break a law by breaking the vow, especially since people can write their own vows. Frankly, your marriage, your vows both are only worth what you and your spouse put into them. No more. No less.
pointing out that you pretend to know that such vow is legally binding
but you are unable to defend such bogus assertion when called upon to do so
Yes you do.
The law covers it with 'irreconcilable differences', which is a sort of legal junk-box for legal conflicts the State must protect and yet can't touch either.
If you and your dearly beloved are married while atheist, and later one converts to Islam, this is grounds for divorce. One the one hand you are entitled to legally sue for divorce, but on the other hand the state can't charge someone for holding a given religious preference, as that would be prejudice and discriminatory.
So the state tosses it into the 'irreconcilable differences' box, divides assets as normal, and issues the decree for the divorce which was started due to religious conflict.
So yes, the vows do set the terms for the marriage even when the State has to deal with those terms through 'irreconcilable differences'.
Let me know when someone is charged with breaking this law. :coffeepap
The "terms" are whatever we agree on, broken whenever we decide to break them, and no one gets arrested or fined for breaking them. So, no, the law really doesn't give a ****.
Pointing out that I'm at Camp McGregor scoring Expert in every weapon system so far and don't always have all day to provide full-service definitions and links to every retard to stupid to use google on their own.
You don't get arrested for civil law, derrr. You can't sue someone civilly and expect that they will end up in jail.
You sue for damages when they commit any one of a variety of offenses against you; in this case by violating the terms of the marriage.
A divorce is a civil lawsuit, the divorce'er is suing the divorce'ee. The grounds for the divorce when a vow is broken yet no other law has been violated is typically 'irreconcilable differences'.
Thousands of people get these divorces every day, so you've hereby been notified.
I am really torn on this one. True, the Confederate flag represents slavery to most people, as the primary purpose in the South's secession was their insistence that they had the right to slavery. But it goes much deeper than that. The Stars and Bars also represents the South's view that the North supported slavery too.... The kind of slavery that comes with one region imposing it's will on another. Yea, I know, I know, it's not the same thing, but there was a culture in the South that saw the big Government of the North as a dictator. In that sense, the Confederate flag represents small government. From the Revolution onward, the South was the poster child for smaller government, and has always been.
To the KKK'ers who fly the Confederate flag, **** you. I know what kind of people you are. To the others who fly it, you have my blessing. I understand that the Confederate flag represents a philosophy of smaller government that is returning, after having been.... gone with the wind.... Yea, had to rip that line to set up my closing statement. As much as I detest Rick Perry, I see no problem with his supporting Confederate symbols. As for the politically correct who want to ban those symbols, frankly, I don't give a damn.
Article is here.
why does no one ever mention that, in the south, there were actually free blacks who owned other blacks as slaves?
why does no one ever mention that, in the south, there were actually free blacks who owned other blacks as slaves?
It would destroy the bull**** version of history they learned and force them admit that their passions have been misguided for a very long time.
You know damn well, they'll never mention black soldiers that fought along side white soldiers, during the war.
those living today in denial don't want to hear or know that fact.why does no one ever mention that, in the south, there were actually free blacks who owned other blacks as slaves?
It would destroy the bull**** version of history they learned and force them admit that their passions have been misguided for a very long time.
You know damn well, they'll never mention black soldiers that fought along side white soldiers, during the war.
why does no one ever mention that, in the south, there were actually free blacks who owned other blacks as slaves?
Free blacks were fairly common in the antebellum South, constituting 8 percent of southern blacks in 1840. Most had gained their freedom through manumission (especially common just after the Revolutionary War) or had been born free to a free mother. Slaves who'd been permitted to earn money in their spare time sometimes made enough to buy their freedom. Another route was being bought and freed by free relatives or friends. But some who bought slaves in this way didn't formally free them for years, partly because freedmen paid higher taxes than slaves or whites. Courts since colonial times had recognized the right of free blacks to own slaves. This gave rise to an odd arrangement in which people lived as free but were legally someone else's property. This was benevolent slavery.
Between 1800 and 1830, slave states began restricting manumission, seeing free blacks as potential fomenters of slave rebellion. Now you could buy your friends, but you couldn't free them unless they left the state -- which for the freed slave could mean leaving behind family still in bondage. So more free blacks took to owning slaves benevolently. Being a nominal slave was risky -- among other things, you could be seized as payment for your nominal owner's debts. But at least one state, South Carolina, granted nominal slaves certain rights, including the right to buy slaves of their own.
Nobody's sure how many such arrangements existed. A widely cited but imperfect source is the 1830 federal census, chosen because it supposedly represents the high point of black slave ownership. One count, taking the data at face value, found 3,777 free black heads of household who had slaves living with them. If that's accurate, about 2 percent of southern free blacks owned slaves.[/B]
over 2000 free blacks in Louisianna joined the confederate army and fought against the union.
Because it doesn't fit with their view of the world.
Wasn't the first slave owner in Virginia a black man? I remember reading about him, but don't remember his name now.
I would teach them about the Native Guard units, but I'm sure it would be a waste of time.
becasue they didn't own them to "own" them........and it was still uncommon. they owned them to help them, your post is really quite dishonest.
Did Blacks also own slaves in the U.S.? | Straight Dope | Creative Loafing Tampa
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?