|
Post by GrayGhost on Jul 11, 2004 20:23:23 GMT -5
I am surprised this subject has not been touched on yet. Quite honestly I thought something would go up the day Kerry announced his running mate.
I know what my opinion is on Kerry/Edwards, but I am curious as to what my fellow Southerners think as well.
So, what do you think of Edwards running as Kerry's V.P.?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 11, 2004 20:47:30 GMT -5
I think its bad! Not because Edwards isnt a good guy, or wouldn't be a good VP but i am affraid it may help kerry, and i can not stand to think of what it would be like if kerry got into office....oh the horor
|
|
|
Post by GrayGhost on Jul 12, 2004 11:54:56 GMT -5
I think its bad! Not because Edwards isnt a good guy, or wouldn't be a good VP but i am affraid it may help kerry, and i can not stand to think of what it would be like if kerry got into office....oh the horor Care to elaborate Michael? What exactly about Kerry is it that you do not like? Does anyone else find it patronizing that it is so obvious Kerry only chose Edwards to try to swing the South behind him? He is a rich Yankee from the Northeast whose wife is heiress to a fortune.
|
|
|
Post by droc0794 on Jul 12, 2004 13:22:37 GMT -5
I read an article written by one of bush's camp. spokespersons...this was written in response to a horrible three-day run by kerry and edwards in pa. I think. I am paraphrasing here but, this article shows kerrys fence-riding ways for what they truely are...on a mon. night rally he assures listeners that he is liberal and proud of it, on wed. night he goes on, in the same state to say that he is a conservative...now how in the h*** came you be a liberal conservative??? After hearing these two statements, bushs reply went something like: sen. kerry has voted both ways on the war in iraq, on abortion, and on gay marraige rights. se. kerry is the #1 liberal in whashington; edwards is the 4th most liberal...thats called splitting the ticket. The real question is, can edwards be our PRESIDENT if something should happen to kerry ( not that I feel kerry would make even an average pres.) In my opinion, we would be better off with al sharpton in office
|
|
|
Post by CornFedReb on Jul 12, 2004 16:08:01 GMT -5
I'm all for whoever is going to do the most harm to the U.S. and hope and pray he wins. What better way to show the sheep the hopelessness of participating in the dumb vs. dumber elections? What better way to send the U.S. down the tubes and force the people to look for a better alternative which, for the people of the South, would be Southern independence.
I'm not sure who to really pray for the most. Bush is really allienating a lot of the military people with this long, drawn out suicide program in Afghanistan and Iraq. What better way to get the military disgruntled with the status quo? If we re-elect Bush maybe we can get ourselves bogged down in Iran and/or Korea!
On the other hand, things always go good for the right wing when a liberal Democrat is in office. Remember the heyday of the Survivalist movement was in the late '70s when Jimmy Carter was running things. The militia movement really took off when Clinton was in office.
It's really tuff to see which can do the most damage to our rights but when I figure it out that's who I'll pray for!
God Save the South (from whoever wins) CornFedReb
|
|
|
Post by IRONCLAD on Jul 12, 2004 20:05:11 GMT -5
I'll be voting for Bush as a write-in. Not for him as a Repub.
Just think if Kerry gets in.....it'll help out our Cause a lot faster.
Plus, I agree with the wars. We needed to help the people of Iraq and Afgan. from the tyrants......you know one day another country might help out the new South one day.
IRONCLAD
|
|
|
Post by GrayGhost on Jul 13, 2004 9:53:33 GMT -5
The truly sad thing is that most Americans will vote one of two ways:
- "lesser of two evils"
- for Kerry because they blame the poor economy on the Bush administration, as well as the wars in the Middle East.
I for one do not care for Kerry. Not only is he a Yankee, but his ties to Northern business interests show clearly where his loyalties and agenda lie. He will be no different in office than Lincoln was during his terms.
Edwards will not make a real difference. He is only on the ticket to try to swing the support of the South into Kerry's camp. I for one am insulted that Kerry thinks the people of the South are so foolish as to think he has our best interests at heart or that waving Edwards in our direction will win him the election. History shows that Vice Presidents do little while in office.
Another thing that upsets me is that all eleven states of the Confederacy only carry 60% of the votes needed to elect the president. With as much territory as the South makes up, as much as we are taxed, even if the entire South backed a candidate for president, we do not carry enough electoral votes to insure the candidate wins. Another means by which the North and the Federals insure we never rise from the mire they sank us into in 1865.
Clinton is the perfect example of a Democrat ne'er-do-well in power. He is most infamous for his illicit affairs and the scandals they caused. Everyone knows it was his wife that was the true power behind that puppet. He took credit for the upswing in the economy during his terms that were the long term effects of Reagan's trickle down economics plan. Politicians are not to be trusted. As Droc posted Kerry made two speeches in two different venues and claimed two different things to two different groups of people. Politicians have shown that they will do anything to get elected and will do nothing to keep all their much vaunted promises.
|
|
|
Post by CornFedReb on Jul 13, 2004 16:05:34 GMT -5
Plus, I agree with the wars. We needed to help the people of Iraq and Afgan. from the tyrants...... I thought the tyrants in Afghanistan and Iraq were the U.S. military. Both are illegal, unconstitutional "wars" initiated without the vote of the Congress which is the only body allowed to make war. From what I've seen it doesn't seem the people of Afghanistan or Iraq ever wanted the U.S. bombing their homes, killing their people and generally upsetting their already miserable lives. And even if they did the U.S. Constitution doesn' t allow for a standing Army to intervene in such situations. Quell domestic insurrection and repell foreign invasion are the only two reasons they can be used. God Save the South, CornFedReb
|
|
|
Post by CornFedReb on Jul 13, 2004 16:16:18 GMT -5
I'll be voting for Bush as a write-in. Not for him as a Repub. Just think if Kerry gets in.....it'll help out our Cause a lot faster. Ironclad, if you think Kerry will help our Cause a lot faster why would you vote for Bush? Just curious. God Save the South, CornFedReb
|
|
|
Post by IRONCLAD on Jul 13, 2004 17:33:43 GMT -5
Hey Cornfed-
I don't think I can handle a Tyrant like Kerry in office.
I'm still batting it around on who to vote for. If I don't vote for Bush as a write-in, I'll vote for Jefferson Davis instead.
If Edward was running for Pres. only instead of Kerry, I then wouldn't care which one who won. I really don't like Kerry must as much as Klinton.
But, if Kerry does get in, then it'll be, no time when this country will go to hell.
IRONCLAD
|
|
|
Post by GrayGhost on Jul 14, 2004 11:41:26 GMT -5
I thought the tyrants in Afghanistan and Iraq were the U.S. military. Both are illegal, unconstitutional "wars" initiated without the vote of the Congress which is the only body allowed to make war. From what I've seen it doesn't seem the people of Afghanistan or Iraq ever wanted the U.S. bombing their homes, killing their people and generally upsetting their already miserable lives. And even if they did the U.S. Constitution doesn' t allow for a standing Army to intervene in such situations. Quell domestic insurrection and repell foreign invasion are the only two reasons they can be used. God Save the South, CornFedReb When has legality or what is or is not Constitutional ever stopped a President or his administration from doing what they want. Perfect example: Lincoln and his actions from the onset of his reign.
|
|
|
Post by CornFedReb on Jul 15, 2004 16:02:27 GMT -5
When has legality or what is or is not Constitutional ever stopped a President or his administration from doing what they want. Perfect example: Lincoln and his actions from the onset of his reign. Right your are, GrayGhost. Without looking deeply into the details (as I should before posting) I would guess that the last justifiable and Constitutionally legal war fought by the U.S. might have been the War of 1812. Most certainly EVERY war fought after the War for Southern Independence cannot be legally justified by the U.S. and Southerners certainly had no business supporting such wars. If Southrons want independence we have to stop supporting the Empire of the Beast. Spilling our blood in defense of Empire gets us nowhere. In fact, it actually sets us back because rather than benefit us here at home, the best genetic material the South has to offer is bled white in foreign sands. God Save the South, CornFedReb
|
|
|
Post by GrayGhost on Jul 16, 2004 7:58:38 GMT -5
Right your are, GrayGhost. Without looking deeply into the details (as I should before posting) I would guess that the last justifiable and Constitutionally legal war fought by the U.S. might have been the War of 1812. Most certainly EVERY war fought after the War for Southern Independence cannot be legally justified by the U.S. and Southerners certainly had no business supporting such wars. If Southrons want independence we have to stop supporting the Empire of the Beast. Spilling our blood in defense of Empire gets us nowhere. In fact, it actually sets us back because rather than benefit us here at home, the best genetic material the South has to offer is bled white in foreign sands. God Save the South, CornFedReb I agree Cornfed, but how to keep Southerners from joining the U.S. military machine & fighting for the agenda of the Federals, that is the real question. Let's compare the British Empire & it's subjugation of the Scots & Irish. After conquering these two nations, the Brits set about impoverishing both countries to keep its people from ever rising up against the Crown again. The level of poverty in Ireland & Scotland turned both in to little better than 3rd world countries. Now the Crown needs good troops to fight to expand its Empire & to hold onto what it already has. No one fights harder than the Irish and the Scots. Britain saw their use as shock troops and set about offering enlistment to both countries. The offer of military service offered a way for Scot & Irish men to take care of their families. For the Scots it was also the only legal way to wear kilts, tartan, and play the pipes after the Highland cleansings ordered by the Crown after Bonnie Prince Charlies failed attempt at freedom. Now compare these events to the South. Many Southern cavalry troops wound up joining the U.S. cavalry in the west after the war. During Reconstruction & the military occupation of the South poverty struck hard. Many had their rights, property, and anything of value taken from them. Many came home to find their farms or estates burnt & looted. Like the Scots & Irish, they had no choice but to join the U.S. military in order to feed their families. The Federals are perfectly happy letting Southerners die for their bloody causes. It helps to keep us weak & dependant on them to survive. We must break that dependance.
|
|
|
Post by CornFedReb on Jul 16, 2004 18:50:35 GMT -5
Your comparisons of the Irish and Scotts with Southerners is well made and very revealing, GrayGhost.
With a little research we would probably find that this is a common technique of tryannical powers around the globe. #1 subjugate, #2 impoverish, #3 Use their best "loyal" men as willing fodder while giving their families scraps from the table, #4 Eliminate their best and brightest through wars of empire which helps in their own subjugation.
How do we stop our Southern men (and women) from serving the Beast? I think the only answer right now (and it's not a very good one) is continue the education. The problem is Southerners flock to war like flies to a corpse. You can't eliminate their martial spirit which is highly coveted by the empire. We have to redirect it somehow. Perhaps to State National Guard units? Obviously not the best since they are easily federalized but a strong loyalty to one's own state and, hence its military is a good start. Maybe a better option would be a strong promotion of participation in a state's Defense Force. These can't be federalized (yet). I don't know all the answers but something's got to give somewhere.
God Save the South, CornFedReb
|
|
|
Post by GrayGhost on Jul 16, 2004 20:58:36 GMT -5
Your comparisons of the Irish and Scotts with Southerners is well made and very revealing, GrayGhost. With a little research we would probably find that this is a common technique of tryannical powers around the globe. #1 subjugate, #2 impoverish, #3 Use their best "loyal" men as willing fodder while giving their families scraps from the table, #4 Eliminate their best and brightest through wars of empire which helps in their own subjugation. How do we stop our Southern men (and women) from serving the Beast? I think the only answer right now (and it's not a very good one) is continue the education. The problem is Southerners flock to war like flies to a corpse. You can't eliminate their martial spirit which is highly coveted by the empire. We have to redirect it somehow. Perhaps to State National Guard units? Obviously not the best since they are easily federalized but a strong loyalty to one's own state and, hence its military is a good start. Maybe a better option would be a strong promotion of participation in a state's Defense Force. These can't be federalized (yet). I don't know all the answers but something's got to give somewhere. God Save the South, CornFedReb I think part of the problem is that Celts (Irish & Scots) made up a good part of those who settled the South. Celtic blood is the blood of warriors and they can not seem to resist the call to arms. I do truly believe that your comments "#1 subjugate, #2 impoverish, #3 Use their best "loyal" men as willing fodder while giving their families scraps from the table, #4 Eliminate their best and brightest through wars of empire which helps in their own subjugation" are right on the mark. I had looked at the empires of history and they all share the trait that conquered people are put through the four steps you listed. Not only does it keep the conquerors own people from having to shed tears or blood for the expansion of their empire, it keeps the nations they have conquered from ever throwing off the chains of oppression.
|
|