You Can Have the Red States

I feel ignored.

Okay, for what it is worth I thought Texas could split into four states in order to increase its presence in the Senate. Or so the rumor went anyway.

 

Your religious, political, and constitutional opinions are your own, and I'm thankful for your opinions ALTMANN, it's what makes this thread more amusing to read from time to time. Sarcasm, satire, humor, and general ribbing are things

>>>that become less funny when it is all one sided and political, religious and constitunal opinions. It is like the Political Cartoons, politics is the root cause, let's call a spade a spade, I do that.

 

Discussing the ideas and facts and conclusions of any poster that you want This is a good thing and is a positive debating technique.

Making constant attacks on all sincerity, honesty, decency or patriotism of the person making the post. This is the bad thing and people will not take well to it. I only return what is posted here, as long as you do it, I will do it back.

"And your point about Texas above is no longer true." That is opinion, Texas history courses teach otherwise. It of course would be a complex issue and process.

" It is quite true that when Texas entered the Union, they specifically retained the right to leave the union, and the USA allowed this at the time. Thus, for a period they could have done what you said and succeeded from the Union. They also retained the right to break themselves up into up to 5 states if they wanted to. This too was accepted by the USA when they entered the Union. "

"However, this changed after the Civil War. Texas no longer has that special right. I'll do some google searching later to find out what law was passed to make this change."

Again, some opinion here, in this State this view point can be argued both ways.

The level of rhetoric and personal attacks of not only our own government in times of war, and of people like me who do its utmost to accomplish the task of maintaining the country, is here and has been unprecedented. Having been through a very tough time during the Vietnam era, now from the view I see has all but convinced me of the just plain vindictiveness and devicive and deceitful ways of the left sides, Hollywood and the Move ON.org and the fringe left. Part of the reason the right wing talk shows and even FOX are making the inroads is precisely demonstrated right here on this board (in it's political forums ONLY). The humor at points objected to by me, is because it is almost always to a point left politically and devicive and negative to our country and its government. The humor is supposed to be FUNNY and not always be trying to make a political statement. Oh I know how to be funny, and believe me HYBRID DAVE when you try to be funny, you're MOSTLY political IN nature. A person fresh to this site would IMMEDIATELY figure out your political views from just reading your "HUMOR". When you try to be political, you're real political..so what is the difference, between your humor and politics ? NONE.

That is why "right wing" talk radio is making such great inroads., when they are funny, they are just funny and NOT political.

The California Seccession was a red-blue political badmouth joke, it was political and not funny. Hence, I made the same suggestion with the Texas secccession (it was of the same) was brought up by me. In History Classes here in TEXAS, the difference between incorporation of TEXAS, verse the rest of the States is clearly explained, by the one who went GOGGLING., but bottom line the basic premise was a lot more valid than the one from California, and TEXAS did have a unique agreement at one point, that certainly is more then California ever had.

As for the personal attacks, read your own stuff 31 year old HybridDAVE..you just got it all figured out.
Let's check out the non personal stuff in your posts, when you classify people., It's endless, thus the strife. At least P4 is of my age, but regardless it is all right for you and your friends to all laugh at the same stuff, always in the negative of us big right wing biggots, then you all get upset at real world terms. Hate to break it to you, despite media hype your kind is getting less and less mainstream, and you all are slowly losing influence over this country, despite CNN and the rest of the media. Polls and all that don't count, vote results do, your constant approach no longer works, hence people are figuring it out.

The real world and the fact it is a big world, with lots of bad guys that would want to destroy this country, is just beyond your grasp. My son gets the news over there in Iraq, how do you think he feels...after all the news, humor and editorial is slanted for the negative, overtlooking any positive and predicting ( or is is wishing for ) the worst for this country, it's policies, it's president, it's war or conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan ? And all to a double standard to boot, cause when your guy was in there, all that was allright, (look at or read Blackhawk Down) in military circles it is common knowledge that the PREZ was "Busy" with "M" when the guys tried to get c-130's and were dying there, and that the "PREZ" didnot want to be disturbed, so the Ms Albright decision about the C-130's stood.
Seems like that's ok., guys been there and I don't like double standards .

You can package me and make all the assumptions you want, but I will dish it back whether you like it or not, or you can take it personal or not, IT's not

As for the arguements, with all the GOOGLE done I quote this about TEXAS:

"But if they chose to, only then would it get abjudicated as to whether they had that right"

And another:
"When every other state entered the Union, all un-owned land at the time, or land not specifically owned by the state or local Government, reverted to the Federal Gov. In the resolution that allowed Texas entry, all that land specifically reverted to the State of Texas. That only happened with Texas."

and HybridDave:
"You make a good point..although my debating sometimes sinks to sarcasm and dark humor...I understand what you're saying...just trying to keep the situation light hearted is all...."

>>how do you keep the situation light hearted, by sinking to sarcasm, and the dark humor?? Which by the way is mostly ALL you all do??<<

Oh I am tough, I shove back hard, and will continue as long as you all continue, with this crap.

When the political debate is even handed and fair to both sides, which plenty of Democratic Senators and Congressmen practice everyday, then the shoving and debate will arise to a more civil tone.

The constant sniping, denagrading and trying to humiliate the other side, by debate will bring forth the same from me.

Bush became a uniter in Texas by DOING things with the Democratic House Speaker., Other then outright "surrender" Bush has never been worked with by the Democrats, he has moved and also alienated his own right wing side many times, TROUBLE IS you all want him to do all THE MOVING, and you all want it all your way. the right must come left, but left stays left, heck even Hillary Clinton (Bill too) have figured out at least you have to talk a little to the right, to get things done.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IALTMANN\";p=\"104975)</div>

Almost all pundits have considered Bill Clinton a moderate. He has a long history of "talking a little to the right". That was one thing he was criticized for, trying to appeal to both wings. The first thing I learned about him that I liked was the yearly conferences he held in SC where he had the best thinkers from all points of view brainstorming solutions. Hillary is a moderate too, evidenced by recent initiatives with Newt Gingrich. But most extremists on the right refer to both of them as left wing radicals. That's what you say about anyone you are trying to discredit. I am sure you will consider me naive, but it does seem that moderates and even left wingers use the term extremists to really identify the fringe and not to just discredit.

I don't know, IALTMANN, Prius04 says you are entertaining. I guess I agree somewhat. You do bring out a number of other feelings in me.
Sad because you are suffering so much and don't even seem to know you are suffering, or how, or why. I suppose that sounds like an insult and it probably is since I know you won't reflect in any self-examining ways. There have been a number of posts in several of these FHOP threads wherein people appeared to be sincerely trying to help you and be kind to you, but you don't seem to be receptive to these efforts. Bottom line is I guess I am cool with your continuing just like you have been going.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Robert Taylor\";p=\"104938)</div>

Texas CAN break off up to 4 parts and that would leave five total states. But those other parts would not give Texas more Senators. You see, those four other parts would be completely separate states with 2 Senators each and as many Congressmen as their population density allowed. Texas itself would then lose a comparable number of Congressmen because of that population realignment. Texas itself would still have 2 Senators.

Those voters in those other states could do something horrible like elect liberals. And due to the fact that Texas would lose seats in the House of Rep, I think it's safe to say that a split up will never happen.

But Texas has no special right to secede from the Union. From what I've read, it is widely believed in Texas that Texas does have this special right, but there is no wording in any old documents that give this to them.

So California has every much right to secede as Texas. And there is no special language in law or the constitution that definitively bars it. There are passages that have been interpreted to mean that it is barred, and a war was fought over this, but there still is no "obvious" language.

This is from what I got in a quick google search but the stories seem reliable and consistent. But I do not guarantee it's accuracy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fredatgolf\";p=\"104978)</div>

Almost all pundits have considered Bill Clinton a moderate. He has a long history of "talking a little to the right". That was one thing he was criticized for, trying to appeal to both wings. The first thing I learned about him that I liked was the yearly conferences he held in SC where he had the best thinkers from all points of view brainstorming solutions. Hillary is a moderate too, evidenced by recent initiatives with Newt Gingrich. But most extremists on the right refer to both of them as left wing radicals. That's what you say about anyone you are trying to discredit. I am sure you will consider me naive, but it does seem that moderates and even left wingers use the term extremists to really identify the fringe and not to just discredit.

I don't know, IALTMANN, Prius04 says you are entertaining. I guess I agree somewhat. You do bring out a number of other feelings in me.
Sad because you are suffering so much and don't even seem to know you are suffering, or how, or why. I suppose that sounds like an insult and it probably is since I know you won't reflect in any self-examining ways. There have been a number of posts in several of these FHOP threads wherein people appeared to be sincerely trying to help you and be kind to you, but you don't seem to be receptive to these efforts. Bottom line is I guess I am cool with your continuing just like you have been going.[/b][/quote]

Hillary does not possess the recorded voting record of a moderate, she only dupes the ignorant with a little moderate rhetoric into believing that she is a moderate.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20041120-08...84025-3316r.htm

This oped details the ratings of vote records Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has actually compiled. Both the liberal and conservative organizations that compile such things list her as an A lister liberal.

 

I stand corrected on Hillary's voting recored, I was more focused on her connections with Newt and I believe one other. The Times Op-ed should be balanced with the Post's, of course. I personally believe Hillary would reach out in all directions. When it comes time, though, I hope she will not be the Democrat's nominee.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fredatgolf\";p=\"105029)</div>

Fred, Robert Taylor cited an editorial from the Washington Times. The WT is owned by the moonies and is considered a propaganda arm of the right wing. The WT would consider Ghengis Khan a moderate.

And your post about Hillary being a moderate as determined by most pundits is entirely accurate, as is/was Bill. And I think the best proof of that is that the WT did not call them communists.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"105032)</div>

Fred, Robert Taylor cited an editorial from the Washington Times. The WT is owned by the moonies and is considered a propaganda arm of the right wing. The WT would consider Ghengis Khan a moderate.

And your post about Hillary being a moderate as determined by most pundits is entirely accurate, as is/was Bill. And I think the best proof of that is that the WT did not call them communists.
[/b][/quote]

Incorrect, I cited the quotes embedded in the oped that cite the ratings of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's voting record as compiled by both a liberal and a conservative vote rating organization.

The oped itself I did not cite, I referenced the data within.

Are you saying they misquote the rating organizations, or that those rating organizations are tainted by being referenced by a news organization you detest?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Robert Taylor\";p=\"105080)</div>

The latter. In fact, I "detest" the suggestion that the WT even is a news organization.

In the USA today, the word "liberal" has two definitions. I consider myself a liberal according to my definition of the term, but if I was to use the term as defined by organizations like the WT, I would hate liberals too.

 

http://www.adaction.org/2003senatevr.htm

Here is the organization that rates senators voting records for liberals, the higher the number, the more liberal the voting record.

note that the two Louisiana senators own what should be considered "moderate" voting records, 45 & 60.

Hillary? 95%

There is no moderate Hillary voting record.

Any more questions

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Robert Taylor\";p=\"105093)</div>

It's not a fair argument to label Hillary as being a "liberal", knowing full well you likely mean the WT or Rush Limbaugh definition of a "liberal" by using the ADA's definition of a "liberal".

Those are extremely different definitions.

And if you use the Rush Limbaugh definition, Hillary is a moderate.

Later I'll post my definition of a liberal, for what it's worth.


But I got back into this thread to warn Fred about the WT. And I should edit my post above. I used the word detest simply because you used it. I do not detest the WT. They have a free speech right to say anything they want. They also have a free speech right to claim themselves to be a news organization. But I also have the right to point out my opinion. And the WT has lost all it's credibility for accuracy, not only to me, but to most non-biased readers. The WT is agenda news. They embellish things that make the Republicans look good, and embellish the things that they see that get in the way of that, to make them look bad.

And people should know that the WT is owned by the self proclaimed messiah, Sun Myung Moon.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hybrid_Dave\";p=\"105038)</div>

Dave,

The most extreme fools are people whose age should have made them wise.

Bartleby.com

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04\";p=\"105103)</div>

It's not a fair argument to label Hillary as being a "liberal", knowing full well you likely mean the WT or Rush Limbaugh definition of a "liberal" by using the ADA's definition of a "liberal". [/b][/quote]
I can't believe you would take away one of the conservatives most important weapons, labels.
Yes, I mentioned in my response that the WT should be balanced with the WP, even though I consider the Post moderate.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fredatgolf\";p=\"105120)</div>

The Washington Times should be balanced by the Communist Party's literature, NOT the WAPO.

Fringe Right, Fringe left.

The WAPO has an agenda to sell papers. Being truthful and honest helps sell papers so they will "tend" to be truthful and honest. However, for the most part, they are owned by corporate media, so there is a bias towards that corporate view. So I would tend to call most media in 2005 tending towards the conservative view. This is what the owners want.
But they can't be too blatant about it, because of something called ethics.

However, there are still some progressives and "liberals" on the payroll there, so sometimes a non corporate view makes it through. But for the reporters that do that too often, there will be no promotions.

The WT tends to lose money. That's no bother for them because their agenda is to make Republicans look good. Making money is secondary. And Sun Myung Moon can afford to subsidize that agenda.

The Communist Party papers, and I suspect there is one, though I have no idea, is also an "agenda" paper. They too care more about their agenda than truth and honesty, just like the WT.

So the better comparison is the WT to the some communist paper.

The insistence that American Media has a liberal bias is right wing propaganda. They are trying to move this country so far to the right that a "moderate" gets labeled "liberal".

 

Some enterprising fellow in Germany came up with this last November, actually had it posted within a day or two after the election. Even my GOP friends had a good laugh over this one.

By the way, we'd get Canada's health care system too! (That ought to get the righties going :twisted: ).

 

I totally agree that 'The insistence that American Media has a liberal bias is right wing propaganda. They are trying to move this country so far to the right that a "moderate" gets labeled "liberal".' In many cases, the liberal label has killed dialogue.