• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Perry once defended Confederate symbols

Iron Yank said:
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****.
Click to expand...

other than his purported racist past, why don't you share with us perry's positions which cause you to be his boy
 
Iron Yank said:
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****.
Click to expand...

Why is the "Marxists" left against Perry? Obama has the best chances against Perry. I hope he wins.
 
iliveonramen said:
Why is the "Marxists" left against Perry? Obama has the best chances against Perry. I hope he wins.
Click to expand...

isn't this the same perry who headed the texans for al gore presidential campaign?
 
celticwar17 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Excellent post! That is exactly what it is to most Southern people. At a country concert it is a grand opportunity to revel in Southerness together. Southern people are different, as I am reminded here in Arizona from time to time. The Southland has a culture, it is taught and cherished. It is palpable. When Southern people get together it is an opportunity to get loud and proud. Never in such moments have I ever heard Southern people talk about the South and slavery. It doesn't come up, it doesn't cross anyone's mind because as you pointed out, that is not what it is all about.

Having said that I know the flag has been perverted by sick pukes and ignorant fools. That is unfortunate. I have black friends who if present would be quietly offended, and out of respect to them I would not fly the flag.
 
rocket88 said:
That's probably true, but then the people flying the flag (a vast majority anyway) are not descended from slaves. .
Click to expand...

I am sure that a vast majority of people flying it today are not descended from slave owners.
 
Boo Radley said:
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.
Click to expand...

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'.
 
justabubba said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jerry said:
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'.
Click to expand...

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 ****.
 
Boo Radley said:
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 ****.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

Translation: Jerry got pwned
 
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

All kinds of grounds, including we just don't like each other any more. hardly law. Law requires somethign codified. Punishable. Getting to leave the spouse you no longer care for is not really a punishment. All you're fighting for after that is a equitable split of the mutual property.
 
danarhea said:
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.
Click to expand...

When you learn that that's totally false, you won't be so torn on the issue.
 
why does no one ever mention that, in the south, there were actually free blacks who owned other blacks as slaves?
 
OscarB63 said:
why does no one ever mention that, in the south, there were actually free blacks who owned other blacks as slaves?
Click to expand...

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.
 
OscarB63 said:
why does no one ever mention that, in the south, there were actually free blacks who owned other blacks as slaves?
Click to expand...

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.
 
apdst said:
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.
Click to expand...

over 2000 free blacks in Louisianna joined the confederate army and fought against the union.
 
oscarb63 said:
why does no one ever mention that, in the south, there were actually free blacks who owned other blacks as slaves?
Click to expand...
those living today in denial don't want to hear or know that fact.
They would not be able to complain about it.
 
apdst said:
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.
Click to expand...

There were no 'black soldiers' that fought alongside white soldiers - at least not in the confederacy. There were slave owners who rented their slaves to the confederate military, but the Conferate Congress didn't authorize black troops until March of 1865 - a month before the war ended. Try reading a little history before you make a fool of yourself.

Confederate Law authorizing the enlistment of black soldiers, March 13, 1865, as promulgated in a military order

You unreconstructed Rebels are a hoot. You got your asses handed to you because you went to war to protect your right to buy and sell other human beings. Great cause.
 
Last edited:
OscarB63 said:
why does no one ever mention that, in the south, there were actually free blacks who owned other blacks as slaves?
Click to expand...

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
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]
Click to expand...
 
OscarB63 said:
over 2000 free blacks in Louisianna joined the confederate army and fought against the union.
Click to expand...

I would teach them about the Native Guard units, but I'm sure it would be a waste of time.
 
Dittohead not! said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that, but the 1st Manassass started on a farm owned by a freed man.
 
apdst said:
I would teach them about the Native Guard units, but I'm sure it would be a waste of time.
Click to expand...

Absolute unreconstructed rebel fiction. You want us to believe that blacks enjoyed being bought and sold and raped and murdered so much they couldn't wait to risk their lives to ensure that it continued?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom