Skip to comments.Sarah Palin's Charisma
Posted on 12/03/2010 1:38:02 AM PST by Scanian
Why does the left hate Sarah Palin with such screaming rage? Why do they lose their cookies at the very idea of our Sally?
Think about that for a second.
Here's a beautiful, strong, intelligent, articulate, healthy-looking, truth-telling political winner in the State of Alaska -- a gun-totin', sports-lovin', all-American woman, elected on her own merits against a corrupt establishment in Anchorage, AK.
All the feminists should be dancing and cheering, right?
On top of all that, she married a native Alaskan who actually loves his country. And she had kids. With him.
Weird, I know.
Plus, she is not embittered, alienated, or divorced.
And her children smile a lot.
Best of all, Palin does not seem to think that free abortion is the answer to the population bomb.
Puhhh-leeeze! I can hear all the metrosexuals sigh.
Oh, Gawwwdd! Is this "Father Knows Best" or what?
Watch those eyes rolling up to heaven.
Watch those hands flopping like dead fish.
Today, the New York Times is a lot more scared of Sarah Palin than it ever was after three thousand New Yorkers were burned to death on 9/11/2001.
After all, Sarah Palin could do some real damage.
Have you ever seen a more out-of-its-mind mob than the liberal media yowling at the moon over Governor Palin? I can't remember any. Well, maybe the Danish cartoon riots in Peshawar, Pakistan. Or the old Kluxers in Mississippi before the real Civil Rights movement.
The left has all the subtlety of a high-tech lynch mob, as Clarence Thomas said in 1991, when they went all-out to destroy his good name before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Clarence Thomas knows about lynch mobs from the old South, and nobody has labeled the media better. Mad-dog, foaming-at-the-mouth, baying mediot mob.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“Rough” is expected. What the Pillsbury Dough Boy and Charlie did was character assassination, venom and pure hatred. Never before has ANY GOP candidate been so vilified as Christine O’Donnell. Until Governor Palin runs for and is elected President, that is.
Load up (metaphorically) and get ready to fire back (again metaphorically) against the attacks. INCOMING! RETURN FIRE!
So you are saying that slavery was THE reason for the war? I would be very grateful to you if you could substantiate that statement. I can find no documented evidence that the War of Northern Aggression was initiated by the institution of slavery, onerous as that institution may have been.
Your reasoning is more than a little revisionist itself, wouldn’t you agree.
Have a nice day yourself
I'm curious where you get this number.
Tariffs are essentially a sales tax. They are paid by the importer, who passes them on down the chain, where they are eventually paid by the consumer.
Do you seriously contend the South consumed 80% of imported goods on which tariffs were paid? If so, where did you get the number?
No more than taxes were THE reason for the war.
SO, you main concern with a list of what democrat fascists have done to this country is that they not be given credit for starting the Civil War, right?
Fine, a guy named Daryl started it over the price of four barrel carbs and my great grand daddy helped him out because new rear ends cost too much also. Happy?
Bingo, but can we keep our ballot boxes safe ???
Most of my figures come from government documents from the period as well as many private collections of various family documents either held by the family and viewed with permission or housed in many museums across the South.
Tariffs are are a sales tax. If you are making furniture in NH, you don’t need to buy tables and chairs from France. If you have a foundry in PA, you don’t buy stoves from England. When nearly all of the shipping is owned by Yankee traders in Mass. those products from Europe never make it to the dock in NY.
If you don’t buy anything, you don’t pay any sales tax.
A quick look at the available figures on population will show you that I’m correct about the distribution of people across the country at the time. Representation in Congress being allotted by said population shows the South being at a severe disadvantage as a voting block.
I would go on but time is pressing me. The research is quite easy to do, hell, I did it.
I know people bristle at comparisons to Reagan, but I don’t care, I’m going to make one:
She will be another Reagan.
In some ways, better.
YES. They have lost power to someone who is a genuine, real and normal person with character and values which come from a set of principles which will not be shaken or set aside with celebrity. They have viciously persecuted her but she just gets stronger with every blow. She is a threat to their power and they hate her for it. Before John McCain chose her for his running mate, I had heard that she chose to have her precious Down’s Syndrome baby. From that point I knew that she was unique and special in the world of politics. That baby is another reason the left hates her. She is an example of life and not death. To carry that idea further, she wants America to survive and live..The left wants our Republic dead.
My dad didn't remember that much of him, but my Grandparents used to tell me "Ronnie" stories at a point in time where he was best-known for his TV, "B"-Film and "Bonzo" appearances as a "local boy made good." Apparently he was instrumental in the rescuing of some flailing, choking kid one summer, and everyone in town knew he was headed for "bigger things."
Gee, when I took AP American History, we read the Georgia Ordinance of Secession, which begins: "The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property...
Nothing about taxes. The whole thing is about "that property".
Now, I am more sympathetic than many to the enormous difficulties which arose for our Southern brethren out of their cohabitation with a large and generally hostile population of African-descended persons. Certainly we in the North, in the methods we chose to ameliorate the difficulty of living with a much smaller population of African-descended persons did not distinguish ourselves.
I think the Great Emancipator, or Great Constitution Destroyer (as you will), said it best: "One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war..."
"That property" was the problem. Of that, there can be no doubt.
I’ve read that with out the tariffs, North East industrialists would be out of business as the then super factories of England could produce and deliver equipment cheaper. Further, this would cost Wall Street investors who financed the North East factories. New England/New York economy would collapse.
Why did so many non slave owning, and most likely never to be able to own a slave, Southerns fight? Why did so many southern white laborers, in many ways their labor value suppressed by slave labor, why did they support and fight for their state?
Who cares what started the Civil war?
Damn the first man that brought a slave into this country. Damn him to hell.
Because they were Southron patriots, and because they didn't cotton to a Yankee Army invading their homes and ripping up their institutions?
Any white southern non-slaveholder had a vital interest in containing the violent and potentially violent African population which lived among them. The South did not practice Northern-style segregation. Africans were, at least in the Deep South, everywhere.
The North never gave, and has never given to this day, a coherent theory of race relations (a/k/a "diversity") which could persuade any sentient white Southerner exactly how what would happen AFTER emancipation would or even could be good for him and his family.
The southern white laboring non-slaveholder had every reason to fight.
In retrospect, it was perhaps not such a good idea.
Ask a white South African how developing a society based on Bantu labor worked out in the end.
“Damn the first man that brought a slave into this country.”
Do you mean that slave ship captain that came under conviction and became a Christian and wrote “Amazing Grace”?
You forgot Dem filibuster of Civil Rights Act led by Senator Al Gore Sr. of Tennessee.
True, the NH furniture maker does't buy chairs from France, but he very well might buy a stove from England. The foundry-owner would use his own stove, but he would be as likely to buy a French table as a SC plantation owner.
The significant majority of northerners had nothing to do with industry, they worked in agriculture, just like almost all southerners. This was especially true in the West. Please explain how an Iowa corn farmer was in any different position with regard to tariffs than a Texas cotton planter.
If you're going to quote a precise figure like 80% as fact, you can't just retreat back into vague generalities when asked for documentation. Or suggestions your readers do their own research to verify your claims. Not and retain any credibility.
I'm perfectly well aware you're just repeating something other southern revisionists have posted, with no backup whatsoever for your numbers. You posted it because it sounded good and you thought it would help you make your case. My point is that you can't really expect me or anyone else to take your claims seriously when you do so.