A Little Historical Background on the Vice-President

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
Just in case Sarah Palin is reading, here is a little history lesson on the vice-president and how it came to be what it is.

For the first four elections, filling the office of VP was mostly just a giant pain in the ass.  The problem was that it went to the second place finisher.  Then that guy had exactly ONE job.  Break ties in the Senate.  Keep in mind, that was the guy's ONLY job.  It appeared this was sort of a consolation prize, a check on the winner to have a rival have this small power (which was bigger back then as with only 26 Senators, there were more ties).

Burr: Probably the worst VP ever 

In 1800, Thomas Jefferson's choice for VP pulled one of the great dick moves in all of US History and bribed a guy to switch his vote creating a tie.  In the end, the man who hated TJ more than anyone in the world, Alexander Hamilton, decided that as fun as it would be to fuck over his big rival, he couldn't let a shitbird like Aaron Burr get the White House so he instructed his followers to install TJ.  Which was a good thing, because it turns out Jefferson was a straight up bad ass.

Burr? He went ahead and killed Hamilton (although only indirectly over this).  Burr ran off to Mexico and raised an army of the brown people to take over the US.  He lost.  Then, when some hack activist conservative judges (but mostly John Marshall) refused to let TJ hang the dirty son of a bitch while inventing legislating from the bench, Burr got a pass on the whole thing and got to hang around as a national embaressment a la Nixon until he stroked out in 1834.

You'd think at this point, they would have just amended the whole damn thing out of existence but no.

Now, to be fair, in the early days it wasn't a half bad place to run for president from, giving us three election winners in Adams(1796), TJ(1800) and Van Buren(1836).  Only one other man has run as the sitting VP and won.

Like an appendix, the VP office lived on.  Luckily, no one noticed much until 1840.

Tyler: Grandfather of the Civil War 

In 1840, all hell broke loose.  William Henry Harrison (famed Injun killer and Indiana Governor) was Ronald Reagan before there was a Ronald Reagan, by which I mean he was a lot older than any other president until Raygun Ronnie.  He, evidently, wasn't a whole hell of a lot smarter either as he gave a three hour speech in the rain for his inaugral and died thirty days later.

So what happened next?  No one had a clue.  See what the Constitution says is this:

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President

Which may seem clear to you, but at the time it was widely argued that the "powers and duties" "devolved" to the Veep, the office did not.  And any good constructionist would point that out.  It is also worth pointing out these people were a lot closer to the guys who wrote those words than we are.

The real problem wasn't so much the language as the man who was VP.  John "Tippecanoe and" Tyler "Too" was a disgruntled Democrat who had made an unholy alliance with the Dems enemies, the Whigs.  As such neither side wanted him to be president.  Imagine Leiberman as VP.  Would either party want him to take the office?

So the argument arose: Tyler can be VP until we can elect a new president.
Tyler won the day and the office by creating a clever alliance in his cabinet, offering them increased power in exchange for bringing key constituencies over to his side on the presidency thingy.

No sooner had Tyler been sworn in than he told everyone to go fuck themselves, pissed on everything Harrison and the Whigs had actually been elected by the people  to do (he vetoed the entire platform) and tried to go back to the Dems. 

But you can't go home again and they said, "Thanks, but no thanks" to a free presidency.  So Tyler did whatever the fuck he wanted.  And apparently what he wanted to do was promote and protect slavery.

Opposition to Taylor turned the Whigs into the party of the North and, by default, the Democrats became the party of the South.  Taylor had created the regional divide that would create the greatest crisis in US history.

For his trouble Taylor acquired a cool nickname (His Accidency) and the first impeachment resolution in US history (it did not pass).

But you gotta love the stones on this guy.  In 1844 he tried to run for reelection.  After being laughed at by both parties, he nominated himself with his own, brand spanking new National Democratic Tyler Party (no truth to the rumor it was based in Connecticutt).  After securing that parties nomination, he went on a honeymoon with his new 24 year old wife.   He was evidently amazed to find out when he returned from playing Fred Thompson no one was going to vote for him.  So he dropped out.

When the Civil War broke out, Tyler went with the South.  He died in 1862, a former president in active treason against his country.  He is the only president ever to not be officially mourned in Washington.

I just thought while you are casually throwing around that Dick Cheney is the worst/most important VP in history, you might want to know who he may or may not have beaten out.

Filmore: If only AmEx commercials were around back then 

Beginning with Taylor, VPs got hot.  Two presidents later, one got the big chair.  Zachary Taylor gave way to Millard Filmore, but let's be honest, no one gives a shit about either one.

Johnson: You would have hated him 

In 1865 we have a big one.  Southerner Andrew Johnson takes over for Northerner Abe Lincoln.  Everyone hated him, mostly because he was an asshole.  He did log another presidential first, first to be impeached.  Gee, those VPs to Prez guys sure are popular.

Arthur: What the fuck is Bright's Disease? 

In 1881, Garfield (the fat president, not the fact cat) was shot a couple of months into his presidency.  He took a while to kick off, but when he did, Chester Arthur took over.  I don't know much of interest that either one of them did but I can tell you the office of VP was considered so vital to the country at the time that Arthur served almost an entire four year term without bothering to fill the job he had ascended from.

Teddy: He once wrote  

In 1900, the high water mark for VPs was reached.  Another president caught a bullet but this time it was, with all apologies to the McKinley family, a really good thing.  Teddy Roosevelt was kind of the Sarah Palin of his day.  A celebrity that no one actually wanted to be president but people found fascinating.  Luckily, when he became president, he laughed off the McKinley platfom and did whatever the hell he wanted to.  Except this time he did shit people wanted.  This appears to be a watershed moment when attitudes towards VPs who become Prez change from unfettered hatred to downright admiration.  Consequently, Teddy became the first VP to ascend and be reelected.

Coolidge: You suckers blamed it on Hoover 

Next came Calvin Coolidge, who got to be president when Harding had the good fortune to die before he became the first president to be removed from office (and he would have).  Coolidge got reelected so he could continure the hard work of completely destroying the US economy and leaving Herbert Hoover with a giant stinking turd of a presidency.  Thanks Cal!

Truman: Sorry, I don't like him.  He created the Cold War. 

In 1945, Harry Truman won the FDR Vice Presidential lottery.  I mean, lets get real. He was going to die eventually.  One of his revolving door of veeps (he had three) had to become president at some point.

LBJ: Who says ugly people can't get elected 

In 1963, the second Texan ever to take the office did so in the wake of JFK's assasination.  LBJ ran the streak of reelected ascended VPs to four before becoming really, really, unpopular.

Ford: Thanks, Dick! 

The last VP to take the presidency without election is the one man to become president without ever winning a federal election.  Ford was, essentially appointed president in 1974 as Nixon knew he wouldn't be around much longer.  For the crime of cutting a deal with Tricky Dick (a pardon for a presidency), Ford was so disliked he lost to Jimmy Freakin' Carter, the first VP to lose reelection as President since 1884. 

Nixon: I am totally jerking you people off 

Incidentally, Nixon is the only VP to be president who did not ascend or get elected while serving as VP.

Bush: How lucky is he his kid made him  

The only other man to be both President and Vice-President is Cenk Uygur boytoy, George H. W. Bush.

 

That is if you don't count Cheney, who, shadow government aside, is the only man to be acting president for a day without assuming the office of the presidency.

< The Goldman-Sachs United States of America | Palin and health insurance >
 Display:

Although he wasn't officially Veep, William Taft was usually left "in charge" by Teddy Roosevelt when TR was away (which happened a lot back then).  Of course this pissed off TR's actual Veep, Charles Fairbanks to no end.

Taft, of course went on to get TR's blessing and followed him as President.   Later, he became the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, making him the ONLY man to lead two branches of government...  err, the first man?

(Can we say Cheney ran the Executive and his mysterious Fourth/Shadow Branch?   You know what, Cheney's still in power, and he probably still has his people monitoring phones and computers, so lets just drop the whole Shadow-Government-Fourth-Br anch thing.  Before I get myself killed.  Did I say killed?  I didn't mean to say killed, Mr. Vice President.  Honest...)

Back to Taft.  I always liked the guy for two things that probably aren't true.  First, he was supposedly so fat, he got stuck in the White House bathtub.  That story could only be made better if he also got hit in the groin by a football.  Second, he supposedly "invented" the seveth inning stretch when he got up to stretch during a baseball game, and everyone else did too out of respect.  Just think of how GREAT Taft would be if he could also field dress a moose.  Methinks there'd be an extra face on Mt. Rushmore...

by Kang the Conqueror on 10/04/2008 12:57:45 AM EST


But if memory serves, John Quincy Adams joins Taft and Grover Cleveland as the only other men to leave the White House and return to the government payroll.

Taft-Judicial- CJ of Supreme Court

Adams-Legislative- Housemember (what a demotion!)

Cleveland-Executive-Preside nt

Nice and balanced huh?

Of course, Bill might fuck it all up and take Scalia or someones spot on the bench.

by ProfRich on 10/04/2008 01:03:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
was made for Hillary...it's like she was put on a path to become a supreme court justice, not president...

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 10/04/2008 01:14:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Like to think I would have remembered that if I had looked into it some.

But while we are here, how awkward must that have been?

"Sorry about the bullshit impeachment, Andy.  Nothing personal."

by ProfRich on 10/04/2008 08:18:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
apparently, Johnson was viewed as a statesman by his colleagues.


Also, wasn't there a former president who was a Supreme? Or was that the already mentioned Cleveland?

by perdido619 on 10/04/2008 11:08:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
nope, that was Taft. Got my fat guys confused.

by perdido619 on 10/04/2008 11:09:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]

He was widely despised by the legislature as a president.

He was a marginally reconstructed Southerner who had come from very humble beginnings and had a fondness for exerting his power over rich folks due to lifelong insecurity.

His Reconstruction plan was basically that everyone over a certain threshold of wealth in the South had to personally beg his forgiveness.  What this did to Reconstruct the country is unclear. What it did for Johnson's ego is much easier to imagine.

by ProfRich on 10/05/2008 12:53:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm aware of his strange presidency and party affiliation. He really had no political allies. I think he escaped impeachment conviction by one vote, a Senator from Kansas, I think.

I think , though, beyond the obvious resentment in the South, that his real political problems were in DC.

As far as Reconstruction, as a general issue seperate from Johnson, I understand the Southern resentment. But, I have to be honest here, it ended too soon. It was a mistake to restore voting and office holding rights to participants in the rebellion. Allowing those people and their succeeding generation to retain power only led to Jim Crow, Segregation, racial violence,brutal retalliatory repression, the Bourbons, and, of course, to 20th Century and contemporary politics.

We should have stayed the course of Reconstruction through at least until the succeeding generation had expired. We spent more time and resources on Japan and Germany following WWII. Both of those nations, not to mention their cultures, were transformed for the better. The same can not be said of the American South.


Someone, I think it was hazmat, referred to the Southern States as 'Banana Republics'. I agree. This is my general impression of 20th Century Southern States.
However, I do not include Texas in that view. Texas, is of course, geographically South. But I don't view Texas as a typical Southern State. It's not the Old South. It's more of a Western State in terms of cultural and political complexion.


by perdido619 on 10/05/2008 01:23:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]

You are starting with a basic fallacy.  That the Civil War had anything to do with civil rights and improving the circumstances of blacks.

The point of Reconstruction was to create a new political order that would ensure Republican victories at the polls.  In order to accomplish this, they needed to give the blacks (newly minted Republicans) the franchise.  Disenfranchising the Confederates would help too.

The north didn't abandon improving the lot of black folks in 1876 when Reconstruction ended, they abandoned it as soon as the effort began.  The Freedman's bereau (which would have helped blacks) was underfunded for one year, then not funded at all.  It was never the point.

Get blacks voting Republican was the goal of Reconstruction.

Don't believe me?  Then explain why the GOP agreed to completely undo Reconstruction in the crooked bargain for the presidency in 1876?  It was always about winning elections.

As for Texas, we are Southwestern here in Austin.  East of here is Southern more or less.

by ProfRich on 10/05/2008 11:10:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That LBJ-lovin; Ronnie Earle-lovin'; Bill Clinton-lovin' rag was founded during Reconstruction to support the objectives of the North. Read all about it in a textbook like this.

Texas politics was very interesting in the 1870s. The "liberals" were Northern sympathizers and the "conservatives" were ex-confederate Dixie supporters. Things really haven't changed that much.

It was like the Yarborough-Maverick Democrats versus the "John Tower" Democrats.


by KenTX on 10/05/2008 11:44:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Was a dear, dear friend of the family.

by ProfRich on 10/06/2008 12:05:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You guys probably hung around with Maury Maverick also!

You didn't leave the Texas Democratic Party. The Texas Democratic Party left you, alone, all by yourself.

Now remind me again, didn't Yarbrough have something to do with the seating arrangements that led to the death of JFK in Dealy Plaza?

If and when we get everyone together, we have lots of history to discuss. I'm gonna try to get my friend Karl to come. He can explain vote caging and mailing lists to you.

by KenTX on 10/06/2008 12:19:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't know anything about the JFK assassination and Yarbrough.  I was -9 years old.

by ProfRich on 10/06/2008 01:25:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Austin isn't Southwestern.  Austin cannot be pegged down or classified in one region or grouping.  Austin is truly a unique experience.  There's nothing quite like running the Town Lake trail at 6 AM.  There's nothing quite like the view from the Oasis at sundown.  There's nothing quite like stumbling down the urine stained sidewalks of 6th street at 2:30 in the morning (which I thankfully haven't done in about a decade).  There's nothing quite like catching the glimpse of Leslie Cochran's thong, then shuddering in disgust.  Ahhhh, there's nothing quite like Austin.

by Kang the Conqueror on 10/05/2008 11:49:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Wait, I am in Austin right now.

You can all relax, everything's cool.

PS- I interviewed Leslie during the big Austin marathon (I was a radio reporter, remember).

A few hours later I interviewed Bush.
Then I went home and took a shower.

Yuck!

by ProfRich on 10/06/2008 12:09:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
i don't believe that Reconstruction was to imporve the lot of blacks. I believe that it was to remodel the exsisting social and political order. The effects of a new Southern model to mirror the North, in terms of agricultural and industrial models, as well as actually reconstructing the infrastructure, was never completed.

Because of this, there has always been a marked difference in cultures, creating a Regionalism in the US.

Ultimately, Reconstruction could have acheived a new social and economic order. Instead, the same players regained power, and the Banana Republics restarted. The south sufferered economically from that point through the 20th Century , and in many areas, in the 21st.

The Old South was allowed to retain the old power structure. Even many of the same families that had ruled their respective counties or parishes before the war regained their power.

These structures were/are almost aristocratic. The entire object of the Bourbons was to maintain social structure. Anything changes, including industry and agricultural advances threatened their social and economic superiority, and were institutonally rejected. Southern politics has always been about one thing - maintaining the status quo. It's almost feudal politics.

This is why the South has been decades behind the North until the late 20th Century in terms of economic wealth and industrial development. And while the South has been catching up in the last 30 years, there are many areas that still feel like Third World countries. The same can be said about their agricultural development in the South compared to the North and West.

Sure, the history of blacks in the South is the most obvious effect of Southern politics, but most whites also were locked into a tight social order. Born poor, die poor.

Maintaining Reconstruction for a generation or two would have transformed the South into an agricultural and industrial power. We wouldn't even be talking about 'The South', it wouldn't be a cultural/political Region, it would be a geographic term and nothing more.

Again, i point to the success of post war Germany and Japan to see a good model of reconstruction. They're not the same cultures or economies anymore. Both of these economies rose to the top 5 among world economies in just 40 years time.





by perdido619 on 10/05/2008 11:53:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]

The point I was making is that this didn't happen despite the North trying to stop it, it happened because the North did not give a shit about the blacks (or the Southern whites).  They just wanted to win elections.

The most stunning indictment of the North as Civil Rights heroes is that the third generation after the slaves would grow up to vote solidly Democrat.  The Republicans waged war to free their grandfathers but couldn't keep their loyalty.

Staggering.

by ProfRich on 10/06/2008 12:08:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, despite the sour grapes speculation of the motives behind their ratification, are certainly substantial proof that the North DID care about blacks.

The amendments were the goal of the abolition movement that was older than the country itself, and of course, predates the Republican Party itself.

The point of Reconstruction wasn't about pro-Republican politics. You mentioned Johnson's Reconstruction. Johnson wasn't a Republican. Ending Reconstruction didn't help the Republican party. In fact, it reactivated the voting and office holding status of Southern Democrats. In fact, letting these file bastards lose just allowed them to reprtess the black Rebublican vote in the South. Back to Banana Republic feudal politics as usual, and another 140 years of abject backwardness.

The North WERE the Civil Rights good guys, and the South WERE the Civil Rights bad guys - then, and through the 20th Century and into the 21st.

Reconstruction was about toppling the exsisting social/political structure of the South. A feudal system whose politics was always at odds with the ideas of the Enlightenment that so heavily influenced the Founding Father's.

The Civil War was about Feudal lords refusing to give up their power to the Federal government. This was jnot their right. In the 20 or 30 yers before the Civil War, they liked to claim the 10th Amendment, incorrectly, in ascerting their 'sovereignty', but this was an obvious and fundamentally incorrect interpretaion. When the argument itself was easily dispatched, they moved to amend the constitution to with the Corwin amendment, which, had they not got their collective panties in a bunch over the outrage of their candidate losing the Presidential election and so seceding, may have passed, as it was ratified by 2 states in 1861, immediately before the war.

The so-called 'Southern View' of history, is a complete and total perversion. To me , it's like the historical equivalent of Conservapedia as an alternative to the actual Wikipedia.

To think of the "South" as anything more than a geographic indicator is Regionalism. Great Idea.

The South will Rise Again. I sure hope so. and this time, let's do the country and the world a favor and legally execute the insurrectionists. Then we won't have a "South" and a "North" anymore, and we can get on with our Progress without the hinderence of a bunch of assholes leading us backward into national feudalism, because THAT is the idea behind "The South will rise again." Get it?


by perdido619 on 10/07/2008 02:53:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I have a ton of respect for you as a poster and really want to have this discussion (I am going to tear your Constitutional argument against secession to tiny little pieces, in fact, if you want to reconsider and retract it I will let you) but I just don't have time now.
Here is my proposal.  When things calm down after the election, you and I will have a thread on this and just beat it to death.  I look forward to it as you are a bright guy and I like to hear what you have to say.

But for now, I am struggling to keep up on the election stuff.  I just can't squeeze in the sidebars.

And, Ihavenobias, the Jordan thread is postponed until after the election as well.

In fact, there two or three others I am forgetting that I will deal with over the winter if you guys can wait.

I won't be coaching then or have to go to a middle and high school football game every week for my kids either.  Life, for me will get a little slower in November.

by ProfRich on 10/07/2008 03:37:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Northern Whites didn’t really get interested in the subject of Civil Rights in the South until The First Great Migration and The Second Great Migration. They realized if they didn’t do hurry up and do something about the plight of Southern Blacks, they would soon all become Northern Blacks. As always, self interest prevailed over good hearts and good intentions.

The South shall indeed rise again. The reason is because the South will soon control a sizeable majority of the congressional districts, and the majority of the electoral votes. That means we will control all of the political power in the country.

Perdido is actively promoting and advocating war with the South and the subsequent execution of all Southeners. Nice to see that like Dr King, Perdido also has a dream. The problem with his dream is that unlike 1860, the South now has all the money, power, people, military bases and congressmen.

This time, the conflict will be entirely peaceful. We will use our political power to enact laws creating a Great Foreign Exchange Program, whereby we export non-producing American citizens to other countries, in exchange for immigrants who want to move to America, work and contribute something to the Big American Picnic.

The Democrat Party will disappear overnight.

Rich, after reading Perdido's Manefesto, the time has come for you to join your southern brothers.

by KenTX on 10/07/2008 03:39:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I've stayed out of your pissing match with the Professor, but I feel compelled to jump in.

The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, despite the sour grapes speculation of the motives behind their ratification, are certainly substantial proof that the North DID care about blacks.

The amendments were passed (thankfully for us now, but...) not because they wanted to give blacks equal rights, but as a means to get blacks to vote.  The path to voting is clear:  (1) outlaw slavery, (2) make them citizens, then (3) let them vote.

The North WERE the Civil Rights good guys, and the South WERE the Civil Rights bad guys - then, and through the 20th Century and into the 21st.

If you think the Northerners were some collective enlightened bunch of people who wanted nothing more than to make the US some racial utopia, I've got this bridge I want to sell you.  There are many reasons the North did not have slavery...  many are due to geographic influences and immigration patterns.  Being "morally opposed" to slavery would be like #25 out of 30on the list of reasons why the North did not adopt slavery.  Again, I'm not saying people weren't opposed to slavery in the North.  There were.  But the idea that all Northerners were anti-slavery or opposed to slavery or racially sensative is a Hollywood myth.  Ask yourself this:  If the North was such a great racial utopia, why do so many Northern cities have a long history of racial strife?

The so-called 'Southern View' of history, is a complete and total perversion. To me , it's like the historical equivalent of Conservapedia as an alternative to the actual Wikipedia.

Well, it's easy to address this.  Neither Wiki or Conserva pedias are completely accurate.  Sure, you can (and I have) find good stuff there.  But for the most part, be careful when using them, because they could be tainted.  The same thing can be said about history and historical accounts.  The phrase that comes to mind is, "History is written by the winners."  Just because the North won doesn't mean the Northern account is the most correct account.  I think there has been a lot of simplification when dealing with these very complex issues.  And sadly, when studying US History, many people are content to gloss over the Civil War's true causes and effects in favor of showing Glory or North and South.  I'm reminded of the episode of the Simpsons where Homer is tutoring Apu for his citizenship exam.  Homer asks, "What caused the Civil War?"  Apu answers, "Well, there were many complex issues involved including states rights, debates over tariffs and economic..."  At this point Homer cuts him off and says, "Just say slavery."  That's what I have seen happen in classrooms, firsthand.  Let's not oversimplify the North as the "good guys."

by Kang the Conqueror on 10/07/2008 03:40:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
OK - here's my brief response. Although my heart really isn't in it.

The amendments were passed (thankfully for us now, but...) not because they wanted to give blacks equal rights, but as a means to get blacks to vote.  The path to voting is clear:  (1) outlaw slavery, (2) make them citizens, then (3) let them vote.

No, the abolitionist movement pre-dated botht the Republican Party and the Constitution itself. And it WAS based solely on morality.

If you think the Northerners were some collective enlightened bunch of people who wanted nothing more than to make the US some racial utopia, I've got this bridge I want to sell you.

I never said that.

There were.  But the idea that all Northerners were anti-slavery or opposed to slavery or racially sensative is a Hollywood myth.  Ask yourself this:  If the North was such a great racial utopia, why do so many Northern cities have a long history of racial strife?

I also didn't say this. In fact, my view of Reconstruction in my comments doesn't really mention slavery at all. Read my comments again. You seem to be creating and arguing against a straw man. My view is different than this.


Well, it's easy to address this.  Neither Wiki or Conserva pedias are completely accurate.  Sure, you can (and I have) find good stuff there.  But for the most part, be careful when using them, because they could be tainted.  The same thing can be said about history and historical accounts.  The phrase that comes to mind is, "History is written by the winners."  Just because the North won doesn't mean the Northern account is the most correct account


There is no "Northen Account". The term is "Southern View". there is no "Northern View". The "Southern View" is famous for being a Southern slanted, apologist propaganda taught in southern schools.


My post didn't address the cause of the Civil War. Just read my comments about reconstruction again, especially the statements about the Southern social/political structure. i wasn't talking about slavery.


And while it is true that there is racism in the North, no doubt. It's indisputable that the South has a history of institutionalized racism.  But that wasn't really the point of the comments. None of my comments were about racism or slavery really.

If you don't get it, what I was implying was that the South had a tradition of politics as the domain of the wealthy landowner. and those in power did everything they could to maintain that status quo to the detriment of the interests of everyone else. The South suffered economically for this very reason. The policy decisions at both the local and the state level sought only to maintain the exsisting power structure for the exsisting families in power.

"You want to build a factory in my county, Yankee? Nope."  Any knew industry or business ventures or agricultural advances that didn't directly benefit those in power were opposed. Any event could possibly shift the power structure was opposed. and not just through legal or legislative means.

Again, the Old South was before the war, and after Reconstruction, Banana Republics with their own power structures. Our "Northern&quo t; (that's ridiculous) ideas of egalitarian democracy are the exact opposite of Southern society and politics. The Founding Fathers didn't have this backward aristocratic, feudal, backward political and social structure in mind.

Most of the South was, and in some areas still is, like a Third World country - a history of powerful wealthy families, poverty, poor education, lack of industrialization, election fraud, voter suppression - including violent voter suppression. this isn't because they lack resources. that's the South.

Again, the base cause of the secession and the following war was that the power in the South feared their loss of power.

And all this talk of "complex issues" that Southern apologists like to say - all this "Oh, this tariff and that regulation - they were picking on us and we had enough."

They seceded because their candidate lost the 1860 election. That's all.

State's Rights, slavery, bla bla bla. The pro-slavery candidate lost, and South Carolina immediately seceded. Would they have seceded had Breckenridge won? There ya go. There's your "complex" reason.

Stop thinking of yourself as a "Southerner". It's Regionalism. Northeners don't think of themselves as Northerners.

And if you really want to defend the South, and it's history and politics, you should just vote GOP, because that's the South. that's the Southern idea of politics. Feudalisdm. You might live in the South but if you think that "The South" is anything more than a geographic area, then go right ahead.







 

by perdido619 on 10/07/2008 04:37:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I gotta tell you this, briefly, since I'm pressed for time here.

If you think that this is a Northern/Southern issue, you're barking up the wrong tree. i don't believe in "The South". I don't think of myself as a Northerner, but just as I have been into an us/them dichotomy by the GOP by default, the North/South thing, is the same thing to me. It's a granfallon.

Contemporary conservatives like to say that their enemies (like terrorists, homosexuals, communists, liberals) threaten their way of life. The Southern leaders had the EXACT same phrase to describe the North - that it "threatened the Southern way of life". I know you've heard that before.

If you don't see the connection between the GOP and "The South", take a look at an electoral map.

And again, I'd like to point out that there's a difference between the South and "The South".

by perdido619 on 10/07/2008 05:04:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I wrote this nice long detailed post at work (when I should have been working!), but either forgot to hit "POST" or my computer was having a fit.  In either case, I too don't have a lot of time tonight, as I have to get dinner cooked and eaten, clean up the kitchen, and then sit down and enjoy the debate.

BTW, I love  how the punditry is spinning this one:  "Obama has the edge on the economic issues, but McCain is a pro in the town hall style!"  OK, media, we get it...  you want us to tune in even though this thing is in the can...

In any case, I think the Professor had the right idea.  We can debate this all we want, but pretty soon, we're just going to do it all over again when Rich is ready to rumble.  Lets postpone the rumble for mid-November.  Gives me a chance to practice my knife skills.

 

by Kang the Conqueror on 10/07/2008 07:03:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]

You are the Mexican with the knife.  Cause you're Mexican.

I guess that's fair since you actually are Mexican, Ken pretends to be and I, like y'all, live in Old New Mexico.

Have you stopped for a minute and realized Ken is on our team on this one.

Anyhoo, speaking of us three uniting, how can anyone focus on this election nonsense with a war about to break out in Dallas!

Hook 'Em!!!!!

by ProfRich on 10/08/2008 12:49:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I have posted three or four times now on my work computer but I cannot see my posts, so I have no idea if they are getting through or if my computer is contemplating seppuku.  In either case, this will be my final test.  If this doesn't go through, then I guess I'm down to just posting at home...  the thought of having to work... *shudder*

As far as Texas-OU?  I am pleasantly surprised seeing the Longhorns play.  I didn't see them as strong as an OU, but I have more confidence in them now than I did before the season started.  Regardless of the outcome, I'll Come Early, Be Loud, Stay Late, and Wear Orange.  Hook 'Em!!!

Incidentally, I saw a "funny" headline in the Austin-American Statesman:  Turnovers will be Important in Texas-OU Game.  Really?  How can the Statesman go out on a limb like that?  That's some envelope pushing journalism right there.

by Kang the Conqueror on 10/08/2008 02:01:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]

There's a lot of fried shit at the State Fair, after all.

Cause if they are talking about picks and fumbles, wow!

As for the Horns, coming in I was thinking 8-4 would be bad, 10-2 would be good and 9-3 would be about right.  Our schedule is BRUTAL.

Except no one told Colt McCoy.  That dude is a serious Heisman candidate.  In fact, the QB of the winning team in Dallas is the Heisman frontrunner and his team is #1.  

Now as happy as I am with our passing game, our running game needs a workhorse and that is a serious issue.  The defense has been much more energetic and inspired and the front seven are dominant.

All that being said, I still think OU is a bit better team.  They are the clear #1 in my mind.  The difference is before the year began I gave Texas very little chance in this game, now I say its 40-60.  

At least, after this week we get to relax and host #3 Missouri.  Oh Shit!

Guess we will have to wait a week to relax.  Let's see that would be undefeated #17 Oklahoma State.

Son of a bitch.

One more week?  #7 Texas Tech in Lubbock (the Longhorns own private hell.)

Wait, there it is.  FIVE Saturdays from now.  Baylor!

That should give us a chance to get rested before #16 Kansas the next week.

Then we get an off week!

by ProfRich on 10/08/2008 02:41:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Completely agree.  And we better make a new thread because this one is getting hard to read...


If we win, it'll be because of Colt McCoy, and if we win, I'll willingly have his child.  Somehow, someway, but I will do it.

by Kang the Conqueror on 10/08/2008 03:42:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I think Colt has to be a serious pro prospect.

He has good size, very good speed, he is bright, never even heard of off-field problems, good poise and, most impressively, he makes accurate throws while running.

This particular skill will make NFL scouts drool!

What it means is you can overcome a below average line by moving the pocket and still being able to pass.  The NFL is not really all that interested in running QBs, but guys who can move and still pass effectively while in motion?  They are gold.

by ProfRich on 10/08/2008 04:27:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
History is so much more fun when laced with profanity...That's gotta be the first time i've heard of TJ referred to as either "TJ", or a "straight up bad-ass".

Awesome

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 10/04/2008 01:04:34 AM EST


Its not so much that I like to pretend me and Jefferson were friends so I can call him TJ (although I totally would have) as I am lazy and like to type less.

And if anyone here or anywhere else wants to argue that TJ wasn't a "straight up bad ass" that is a debate I am willing to have.  He did more to create everything that makes American worthwhile than anyone else.  Maybe more than everyone else.

I am gonna go to my administration and suggest if they take the handcuffs off on this whole profanity thing our test scores might go up.

Cross your fingers.

by ProfRich on 10/04/2008 08:58:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
And if anyone here or anywhere else wants to argue that TJ wasn't a "straight up bad ass" that is a debate I am willing to have.

Too bad Gouverneur Morris isn't here to have that debate with you.

by Twba on 10/04/2008 03:13:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You might consider why liberals always try to claim Jefferson as one of their own. He was the ultimate States' Righter. He espoused limited Federal Government. He saw small businessmen (farmers) as the backbone of America. He would have laughed at the notion of federal entitlements, such as socialized medicine. He sent Marines to the Shores of Tripoli to kill Islamic jihadists.

by KenTX on 10/07/2008 11:40:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]

In order,

1. The GOP doesn't give a shit about state's rights.  As do the dems, they promote it when it helps them and abandon it when it doesn't.  Besides "states rights" is just conservative code for racism and imposing religion on people through government.  See Bush v. Gore, attempts at a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage etc.

2. Limited federal government?  Please! You big government, shit on the constitution, habeas corpus hating, deficit growing hypocrites have reinvented big government.  This is a joke, right?

3. He saw working people, common folk as the backbone of America.  Trying to equate 18th century yeoman farmers to the corporate fat cat's conservatives worship at the altar of is jut insulting.

4. No he wouldn't have.  In fact, he supported the French in their proto-entitlements following the Revolution.  This one is patently and provably unture.

5. He sent Marines to the shores of Tripoli to fight pirates.  In the treaty to end the war he went way out of his way to painstakingly explain religion had nothing to do with it.  In fact, he wrote, "Being as the United States is not a Christian nation..." in that treaty.

by ProfRich on 10/08/2008 12:57:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
How does any one individual know so much about VPs?

I didn't think I could make it thru the whole thing but you have a nice flow/writing voice, so I did.

Y

by chrisandyasemin on 10/04/2008 01:13:47 AM EST


Nice words from one of our forums best writers.

How do I know all this?

If you want to really know a subject, teach it.

In AP US History we have to go into a level of great detail and it is mostly lecture.   Lecture on these things six times a year for a few years and you pick up a thing or two.

I am glad people read it and enjoyed it.  I think most people think of US History as Revolution, Civil War, WWI, Great Depression, WWII, and then whatever they remember personally.

I did when I started teaching.  Turns out a bunch of really interesting shit happened in the 19th century outside of 1861-1865.  Like Tyler and Polk, for example.

by ProfRich on 10/04/2008 11:18:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
How ya been man?  Haven't seen ya for a while...

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 10/04/2008 02:22:22 AM EST


My great grandfather's name was Millard Fillmore Percival.  He rode with his parents in an oxcart on the Oregon Trail from Missouri to Oregon in 1854-55 when he was 5 years old.  I haven't figured out why my great great grandparents named their son after Millard Fillmore, but it's sort of funny. 

Would that be as bad as calling your baby girl Sarah Palin today?  Please don't say yes Professor.

by desertpear on 10/04/2008 03:20:52 AM EST


I replied to your post in 40 minutes, but I didn't see it for 30 minutes. I can accomplish a lot of genealogy rese arch in five minutes.

by KenTX on 10/04/2008 04:12:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
thats really impressive.. what you gonna do next pull a rabbit out of your hat?

by Chinese Democracy on 10/04/2008 06:30:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Seriously.  What the hell is your damage?

Read my sentence you claimed was wrong. More specifically read it in the context of the article.  Or better yet find a literate friend to read it to you.

“That is if you don't count Cheney, who, shadow government aside, is the only man to be acting president for a day without assuming the office of the presidency.”

Your counter-argument?  G.H.W. Bush was acting president for Reagan.  

Anyone else see what is wrong with Ken's argument?

Maybe you should spend less time preening and more time thinking about what pointless detail you are going to niggle in a post of mine that wasn't even really that political.  You just HAVE to attack everything I say even if there is no reason to.

Have you figured out how you made an ass of yourself yet?

Oh, and I was wrong on the pardon thing.  I am big boy, I can admit that.  Can you admit you are wrong here?  Can you even understand what everyone else in this forum can see is wrong with your argument?

Anyone want to help Sparky the Wonderfuck out?

by ProfRich on 10/04/2008 10:06:36 AM EST


Look at this post from the "historian".

How many mistakes can you count?

by KenTX on 10/11/2008 01:35:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Do you realize how pathetic you look?

You say something stupid, can't figure out why its stupid, so you post a link to something I said four months ago and admitted I slipped up?

I am embarrassed for you.

by ProfRich on 10/12/2008 01:18:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Man to man. Let's see what you're made of.

Compare your mistake with my mistake.

Now then. Which mistake is more glaring? Which mistake makes the poster look more idiotic? Which one of us claims to be an "historian"?

You want to trade insults? When you have your nose broken (figuratively) after posting a nasty, unwarranted attack, don't cry about it. Just shut the hell up and walk away.

by KenTX on 10/12/2008 01:31:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]

I make mistakes.  When I do, I acknowledge it and move on, as you proved in your link.

When you fuck up, it turns into...... hit "Parent" about ten times and see.

Grow up, Ken.

You might get a little of the respect you have lost lately back.

by ProfRich on 10/12/2008 02:13:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Of saying she hasn't had anyone to fight with...you know how turks love a good fight!

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 10/04/2008 11:14:31 AM EST


I don't think I have made fun of your father.  I'm actually pretty careful to avoid insulting peoples' parents.  Such a sensitive subject!  If I have, I'm sorry.

by desertpear on 10/04/2008 09:07:12 PM EST


I've also made jokes about Ken's father, and I'm actually a little hurt that I was left out.  Come on Ken...  I've stalked you as good as anyone else.  Don't forget me.  In fact, I did it just a few days ago when he was taking his "break".

I guess I'll just have to try harder to be memorable next time.

by Spencer on 10/04/2008 10:08:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That's why I love the turkletons.

by desertpear on 10/05/2008 01:30:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You have been nothing but disrepectful in the general and the specific.

This is not to say that I advocate attacks on someone's parents or any such nonsense. But this is an insane plea for respect coming from you.


In fact, in my opinion, your entire worldview and political perspective is derived solely from your own contempt for anyone Other.

Your contempt for Other informs and generates the socio-political paradigm, and the socio-political paradigm informs and generates the contempt, in a spiraling circle.




by perdido619 on 10/04/2008 10:59:59 PM EST


I believe that you are conservative. I also take your posts at face value.


But, on the other hand, I have previously considered that you may have been some sock puppet invented to generate posts and provide a punching bag as an advocate of unadulterated GOP Talking Points, as your positions draw a caricature of a typical conservative dumbass.

But I dismissed this on the gounds that it was speculatory, with no evidence, and that the only reasonable position is to consider your comments at face value.

If there are any other long time members of the forum that would care to validate this, I would like to hear this from them.

Does any other long time member care to support this?


by perdido619 on 10/04/2008 11:33:31 PM EST


Long term participants know that I hold three primary conservative positions:

1. Tax cuts

2. Economic growth

3. American Hegemony

Outside of that, I really have no political core values.

Your intolerance to any conservative idea is your problem, not mine.

by KenTX on 10/04/2008 11:40:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I was asking for OTHER long time members to support your assertion that you aren't a total dickwad.

I gotta be honest with you Ken, I think your back-peddle is because you recognize that you've crossed some lines recently.

At the moment, I don't buy it based solely on your word, but I'm willing to entertain this as a possibility.

So, do the other long-term members back this up?



by perdido619 on 10/04/2008 11:54:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Don't worry, he'll be back to his old tricks by tomorrow.  Let me predict--a blog pushing Sarah's latest talking point associating Obama with terrorists.  Crossing lines is his specialty; I don't think he's feeling remorseful or anything. 

The real KenTX is a 17-year-old female college student in New York doing a psychology experiment.

 

by desertpear on 10/05/2008 01:25:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Still no support for Ken's claim.

by perdido619 on 10/05/2008 05:30:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You might remember this brief scene from the television sitcom Cheers.

Carla Tortelli: I am never going to be afraid to go to the dentist again. I found a way to communicate with him.
Norm Peterson: How was that?
Carla Tortelli: Well, as he leaned in with his drill, I grabbed him where I knew I could get his attention, and I said, "We're not going to hurt each other, are we."
Diane Chambers: Carla, did that work?
Carla Tortelli: We're having a late dinner.

I’ve been trading perspective with liberals in this forum for more than four years. Long time participants like Hubble and Tim and Jarett and Jesse and Lord Foul and SPENCER disagree with nearly everything I say, and they never miss an opportunity to bust my balls, but they tolerate my participation. In fact, they might even admit that they enjoy my participation because the repartee is fun.

I enjoy debating politics with liberals, and that’s why I’m here. On the other hand, I do not enjoy trading personal insults. It’s annoying, distracting, and a complete waste of my time. It’s bad karma all around.

Occasionally, I am forced to focus my attention on participants who insist on attacking in a personal manner. Over time, I always wear them down. They learn to play nice because the alternative simply isn’t worth it.

I am very pleased to report that this weekend I was able to convert another participant from a vicious attack dog into a friendly opponent. I achieved this outcome by using the Carla Tortelli approach. (Everything else had failed.)

I like friendly opponents, and that’s why the olive branch is always extended. Eventually, you too will be a friendly opponent. Give peace a chance.

by KenTX on 10/05/2008 08:25:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
At this point, we are waiting for some of these aforementioned liberal friends/TYT members to support your recantation.


Perhaps you might lobby a few of them through PM, Ken. Maybe they haven't read the thread. As I said, before, I don't buy it, but I would be persuaded if others support your claim.

Again, does any long-time member support Ken's claims?



by perdido619 on 10/05/2008 09:01:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Carla Tortelli technique sounds like a threat to me.

What exactly are you threatening me with? More insulting comments, namecalling? Have it at, pal.

by perdido619 on 10/05/2008 09:06:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Even while you are reading a post filled with comments such as:

“I do not enjoy trading personal insults. It’s annoying, distracting, and a complete waste of my time. It’s bad karma all around.”

”I am very pleased to report that this weekend I was able to convert another participant from a vicious attack dog into a friendly opponent.”

”I like friendly opponents, and that’s why the olive branch is always extended. Eventually, you too will be a friendly opponent. Give peace a chance.”

Your problem is that your objective is strife. You always want a fight.

Over the years, I’ve tangled with opponents possessing far greater knowledge and logic skills than you, and they were all ultimately pacified as a result of receiving a relentless barrage of logical ass kickings.

That’s “ass kicking” in a figurative, not literal sense. Nobody in this virtual world ever interacts in person.

by KenTX on 10/05/2008 10:43:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm not looking for a fight. I'm waiting for someone to support your earlier recantation.


So far, no takers.

Again, I suggest that you private message those liberal friends/TYT members that you mentioned earlier, inform them of the thread, and ask them to support your claim.

And once again, can any long-time member support Ken's claim?


by perdido619 on 10/05/2008 11:15:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You probably need to restate "the claim". The problem is that nobody, including me, understands what you're talking about.

by KenTX on 10/05/2008 11:36:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I have fun of you about your dad a lot.

There is a big difference.

 

by ProfRich on 10/04/2008 11:39:16 PM EST


I never made fun of your Dad. Just you when you say things like "my Dad is so awesome, he played college football and everything".

by z1p101 on 10/05/2008 06:07:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
And all three living grandparents.

by ProfRich on 10/05/2008 12:20:18 AM EST


I have no living grandparents anymore--cherish them while you have them.

by desertpear on 10/05/2008 01:27:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
But they all voted for Kerry and Gore, because they are still pissed off at Lincoln, just like Granny Clampett. My Granny Jessie and my wife's Aunt Sue both voted for every Dem since FDR. They said they're not voting this year. Cousin Bobbie, who hates all Republicans, is voting for Sarah Palin. I don't think there is any real Pubs for Boms movement, but there are a hell of a lot of Dems voting against Obama.

by KenTX on 10/05/2008 02:41:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Since all you have to go on is anecdotal evidence, let me throw in my own story to cancel out yours.  My mother, very much a Reagan lover is voting for Obama.  She's 62.  My father, who served in the military for years, fought and was decorated many times over in Vietnam, came home and raised a family, got sick, and received ZERO VA benefits, is voting for Obama.  He's 68.  My aunts and uncles, ranging in age from late 60s to younger 50s are all voting for Obama.  My very conservative god father (age 65), who has pictures with him and Nixon, him and Ford, him and Reagan, him and Bush (41) and a group shot of him and Bush (43) and Cheney is (guess what?) voting for Obama.

Now, unlike Ken, I am not making up "facts" to drive home my arguement.  All these people are in fact real, the details are in fact real, and I'd be happy to put you in touch with any and all of them to verify it.

The reason they are all voting for Obama?  Well, it varies, but the long and the short of it is, people don't trust (in this order): Palin, the Rethuglicans, and John McCain.  My god father, whom I love very much despite disagreeing with politically, told me, "This might be the first time I'm voting for the Democrat, but it's also the first time in a long time I feel like my vote will do some good."

So, Ken, tell me a story about how your great aunt Edna slept with FDR and has voted for the Dems since 1932, but has suddenly jumped ship to McSame.  Or how about the time your cousin fourth removed from your father's side once had a threesome with JFK and Marilyn Monroe while Bobby Kennedy took pictures, and now HE'S suddenly jumped to the Rethuglican ticket.

I liked it better when you recited your "Golden EIB microphone" talking points...  Much like Palin, you really suck when you go off script and try to argue on your own.

by Kang the Conqueror on 10/05/2008 06:07:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Kang wrote:

I liked it better when you recited your "Golden EIB microphone" talking points...  Much like Palin, you really suck when you go off script and try to argue on your own.

You don't know the half of it.

Anyone have the football thread bookmarked?

The "Daddy worship" thread?

The "Pipe-laying across the nation thread"?

We could have a message board entirely devoted to Ken going off script.  Its been a few months since we have had a full blown classic but, for you new posters, it is worth the wait.

Old-timers, tell the noobs true.  I am not exaggerating, am I?

by ProfRich on 10/05/2008 11:53:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Is to get attention. You are gagging for it.

You judge your self worth based on how many replies you can garner from bored posters responding to your latest line of complete horse shit. In fact you are more interested in the attention than having an honest debate.

If the goal is to get ANYONE to consider conservatism as a viable option. Then someone else needs to do it, as you are an obnoxious hateful racist ideologically blinded homophobic prick.

By the way referring to yourself in the 3rd person doesn't go very far in making you seem less creepy.

by Chinese Democracy on 10/05/2008 03:59:24 AM EST


A couple of weekends ago, my wife and I took my parents to a fundraiser featuring Asleep At The Wheel, which is definitely Barack Obama’s favorite country and western band.

The event was held in the small town where my parents met over 50 years ago. It was very nice to see them out on the dance floor, boot scootin’ on the sawdust, and moving damn good for their age.

by KenTX on 10/05/2008 06:43:30 AM EST


I have spent many a night at Greune Hall or The Broken Spoke or any of hundred dance halls across the Lone Star State watching some old couple two stepping around the sawdust to Asleep at the Wheel or some other local Texas legend.  I used to work with local Texas country artists.

Brings back good memories.

Nice to have a pleasant association with Ken every once in a while.

by ProfRich on 10/05/2008 11:22:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Next time The Wheel is playing Greune, I might invite you and Kang and the wives. Drinks and tickets are on me. All other Turks are invited as well.

I usually prefer the patio outdoors, because it can be hot and crowded inside. But if we can get a turnout, I'll get there early and get us a big table upfront.

I'm a big live music guy. In retirement, I plan to bounce back and forth between Austin and Nashville. I have family in both towns.

by KenTX on 10/05/2008 11:34:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]

The wife is a big Greune fan.  Although she has never had the heavenly pleasure of a Chicken Fried Steak at the Gristmill next door.

She is pretty fond of Kang, too, believe it or not.

Non-Texas Turks, this is actually a pretty fantastic offer.  You might consider a road trip.

Fair warning: Austin is bursting with extremely beautiful women.  Ask Kang and Ken.

by ProfRich on 10/06/2008 12:05:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Admission and drinks are on KenTX.

What about ihavenoicescraperanymore?

Didn't he move to Austin?

by KenTX on 10/06/2008 12:09:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
gas prices seem to be making road trips a thing of the past these days.  drill baby drill ;)  I think I would like parts of Texas. 

by desertpear on 10/06/2008 02:05:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Anyone seen the band Los Pinkys down there in Austin and surrounds?  Before they moved to Austin, they were my favorite band in Berkeley, but they couldn't draw the crowds they deserved playing Tex-Mex conjunto in the Bay Area. 

I dance a mean polka with a good lead.

by desertpear on 10/06/2008 12:44:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The sound quality of the YouTube video doesn’t do them justice, but I can appreciate what they’re laying down.

I see why they moved to Texas, because they would be popular in the Mexican dance halls, the Austin clubs, the outdoor festivals, and the Check halls (where they dance polka).

by KenTX on 10/06/2008 01:11:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
yeah, that wasn't too lively of a tune there, unfortunately.  I'd sure love to see them down there with a good crowd dancing up a storm.

by desertpear on 10/06/2008 02:02:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]

I was very active (like every damn night) in the local music scene back when it was part of my job.

That would have been from about 1995-2001.  Since then I got a real job, got married and had a baby plus the two stepkids.

I don't go see music much anymore and haven't since around 2003.  If they were here before then, I missed then.  If it was after then, I haven't been around.

by ProfRich on 10/06/2008 01:24:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
but you can't see everything I guess. 

by desertpear on 10/06/2008 02:06:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Until just now.  Stubborn?  Sure.  A little zealous?  Definitely.  But I never thought you were a full-blown retard until just now.  I'm talking Tropic-Thunder-Full-retard here.  Wow.

Yes, Ken. you are right.  In your infinite wisdom, you somehow managed to ascertain that my godfather, the man who I said had a group picture of himself with Bush and Cheney (among many other big-name Rethuglicans), them man who I said never voted for a Democrat for ANY office, that man...  you somehow managed to figure out that the man voted for Kerry, and that I'm a fucking liar.  Here's what you get:

*golf clap*

Why the golf clap? Because I have never read a post on the internet (and I've been on the internet going back to the good old days of 14.4 telephone modems and pre-AOL service) as stupid as yours.  Bravo, sir.  Bravo.

by Kang the Conqueror on 10/05/2008 07:42:35 PM EST


 Display: