I hope this is merely an expression of frustration. Or you just need a tan and some vit D (i know i do!)
Today is President’s Day. What a dumb holiday So many presidents have been awful. They are not royalty, and we are not their subjects.
I usually have sex on president's day, Clinton style. But I can't this year since I'm clear across the country from Jane, my wife (and her Monica costume)!
If you were going to do it Clinton style, you'd cheat on your wife. Meanwhile, your wife is actually named Jane? Wasn't the actual George Jetson married to a Jane? Or was it Judy? I always confuse the wife and daughter
There's no point either way. They never proved the "sample" on her dress came (pun) from Clinton since so many people from Arkansas have the same DNA!
Bill and Monica seem so retro, when we have strippers, pussy grabbing, etc., right here, right now. Not to mentions so many other "misdemeanors". How would Jane react to those?
Get out your Confederate dollars boys, the South is risin' again! When reading Lincoln Unmasked, did it occur to you that you might be reading propaganda? The author, Thomas Dilorenzo is a right wing ideologue and economist, not an historian, writing out of his field to deliver a one-sided screed that trashes not only Lincoln but many respected Lincoln historians, notably Eric Foner. His revisionist history fits well with the Trumpian view of the Civil War as "unnecessary'.The book is thinly documented, relying mostly on sympathetic right wing sources, cherry picked facts, and spin to give an unbalanced picture. A similar hatchet job could be done for the other Presidents on Rushmore. Washington and Jefferson owned slaves, and Jefferson had sex with one of his. Teddy Roosevelt was a war monger who called Hispanics "Dagos". In other words, these presidents were human and flawed. The great sainted Reagan was nothing to write home about either, and FDR--don't get me started. Dilorenzo is a radical right wing confederate sympathizer who thinks the South had a right to secede, we'd be better off with a more confederal form of government and the extremist pro-confederate League of the South "advocates peace and prosperity in the tradition of a George Washington or a Thomas Jefferson." The fact is that the South had a slave-based economy, and no doubt still would if it hadn't been defeated. Lincoln deserves credit for that defeat.
Looks like you copied and pasted that. Almost word for word. May I ask where? Also, if civil war was necessary in ending slavery, than how come every slavery-based country was able to abolish it without going to war?
I doubt the latter. They probably would have given it up reluctantly by now. I think for a large part due to international pressure, and because all other nations who would deliver 'fresh' working force abolished slavery in the next decades after the northern USA. But this is getting real hypothetical of course. How does it look like that? Enlighten me!
Looks can be deceiving. I didn't copy or paste any of it, and thought it up out of my own head. May I ask how you got the idea that I did, since you ask where and essentially accused me of plagiarism?
You folks might want do a little fact checking. See where the South's cotton was sent and who processed it.
Possibly. But there was quite a breeding stock in the South by then. Anyhow, the history of the U.S. would have been radically different. I think the North would have done well, but the U.S. might not have been the superpower it became. But as you say, very hypothetical.