TexasCHLforum.com

Salty1 wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:

Salty1 wrote:it is too bad that groups only post information on facebook, guess they do not realize or care that many people who would attend refuse to use it

There are 2 billion FB users... that is roughly 1/4 of the planet, and in North America there are 234 million FB accounts out of a total US and Canada population of 357 million... that is 65%. You are behind the times and in the minority... can't help you with that.

So because others do it then everybody else should as well? I would also suggest that the amount of people who truly believe in this country and would like to return to the Constitution as written are also in the minority? Are they also behind in the times and should they just conceed to the beliefs of those who change the meaning of the Constitution to meet their political beliefs?

Personally i care about my personal information and try to limit where it is, if yiou and others choose to put you life out in cyber space so be it that is a decision that you make. Just because some of us choose not to does not mean we are behind the times and to claim such shows pure ignorance on your part....

The question is how does one get their message out to the greatest number of folks in an efficient manner? It makes logical sense to start with social media outlets because the majority of people are active on those sites. At the opposite end of the spectrum are folks who don't own a radio or TV, never leave their house and live 50 miles from their closest neighbor. It would be very difficult to reach those folks and someone trying to get a message out to as many people as possible should probably just skip them.

Then there are folks like yourself who are somewhere in the middle of that spectrum since you are active on this site at a minimum. So it's a good thing that someone posted on here so you could get the info.

And I would say that someone with no presence, or a minimal presence, on social networking sites is in fact behind the times by definition. But that's not exactly a bad thing. I am proud to be behind the times myself.

skeathley wrote:VERY good summary of the secession issue. Slavery was only one part of a much bigger problem, one that we are beginning to face again. That whole period is purposely misinterpreted to gain political points. I see the atmosphere today as very similar to the 1850s, when a man named Helper wrote a book urging the North to invade the South and kill landowners, and the govt said nothing.

I agree that the issues behind that Civil War are misrepresented. But I do enjoy reminding my Democratic friends that they belong to the party of slavery, and if not for the actions of a great Republican president, we might still have people in chains like their party leaders wanted.

If they want to insist that it was all about slavery, then we can at least remind them what side they were on.

The Annoyed Man wrote: Prior to the first Civil War (yes, I used the word "first" deliberately),

Personally, I always think of the first Civil War (for residents of what is now known as the United States) as being the one in which certain British colonies asserted their right to secede from the British Empire. So by that measure the conflict you are referencing would be the second Civil War. And the "rebels" are one for two.

Or, thinking of Texas specifically, the first Civil War would be when the people of Texas decided to secede from Mexico. Those same folks (or their descendants) later fought in the same second Civil War as the rest of the folks above. They are also one for two.

It might well be time to have us a tie breaker....