It's true, I would say I average more than 4 times a week. I have done 7 times in a row for lunch many times. I got back in town from Chicago lat night and I have already been to Popeyes twice. I would say I have been to my corner Popeyes close to 400 times in the last few years. I like routines, they make me comfortable. I have read about guys who have had a Big Mac for lunch every day like for 30 years. I am kinda like that except I get a chicken sandwich and I have been doing it for about four years. And I am healthy, I run marathons. But I eat like a 10 year old black kid with irresponsible parents.
I complained as a kid to my mom about the bed making thing. I have also done the same thing to my wife although she's the one that makes it every day so not sure why I'm complaining. We used to eat Popeye's about once/month but kind of gave it up due to the overload of grease (my older body feels the effects more these days). I picked up some to-go Popeye's about two months ago and my older son (9 yrs old) tried it for the first time. He was making all of these satified grunting noises with his first few bites and loves it now. His Thanksgiving request was Popeye's (we would have been fine with that since we didn't do the traditional cooking this year but they were closed). While I like Popeye's, I now prefer getting wings with different sauces and dips at other places if I'm going to intentionally damage my body. I didn't realize Popeye's was so available on the east coast.
I believe you're mistaken. The Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, contains the the proposal "that all men are created equal." At any rate, Lincoln used the War Powers found in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution to free slaves, considered to be spoils of war, in the states that had seceded from the Union. (Please don't take my word for it; read one of Lincoln's explanations here: http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/conkling.htm ) It specifically did not free slaves in states loyal to the Union where slavery still existed, nor did it free slaves in former Confederate states that had fallen to the Union army. So the question then becomes was the Confederacy a separate nation or was it merely a group of American states resisting their Federal government? If the Confederacy was a separate nation, then no Constitutional authority existed for the President to seize the property of a sovereign nation, under the control of that nation, at war with the United States (though I will concede that recognized war powers allow such a seizure in parts of the sovereign nation under control of the nation it is at war with). And, therefore, his action was unconstitutional. If, on the other hand, the Confederate states were still part of the Union, then the mechanism to end slavery existed within the Constitution and, perhaps more importantly, the War Powers in Art. II, Sec. 2 did not come into play and his action was unconstitutional. At bottom, the Emancipation Proclamation was a symbolic political act, the constitutionality of which could only have been decided by the courts but the question never reached them, mainly due to the passage of the 13th Amendment, which rendered the question moot. And, yes, I have a problem with a President -- or Congress, or the courts -- reaching outside of the boundaries of the Constitution to correct a problem when the mechanism for correction is found within the document. The Constitution contains the foundational rules for operating our government and is flexible enough to allow changes to those rules over time. It does not, however, contemplate changing those rules by one person, or even one branch of our government. Lincoln's action was to vest himself with enormous power neither found in nor authorized by the document he was sworn to uphold and protect. Lincoln's action was not civil disobedience; it was an expansion of the power of an office he would eventually leave but whose power would not contract with his departure. I also find it interesting that we're debating only one of the two examples I cited. No thoughts on the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus?
you're really defending the indefensible and splitting hairs, the declaration of independence was the precursor to the constitution, without the declaration there wouldnt be a constitution Whats wrong is wrong, the constitution isnt a perfect document, it has flaws and one being it was written by humans, that controlled other humans. The exact same reason why the declaration was written because of the exisitence and notion of the Divine Right of Kings. So the mechanism embedded in the document that spells out freedoms of individuals it was written for, but didnt recognize blacks as full people, is still pretty hypocritical to me. Lincoln's action was taking the moral high rode in a society that was supposed to be better than England, 7th Century Ottoman Empire and B.C Cush Ethiopian Empires and Egyptian Empires. And changing over time phrase is complete bullshit to me, how long was slavery was supposed to go before over time kicked in. Those mechanism in that document were operated by the exact people who didnt want to end slavery. So what wait a decade or how about another century? It was wrong and to wait on the mechanism dealing with human life is a wait in immorality. This wasnt a spending bill about when a road should be built. Also I didnt ask about habeas corpus, but lets talk about that as well. Article 2 Section 9 clearly states that the The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, UNLESS when in CASE of REBELLION or Invasion the public Safety may require it. As far as I am concern a secession is a rebellion.
I really do like Popeyes but the ones here in south Louisiana that I go to seem to have terrible service. I feel like I'm bothering them by making an order and they make me pay for it by forcing me to wait for my food. In fact, I went to Popeyes for the first time in a couple of months yesterday and I waited about 12 minutes for my food. Every other restaurant has this problem at some of it's restaurants (except chik fil a) but popeyes seems to have this problem at all of their restaurants. I wonder if they tend to pay their employees less or something.
I only read the first bit of your link but it's pretty eye opening to hear this stuff spoken in a presidential debate.
