A statue of Tom Watson was placed on the steps of the Georgia state capitol in 1932. In 2013, it was moved to a less conspicuous location, a park across the street. Some people were glad to see the statue go. They believed that Watson should not be honored as a great leader. They thought that keeping his statue on the steps of the capitol sent the wrong message to visitors of the state’s most important government building. Others said that keeping monuments like those honoring Watson do not show support for his beliefs, but instead help us learn from our history. They said that removing the statue encouraged people to forget the embarrassing parts of Georgia history, instead of reminding us not to repeat them.

Tom Watson's statue should be taken down from public places because he is not a good person to look up to and little kids are going to believe that he's a good person. He believed in white primary and white supremacy and supported the Burbon Triumvirate who "ruled" GA in the time and wanted to get the state more industrialized. Also he wrote bad things about colored people in his weekly news paper. (add conclusion)

since most of current immigration into the u.s., both legal and illegal, is coming from latin america. it would be very difficult to imagine or rationalize a country my fellow citizens are trying desperately to flee into, would pose a threat to my prosperity or freedom. since the u.s. has a long history of intervention, but no record of permanent occupation, i would not feel oppression is the main objective.  

the largest free trade nation, along with the largest gdp in the world wanting to expand it's economic policy on us, and including us, could only be positive. the u.s. government has no interest in, or way of simply forcing american culture on us. and has no track record of it. other nations that adopted american social culture, or "americanization" did so voluntarily, mainly through the choice of allowing american businesses and u.s. citizens to come into their nations, as free operatives.

it would have concentrated power in the executive branch of the government. it would have restored balance among the three branches of government. it would have set a precedent for government intervention in the economy. it would have signaled an end to all the programs of roosevelt’s new deal.

did this .