Posted on 12/08/2019 1:45:13 PM PST by GuavaCheesePuff
In a recent post-election post-mortem in the Jackson Free Press, editor Donna Ladd advances ideas about why Democrats lost almost all power in the Mississippi state government. One of her thoughts has to do with cowardice in the Mississippi Democratic Party, in the way that white men who control the party have been too timid to advance progressive values, or even uphold a plank in the national party platform for the bodily autonomy of women.
(Excerpt) Read more at jacksonfreepress.com ...
“the party have been too timid to advance progressive values”
Yeah, that fag homo stuff sure is a winning issue in the south..
If a person is a white democrat, that pretty much says all one needs to know about the person’s intellectual ability. As Ron White says, ya can’t fix stupid.
JoMa
In a recent post-election post-mortem in the Jackson Free Press, editor Donna Ladd advances ideas about... the way that white men who control the party have been too timid to advance progressive values, or even uphold a plank in the national party platform for the bodily autonomy of women.
IOW, no. Sexist racist partisan media shill update. Thanks GuavaCheesePuff.
The Democratic party in MS has essentially become one giant welfare fraud scheme. Anyone that can go into any WalMart in the state and observe the numbers of unwed mothers with hair extensions, $500 nail jobs and five kids trailing behind them that whip out their EBT cards to pay for buggies full of junk food and still vote for a democrat is a certifiable loon.
White Lives Matter.
Bodily autonomy of women? LOL. Killing babies doesn’t sell in Mississippi
Well, there are low IQs in every race.
True. And criminals in every race, too. BUT, I bet you live in a white neighborhood, and I bet if you had kids, they went to predominantly white schools, even if you had to pay extra for that happen.
Yeah, “bodily autonomy”. You want to completely detach any relation to killing, babies, abortion or pregnancy. Southern Democrats did the same thing in retroactively detaching the Civil War from Slavery. It became the “war of northern aggression”, and it was about “states rights”.
She’s from Iowa.
Not a thing wrong with Iowa. It’s just you really shouldn’t retire to a place because you like the climate and only then discover that the people are deplorable by your lights.
Since she feels so much more comfortable with Democrats than other people, she could go live in a black area, since apparently in Mississippi black = Democrat and Democrat = black. Compatible people and warm climate too.
But she hasn’t written that article yet.
First part of your comment is true. The second part isn’t true.
Must be terrible spewing hate of the country and not finding people who will vote for you.
So you think the CW wasn’t largely about slavery? Try reading the declarations of secession from southern states (spoiler alert, several list slavery, slave fugitive laws, and other slave related issues and laws as their reason). There is also a plethora of published writings from southern leaders and other influential people of the period, and political speeches in the period leading to the CW. The teaching of “states rights” was once similarly ingrained in young people as today’s Palestinian children are taught to hate Israel. Slavery was and is evil, and a stain on those who supported it. It can be difficult to come to terms with that. No one wants to believe their ancestors fought or died defending the institution of slavery. The truth is out there if you only look. But it might be a little painful, and that is actually a good thing.
“No one wants to believe their ancestors fought or died defending the institution of slavery. “
So, you think this country has no legitimate right to exists because after we fought the English in the Revolutionary War and kept slavery as a part of our being?
Why do people always jump from clearly worded statements to assign such bizarre inferences to them?
I am quite proud of my nation, and served under her flag for over 30 years. The world was a different place in America’s formative years, and some of our early leaders were so flawed as to think it was OK to own and enslave his fellow man. When people’s eyes were being opened to the horrific immorality of slavery, some chose to defend the institution, to place money over morality. Some even cited the bible to proclaim slaves as their godly right, to the point they were willing to kill and die to preserve that right. Part of our greatness is that we fought and defeated those who thought that way. Denying history doesn’t make us greater.
“I am quite proud of my natio”
No, you are not. You hate the south.
Slavery was a primary reason for secession but the reason for the war was to preserve the union.
Again, you are inferring incorrectly. This time, intentionally. I was born in the south. If anything I posted makes you uncomfortable, then you should deal with that within yourself, rather than attribute hate to someone else. Denying history is not “pride”, nor is embracing it “hate”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.