Posted on 11/20/2018 1:49:02 PM PST by Mariner
Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith smilingly posed for a photo in 2014 while wearing a Confederate cap and holding a rifle, then put the image on her Facebook page with the words "Mississippi history at its best!"
That image, taken at a Mississippi museum, resurfaced Tuesday as AT&T, Leidos and Walmart joined two other companies, Union Pacific and Boston Scientific, in asking Hyde-Smith, a Republican, to return campaign contributions because of controversy over her recent jest about being willing to attend a public "hanging."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
Just as the United States did.
Then why did they go to war to preserve it?
I suppose you believe the Union fought to end slavery too, with four slave states on the Union side and a constitution that had to be amended in order to end slavery.
No. The North didn’t fight to end slavery, it fought to preserve the Union and won.
I said no such thing. (Though to be fair I’m not entirely sure what you’re asserting here...) To suggest the CSA would have never freed the slaves betrays deep ignorance of world history.
They didn’t go to war to see the end of slavery and the profits it’s labor bought to the South.
Fine, but history proves it wouldn’t have continued to be profitable. Brazil abolished slavery when it became cheaper to employ European immigrants instead. The CSA undoubtedly would have done the same.
I didn’t insult you.
Could have fooled me, though I wasn’t offended... your use of the term “Lost Causer” doesn’t make it sound as though it’s a good thing; you do frame it in the form of an personal insult—literally an ad hominem argument—and you shouldn’t do that if you really want your argument to be taken seriously. To be fair to you, some quick Googling about it does show that my feelings about the Late Unpleasantness are close enough to theirs that you could suggest I’m at least sympathetic to them.
I simply and prosaically said your argument is false. I’ve been on this web site for years refuting people who have your convoluted arguments.
You do your position no favors, because you fail to prove what you assert. I was serious when I said your argument is based on a half-truth because it is oversimplified, and I’ve not even been the only one in this thread to do so.
When it comes to slavery being the major cause and secession to protect slavery being the proximate cause of the war, I agree with you. When it comes to slavery being evil, I agree with you. However, I cannot agree that it was the sole cause of the war. Very little in human life is so black-and-white—history and the figures in it make up a complex painting done in shades of gray.
Democrat all her life. The seats up again in 2020. If she wins she should resign and McDaniel appointed. Who’s the idiot governor who appointed her?
It fought to prevent slave states from leaving the Union, with four slave states on the Union side, and didn’t bother to amend the constitution to end slavery until after the war was over.
thanks. agreed.
reporting snippets of the debate here. They don’t show her in too good of a light. Haven’t been able to find a transcript...
How did they do that?
No, backstabbing bastards like Richard Shelby and Jeff Flake who are "LOUSY RINO ESTABLISHMENT CRONY-CAPITALIST GOPE UNIPARTY BUSHITE OPEN BORDER GLOBALIST CORPORATIST FREE-TRAITOR NEOCON MULTILATERALIST SCUMBAG"s, gave the seat away.
Any reform candidate is attacked. The Washington DC spending cartel does *NOT WANT* anyone who threatens the money spending party.
And the reason we lose is because people on our side, like yourself, deliberately spread Democrat lies about our candidates.
Why are you intentionally spreading this lie?
You accepted that Washington Post Reporter (who did the Ni**er rock smear against Rick Perry in Texas) and her scraped from the bottom of the looney bin kook accusers against Roy Moore, but were probably outraged at exactly the same sort of lying smears directed at Bret Kavanaugh.
Why can people see that something is a lying smear against Kavanaugh, but want to completely embrace lying Kook Democrats against Roy Moore?
Face it, you hated Roy Moore because he was a bible thumper, and you didn't give a sh*t what was the actual truth of the matter.
You would rather believe some drug addled suicidal wreck of a life Democrat woman accuser than the truth, because it suits your prejudices.
People like you are why we lose. The Democrats do not attack their own. No matter what accusation is raised, they do not immediately rush to the microphones to attack someone on their side. They do not backstab their candidates.
And now you are once again embracing the Lying Media's efforts to repeatedly broadcast any statement that can be twisted against one of our candidates.
Akin is correct. He was advised on this particular point by a doctor who had extensively studied the matter. Women's body's really do have an endocrinal protection from impregnation by rape, but because so many childish people think this sounds crazy, and because the media gleefully kept repeating that it was crazy over and over, the American public has been misled on both this point of human physiology, and the fitness of Akin to be an elected official.
Even though his statement was in fact true, Akin should have not said it, because it's too difficult of a point to convey to the public against the gale force winds of a media propaganda weapon.
But here you are again, embracing our enemies propaganda against our allied candidates.
Why does our side keep getting the backstabbers?
The reason they lost is because the Media Propaganda weapon presented it that way. The problem is not the statements by these candidates, the problem is that there is a weapon system controlled by the left that deliberately interferes with elections by giving free air time to the Democrat propaganda talking points, and Republicans have to buy any air time for rebuttal, and sometimes it isn't possible to buy enough to push back against the deliberate lies and distortions which the media weapon systems put forth against our candidates.
Why are we not trying to put a knife into this media weapon system? Why are we not trying to break it so they can no longer use this weapon against us?
That propaganda weapon is the most dangerous thing this nation has ever faced. It gave us that idiot Barack Obama, and it gave us that lying sleaze bag Bill Clinton. It came D@mn close to give us President Psycho hate witch Hitlery.
Democrat candidates routinely say ridiculous and outrageous things, but they never get on the air because the media weapon won't show them.
If we break their system and take it over and then show the public what these Democrats say, those Democrats would lose their elections.
The problem is the weapon system. It is not our candidates. Take the weapon system and we win. Keep whining about our candidates not being perfect, and we lose.
There are few perfect candidates. Most say something stupid once in a while. The media ought not be able to attack only our side, and shield their own. It needs to be destroyed as it is currently constituted.
This. Laugh about it. It has the effect of ridiculing their attempts to portray it as something significant.
Never apologize. Double down. Treat the media people like they were some sort of sh*t you stepped in, because that is not far from the truth.
Smart Republicans know that and adjust.
Smarter Republicans think "How can we drive a spear through the heart of this election manipulating monster?"
Till we solve the problem of total Democrat control of all communications systems, we are just fiddling around the edges of the problem.
We must destroy Democrat control over communications systems, be they the broadcast networks or the internet behemoths, we cannot allow them to continue censoring our side and manipulating the narrative.
Since the election of Clinton, I realized that a system in which no one wins greater than 50% of the election will leave no clear mandate.
Since the election of Clinton, I have believed we need a national runoff election to make sure no plurality candidate forms a government which will be resented by too many people.
It isn't really consent of the governed when you have less than 50%. It's triumph of the bungled process.
They should have just paid the bills and kept their mouth's shut. Same as the New York and Washington DC spending cartel keeps telling us today.
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.