Miss. Senator Hyde-Smith Posts Photo Wearing Confederate Hat

[bripat9643]

The primary causes of the Civil War were based on economics and states rights versus centralized federal government control over the country. The final galvanizing and decisive issue was slavery. A very dark blight in our history that would one day extract blood to cleanse but never wash away the stain. The one fundamental issue that was compromised which stood in direct contradiction to the rights of all men as declared in the Constitution.

The economics of slavery, a states rights to allow slavery....Period

It doesn't really matter. Nothing in the Constitution bars a state from seceding. That's the bottom line.

Afraid it does

Quote the section that says that.

 

[bripat9643]

How is that "delusional?" You're the one who just said "it's what you all do when you really have no retort."

i crossed paths with you on this board enough times to know just how delusional you are. cases in point: at least one thread where you basically were saying coal jobs [ that are coming back] will not adversely affect the areas either environmentally nor healthwise.

then of course is that whole 'there's no russian collusion because collusion isn't a legal term' line of crap you've said over & over & over as if repeating it will make it true.

Please provide your proof of collusion. Other than with the Democrats.

Trump tower

So, talking to people is "collusion?" Shouldn't we arrest everyone in the Hillary campaign?

Talking to criminals about helping you win an election is collusion

That Russian lawyer is a criminal? You should tell the Obama Administration since they let her in. Everyone in the Hillary campaign is a criminal, including Hillary.

You really are a special kind of stupid, rightwinger. I am constantly marveling at the pure idiocy of your posts.

 

[Markle]

Talking to criminals about helping you win an election is collusion

Convicted felon George Soros.

 

[Markle]

The primary causes of the Civil War were based on economics and states rights versus centralized federal government control over the country. The final galvanizing and decisive issue was slavery. A very dark blight in our history that would one day extract blood to cleanse but never wash away the stain. The one fundamental issue that was compromised which stood in direct contradiction to the rights of all men as declared in the Constitution.

The economics of slavery, a states rights to allow slavery....Period

It doesn't really matter. Nothing in the Constitution bars a state from seceding. That's the bottom line.

Afraid it does

Where?

 

[playtime]

lol.....ummmm.... unlike what you just did - i never post any biased links ever. there were plenty of unbiased credible links to choose from, including a texas newspaper.

nice try, doesn't fly though, jr.

No biased links ever? Says one who posts this picture.

hey - here's a hint, when you are trying to make a point- try making sense first.

& uh - i never post an article from a biased link from anywhere.

no huffpo, no MSNBC, no democratic underground, none. just like i don't accept anything from FOX, gateway pundit, breitbart, american thinker....

comprende?

There is no such thing as "unbiased links."

ya there is. when facts are omitted or skewed to become 'alternative facts' to suit a slanted political view... that is shirley biased.

huffpo will slant the same news story 180 degrees from breitbart.

I know there are biased websites. They're all biased, moron. I disputed your believe that you post links to "unbiased" websites. That takes a special kind of stupid.

the best way to get a factual story is to go to the newspapers. there is no difference in factual reporting between the NYT, WaPO, or WSJ. what separates them is the OP/ED page where the first 2 lean left & the WSJ is right leaning... but they report the actual facts equally unbiased.

damn - you really needed that to be explained to you? of course you did, since i have seen you link to breitbart many times & try to pass it off as factually true.

BWAHAHAHAHA!

The snowflake believes the reporting in the NYT isn't biased!

The news section of the WSJ is almost as leftwing as the NYT. Only the opinion section is conservative.

Do you actually believe it wasn't biased when the NYT had a front page story on Abu Ghraib every day for 6 months?

i never post biased links. newspapers are held to a higher standard than rag mags whether on the internet or in print. nor do i post blogs which, like i said - is an opinion. facts are facts whether they are jeff bezo's waPo or rupert murdock's WSJ.

i rarely if ever even post from wikipedia unless it's non descript general knowledge because university research papers won't accept them.

you are so far up trump's ass, why aren't you orange too?

 

[playtime]

lol.....ummmm.... unlike what you just did - i never post any biased links ever. there were plenty of unbiased credible links to choose from, including a texas newspaper.

nice try, doesn't fly though, jr.

No biased links ever? Says one who posts this picture.

hey - here's a hint, when you are trying to make a point- try making sense first.

& uh - i never post an article from a biased link from anywhere.

no huffpo, no MSNBC, no democratic underground, none. just like i don't accept anything from FOX, gateway pundit, breitbart, american thinker....

comprende?

There is no such thing as "unbiased links."

ya there is. when facts are omitted or skewed to become 'alternative facts' to suit a slanted political view... that is shirley biased.

huffpo will slant the same news story 180 degrees from breitbart.

I know there are biased websites. They're all biased, moron. I disputed your believe that you post links to "unbiased" websites. That takes a special kind of stupid.

the best way to get a factual story is to go to the newspapers. there is no difference in factual reporting between the NYT, WaPO, or WSJ. what separates them is the OP/ED page where the first 2 lean left & the WSJ is right leaning... but they report the actual facts equally unbiased.

damn - you really needed that to be explained to you? of course you did, since i have seen you link to breitbart many times & try to pass it off as factually true.

BWAHAHAHAHA!

The snowflake believes the reporting in the NYT isn't biased!

The news section of the WSJ is almost as leftwing as the NYT. Only the opinion section is conservative.

Do you actually believe it wasn't biased when the NYT had a front page story on Abu Ghraib every day for 6 months?

corruption & war crimes are a buried subject to you? lol... no doubt, little dude - no doubt.

 

[playtime]

Markle :

i know you are one of them thar poorly educated deplorables that trump loves long time, but a 2 second google research could open you up to all kinds of fact learnin'.... i know, i know - you are the lazy sort, so i'll do it for you just this once.

texas revisionist history - Google Search

now, go ahead & place the very much expected 'smile' emoji you will no doubt place as a reply to this post- because well.... it's what you all do when you really have no retort.

I get about 5 times more of those than I get replies to my post. Apparently all you dumbass snowflakes are terrified to respond to me.

delusional thinking suits you well.

How is that "delusional?" You're the one who just said "it's what you all do when you really have no retort."

i crossed paths with you on this board enough times to know just how delusional you are. cases in point: at least one thread where you basically were saying coal jobs [ that are coming back] will not adversely affect the areas either environmentally nor healthwise.

then of course is that whole 'there's no russian collusion because collusion isn't a legal term' line of crap you've said over & over & over as if repeating it will make it true.

Please provide your proof of collusion. Other than with the Democrats.

oh dear, you'll hafta wait for manafort's sentencing date where a lot will be revealed. see, mueller is way too smart for whittiker.... even if mueller's report is never made public or whittikers doesn't even allow congress to see it - some info will come out regardless.

but anyhoo - let's go with the trump tower meeting where donny jr met with the rooooskies with panty waist jared, & oh ya.... paul manafort. that was to get dirt on hillary, then lied about it via twits when he was aboard air force one with daddy trump telling him what to twit out. president tinkles said he didn't know about the meeting? lol... mueller has the phone records, including the 'blocked' number that traitor tot called just b4 going in to that meeting & fucked the country over.

right there. right fucking there.

 

[playtime]

Talking to criminals about helping you win an election is collusion

Convicted felon George Soros.

convicted?

uh, no.

 

[Markle]

convicted?

uh, no.

Convicted?

uh, yes!

You might want to do a bit of research before posting and showing everyone that you are uninformed.

George Soros is a convicted felon. Period.

 

[Markle]

oh dear, you'll hafta wait for manafort's sentencing date where a lot will be revealed. see, mueller is way too smart for whittiker.... even if mueller's report is never made public or whittikers doesn't even allow congress to see it - some info will come out regardless.

but anyhoo - let's go with the trump tower meeting where donny jr met with the rooooskies with panty waist jared, & oh ya.... paul manafort. that was to get dirt on hillary, then lied about it via twits when he was aboard air force one with daddy trump telling him what to twit out. president tinkles said he didn't know about the meeting? lol... mueller has the phone records, including the 'blocked' number that traitor tot called just b4 going in to that meeting & fucked the country over.

right there. right fucking there.

All that and no proof of any collusion.

col·lu·sion
[kəˈlo͞oZHən]
NOUN

1. secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
   "the armed forces were working in collusion with drug traffickers" · "collusion between media owners and political leaders"
   synonyms:
   conspiracy · connivance · complicity · intrigue · plotting · secret understanding · collaboration · scheming
   • law
     illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially between ostensible opponents in a lawsuit.

 

[playtime]

convicted?

uh, no.

You might want to do a bit of research before posting and showing everyone that you are uninformed.

George Soros is a convicted felon. Period.

i'm going by the crap in your meme.... & besides, you are giving yourself some mighty ample wiggle room given who your president likes to keep company with. lol...are you kidding me?

 

[playtime]

oh dear, you'll hafta wait for manafort's sentencing date where a lot will be revealed. see, mueller is way too smart for whittiker.... even if mueller's report is never made public or whittikers doesn't even allow congress to see it - some info will come out regardless.

but anyhoo - let's go with the trump tower meeting where donny jr met with the rooooskies with panty waist jared, & oh ya.... paul manafort. that was to get dirt on hillary, then lied about it via twits when he was aboard air force one with daddy trump telling him what to twit out. president tinkles said he didn't know about the meeting? lol... mueller has the phone records, including the 'blocked' number that traitor tot called just b4 going in to that meeting & fucked the country over.

right there. right fucking there.

All that and no proof of any collusion.

col·lu·sion
[kəˈlo͞oZHən]
NOUN

1. secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
   "the armed forces were working in collusion with drug traffickers" · "collusion between media owners and political leaders"
   synonyms:
   conspiracy · connivance · complicity · intrigue · plotting · secret understanding · collaboration · scheming
   • law
     illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially between ostensible opponents in a lawsuit.

it's not 'collusion' but 'conspiracy'.

& there will be.

923. 18 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. (emphasis added). See Project, Tenth Annual Survey of White Collar Crime, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 137, 379-406 (1995)(generally discussing § 371).

The operative language is the so-called "defraud clause," that prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. This clause creates a separate offense from the "offense clause" in Section 371. Both offenses require the traditional elements of Section 371 conspiracy, including an illegal agreement, criminal intent, and proof of an overt act.

Although this language is very broad, cases rely heavily on the definition of "defraud" provided by the Supreme Court in two early cases, Hass v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462 (1910), and Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182 (1924). In Hass the Court stated:

The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government . . . (A)ny conspiracy which is calculated to obstruct or impair its efficiency and destroy the value of its operation and reports as fair, impartial and reasonably accurate, would be to defraud the United States by depriving it of its lawful right and duty of promulgating or diffusing the information so officially acquired in the way and at the time required by law or departmental regulation.
Hass, 216 U.S. at 479-480. In Hammerschmidt, Chief Justice Taft, defined "defraud" as follows:

To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention.
Hammerschmidt, 265 U.S. at 188.

The general purpose of this part of the statute is to protect governmental functions from frustration and distortion through deceptive practices. Section 371 reaches "any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government." Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 128 (1987); see Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966). The "defraud part of section 371 criminalizes any willful impairment of a legitimate function of government, whether or not the improper acts or objective are criminal under another statute." United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir. 1989).
[...]

923. 18 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the United States

AND THIS:

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Law
The federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) law was passed in 1970 as the "ultimate hit man" in mob prosecutions. Prior to RICO, prosecutors could only try mob-related crimes individually. Since different mobsters perpetrated each crime, the government could only prosecute individual criminals instead of shutting down an entire criminal organization. Today, the government rarely uses RICO against the Mafia. Instead, because the law is so broad, both governmental and civil parties use it against all sorts of enterprises, both legal and illegal.

RICO allows for prosecution of all individuals involved in a corrupt organization. For mob prosecutions, that means that the government can go after top leadership as well as the hit men and capos. And RICO established much enhanced sentences, as well. John L. Smith described the impact of RICO in an article for the Las Vegas Review-Journal: "After RICO, mob families began to crack under the very real threat that members and associates could be indicted en masse for a wide range of criminal activity. ... [E]ven the strongest stand-up guy would have trouble fading the 20-year (and more) sentences that began accompanying RICO convictions."

While RICO was originally aimed at the Mafia, over the past 37 years, prosecutors have used it to attack many forms of organized crime: street gangs, gang cartels, corrupt police departments and even politicians.

Criminal RICO
To violate RICO, a person must engage in a pattern of racketeering activity connected to an enterprise. The law defines 35 offenses as constituting racketeering, including gambling, murder, kidnapping, arson, drug dealing, bribery. Significantly, mail and wire fraud are included on the list. These crimes are known as "predicate" offenses. To charge under RICO, at least two predicate crimes within 10 years must have been committed through the enterprise.

Note that an enterprise is required. This might be a crime family, a street gang or a drug cartel. But it may also be a corporation, a political party, or a managed care company. The enterprise just has to be a discrete entity; but an enterprise is not the same as an individual. Thus, a corporation may be the enterprise through which individuals commit crimes, but it can't be both an individual and the enterprise.

The criminal RICO statute provides for prison terms of 20 years and severe financial penalties. The law also allows prosecutors to attach assets, so they can't be whisked out of the country before judgment.
[...]

Criminal Law Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Law :: Justia

you're welcome for the education.

 

[rightwinger]

The primary causes of the Civil War were based on economics and states rights versus centralized federal government control over the country. The final galvanizing and decisive issue was slavery. A very dark blight in our history that would one day extract blood to cleanse but never wash away the stain. The one fundamental issue that was compromised which stood in direct contradiction to the rights of all men as declared in the Constitution.

The economics of slavery, a states rights to allow slavery....Period

It doesn't really matter. Nothing in the Constitution bars a state from seceding. That's the bottom line.

Afraid it does

Quote the section that says that.

We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union

 

[Correll]

That is an interesting claim. And even if it were true, it is not racism, to fail tot appeal to someone. So, if that is all it is, then your constant race baiting, makes you an asshole. As I have pointed out many times.


BUT we have plenty of policies that appeal to significant percentages of blacks.


Don't believe me? Ask a pro-life black how he or she can support the party that support "killing babies".


The block voting by blacks, is not driven by polices. Hell, Mac talks about that all the time.

You believe that blacks are incapable of realizing that Republicans do not represent their best interests?

In fact, no minorities favor Republican policies

1. I believe that any group, targeted with enough lies, can be lied to. That you lied about what I said, to make it "Racist" ironically just proved my point, you race baiting piece of shit.

2. Plenty of minorities favor republican polices. Like I said, ask a pro-life black to explain her support of the pro-abortion party.


You liberals have to lie, because you can't afford to lose those minorities.

The policies is not what stops black folk from voting Republican, many black people hold some conservative values, it's the racist attitude and feeling of superiority that Republicans have that turns black folks away from them.

RW is the one that said it was policies, not me, so take it up with him.


"Racist attitude" my ass. YOu are a vile liar.

The vile liar is you, you try to come on here and present yourself as being neutral. Your posts show you are nothing but a Trumper.

I've never claimed to be neutral.


If you read that, that was nothing but poor reading comprehension on your part.

My point stands. RW, is the one that said it was policies, so if you disagree with that, as I do, then take it up with him.


ANd "Racist attitude" my ass. YOu are a vile liar.

 

[cnm]

That's the old hag that recently got into hot water over her "I'd love to go to a lynching with you..." statements the other day.

Liar!

I love it. In their desperation Conservatives are now lying about the Progressive Party candidate.

 

[cnm]

I wonder why Republicans protest the removal of Southern Democrat monuments so vigorously.

Because unlike Progressives, we do not revise history.

The history of the Daughters of the Confederacy erecting statues to daddy to reinforce Jim Crow? That history?

 

[Cellblock2429]

'Mississippi history at its best!' — GOP Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith wore Confederate cap in Facebook post

When you are in a run-off election down in Mississippi against a black guy, its best to go full Confederate. Personally, I don't care if a republican candidate wants to wrap herself in the confederate flag and opine about how great the Confederacy was -- I just wish someone would tell them that its the Democrats who are the party of the confederacy, duh!

From the article: 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!" <<-- Was the confederacy really the time when Mississippi was at its finest? I would assume a significant portion of the population would disagree with that.

"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."

Now like I said, its not big deal to me if a republican wants to go full confederate, I would have expected to see the Democrats do it first tho, since they are still the party that most supports the Confederate cause -- however, I fully expect for Hyde-Smith to win her run-off against the former Democrat klan leader, Mike Espy.

/——/ Wasn’t there a democRAT Senator that played a confederate General in s civil war move? Libs said is was just acting

 

[Flopper]

Interesting claim

So, few blacks run as Republicans
Republicans have had a hundred years to adopt policies that appeal to minorities and have failed to do it

Why should any policies be put in place that appeals only to minorities? How would that not be advancing racism, sexism, or every other sort of "ism"?

Because we are a country of minorities, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, age, physically disabled, mentally disabled, economic status, etc... In a nation based on democratic principals, elected officials always seek the favor of one minority over others by makes policies favoring that minority. It has always been that way and probably always will.

 

[Correll]

I wonder why Republicans protest the removal of Southern Democrat monuments so vigorously.

Because unlike Progressives, we do not revise history.

The history of the Daughters of the Confederacy erecting statues to daddy to reinforce Jim Crow? That history?

You think the Daughters of the Confederacy needed an ulterior motive to erect statues to honor their fathers?

LOL!!!!!


DISMISSED!

 

[Correll]

Interesting claim

So, few blacks run as Republicans
Republicans have had a hundred years to adopt policies that appeal to minorities and have failed to do it

Why should any policies be put in place that appeals only to minorities? How would that not be advancing racism, sexism, or every other sort of "ism"?

Because we are a country of minorities, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, age, physically disabled, mentally disabled, economic status, etc... In a nation based on democratic principals, elected officials always seek the favor of one minority over others by makes policies favoring that minority. It has always been that way and probably always will.

Actually I've seen Presidents in my lifetime try to seek the favor of the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, by pushing policies to benefit them all or at least most of them.


Your blindness to that, as even an option, is very, very sad.