Miss. Senator Hyde-Smith Posts Photo Wearing Confederate Hat

[mikegriffith1]

For your education:

* William McKinley used the first “Southern strategy” in American history during the 1896 presidential campaign. His Southern tour led many Southerners to support him over the much more leftist William Jennings Bryan in the election. McKinley spoke of his admiration for Confederate soldiers.

* William Howard Taft, Warren G. Harding, and Calvin Coolidge all presided over events honouring Confederate soldiers (with Confederate Battle Flags), with Taft speaking directly to members of the United Daughters of the Confederacy.

* Dwight D. Eisenhower defended General Lee and Confederate motives during his presidency.

* John F. Kennedy admired John C. Calhoun by classifying him as one of the greatest United States Senators and freely spoke in front of Confederate Battle Flags. He received one as a gift from Senator Fritz Hollings.

* Richard M. Nixon swept to victory in 1972 with his “Southern strategy” that including Confederate Battle Flag campaign pins.

* Gerald R. Ford pardoned Robert E. Lee in 1975.

* Jimmy Carter pardoned Jefferson Davis and restored his citizenship.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

"The NYT is held to a higher standard" my ass. It has been caught peddling fake news too many times to count. As I already pointed out, putting Abu Ghraib on the front page every day for 6 months is not a good indication of unbiased impartial factual reporting. It's the indication of propaganda. Facts are facts, but the NYT often lies about them, and it only publishes the ones that conform to its biases. It ignores anything that makes snowflakes feel uncomfortable.

 

[JGalt]

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?

Yeah, the NYT is held to a higher standard. It has been caught peddling fake news too many times to count. As I already pointed out, putting Abu Ghraib on the front page every day for 6 months is not a good indication of unbiased impartial factual reporting. It's the indication of propaganda. Facts are facts, but the NYT often lies about them, and it only publishes the ones that conform to its biases. It ignores anything that makes snowflakes feel uncomfortable.

There's more than sufficient reason why the New York Times is more commonly referred to as the "New York Slimes."

 

[bripat9643]

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.

So any story that isn't on the front page every day for six months is "buried?"

NYT buried story on Harvey Weinstein's sexual predator behavior in 2004 to protect a top Democrat donor

The story of how the New York Times buried the Holocaust in its back pages : history

'Crossfire Hurricane' New York Times Report Buries Ledes | National Review

NYT buried story of Brian Williams's lie - Liberty Unyielding

 

[cnm]

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

Yeah.

Mandingo!

 

[bripat9643]

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.

There isn't the slightest thing illegal about that meeting, douchebag. On the other hand, paying Russian intelligence agents to manufacture dirt on Trump is highly illegal, not to mention traitorous, slanderous and generally downright sleazy.

 

[Correll]

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

Yeah.

Mandingo!

NO.

 

[cnm]

There isn't the slightest thing illegal about that meeting, douchebag.

Apart from a campaign conspiring to receive something of value from a foreign contributor, not a thing.

 

[BS Filter]

Good for her. Looney lefties are afraid of a piece of cloth.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Now you'll have to show what the "fraud" was.

If anyone needs to be up on RICO charges, it's Hillary and all her minions in the DOJ. She's also guilty of fraud, according to your definition.

 

[Markle]

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.

You've not explained WHY we should have policies for each, of hundreds of minorities. It's simple, everyone plays by the same rules. Problems solved.

 

[bripat9643]

There isn't the slightest thing illegal about that meeting, douchebag.

Apart from a campaign conspiring to receive something of value from a foreign contributor, not a thing.

"Something of value" means money, dumbass. Information has never been considered to be a campaign contribution. If it was, then Hillary would still be the one who needs to go to prison.

You're a fucking dumbass, of course. This theory has been shot down 1000 times already, yet morons like you keep dragging it up.

 

[Markle]

There isn't the slightest thing illegal about that meeting, douchebag.

Apart from a campaign conspiring to receive something of value from a foreign contributor, not a thing.

Please show us your proof along with your reliable source and link.

 

[rightwinger]

There isn't the slightest thing illegal about that meeting, douchebag.

Apart from a campaign conspiring to receive something of value from a foreign contributor, not a thing.

"Something of value" means money, dumbass. Information has never been considered to be a campaign contribution. If it was, then Hillary would still be the one who needs to go to prison.

You're a fucking dumbass, of course. This theory has been shot down 1000 times already, yet morons like you keep dragging it up.

There are things of value other than money

 

[bripat9643]

There isn't the slightest thing illegal about that meeting, douchebag.

Apart from a campaign conspiring to receive something of value from a foreign contributor, not a thing.

"Something of value" means money, dumbass. Information has never been considered to be a campaign contribution. If it was, then Hillary would still be the one who needs to go to prison.

You're a fucking dumbass, of course. This theory has been shot down 1000 times already, yet morons like you keep dragging it up.

There are things of value other than money

The FEC doesn't consider information about the opposition candidate to be a "thing of value" for the purpose of campaign finance, dumbass. We've been over this 1000 times since the election, but it fails to penetrate your thick skull.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Racism is real. Whining about it does not make it any less real or make it go away. MarcAtl is clueless.

 

[rightwinger]

There isn't the slightest thing illegal about that meeting, douchebag.

Apart from a campaign conspiring to receive something of value from a foreign contributor, not a thing.

"Something of value" means money, dumbass. Information has never been considered to be a campaign contribution. If it was, then Hillary would still be the one who needs to go to prison.

You're a fucking dumbass, of course. This theory has been shot down 1000 times already, yet morons like you keep dragging it up.

There are things of value other than money

The FEC doesn't consider information about the opposition candidate to be a "thing of value" for the purpose of campaign finance, dumbass. We've been over this 1000 times since the election, but it fails to penetrate your thick skull.

Of course it does
Information is invaluable

Money is secondary

 

[bripat9643]

There isn't the slightest thing illegal about that meeting, douchebag.

Apart from a campaign conspiring to receive something of value from a foreign contributor, not a thing.

"Something of value" means money, dumbass. Information has never been considered to be a campaign contribution. If it was, then Hillary would still be the one who needs to go to prison.

You're a fucking dumbass, of course. This theory has been shot down 1000 times already, yet morons like you keep dragging it up.

There are things of value other than money

The FEC doesn't consider information about the opposition candidate to be a "thing of value" for the purpose of campaign finance, dumbass. We've been over this 1000 times since the election, but it fails to penetrate your thick skull.

Of course it does
Information is invaluable

Money is secondary

Wrong, dumbass. We're talking about the legal definition, not your personal understanding.

 

[cnm]

"Something of value" means money, dumbass.

Jesus. What a maroon.

 

[cnm]

There isn't the slightest thing illegal about that meeting, douchebag.

Apart from a campaign conspiring to receive something of value from a foreign contributor, not a thing.

Please show us your proof along with your reliable source and link.

If you haven't bothered to read Donald Jr's published emails I'm not going to hunt them down for you.