The Right Side of the News

Yes, the party of election fraud will get to field a new candidate. I am sure Harris will go back to his sinecure as a wingnut pastor.

quote:

---

One partisan episode will change the way the new election is conducted: Republicans in November lost their super-majorities in both chambers of the state legislature. In the final weeks of a lame duck term, they passed an election law that would require a new primary to be held in the case of a general election redo.
Cooper vetoed the bill, and Republicans overturned his veto Dec. 27, just days before the end of their veto-proof majority. This means Republicans have a chance to field someone other than Harris, who didn’t say whether he intends to run again...

​

Former Representative Robert Pittenger, a three-term Republican who lost the 2018 primary to Harris, says he has no interest in participating in a new primary. Dowless was part of Harris’s team for the primary and the general election.

---

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

But no one knows what evidence was found. As long as it remains secret there is and should be suspicions. If there was no evidence then why is there a need to keep it secret?

So is this where the true beliefs of the fundie right are exposed? Have fundies truly devolved to the point at which they willingly and publicly defend the slave owners. I am not fooling myself and know that a lot of them did feel that way, but now to see it open and public is said and disheartening.
Oh how far we have fallen. I weep for my country and our world. I fear that hate that has been loosed can never be contained again with out a lot of disruption.

What you think rarely has any basis in reality. They were not friends, they did not even know each other. There is no record that they had ever met. If you have some evidence for them being friends please present it, I am sure many historians would be amazed by your evidence.Lee was an adamant supporter of slavery. He took out ads for the return of escaped slaves. When his father in law passed away he was supposed to free the slaves father in law had owned. He never did. The slaves on his plantations lived in disgusting conditions. The record shows that his slaves did not have any love for him and that he was just as cruel as all the other slave owners.He and others wrote a lot after the war to make him look like an enlightened, reluctant slaveowner, but that is all bullshit. The original source material, including interviews with slaves and writing of Union soldiers that liberated his plantations show he was just a cruel slave owner. A lot of the writings of the Union soldiers liberating slaves is very similar to the reports of the freeing of the victims of the holocaust. In some ways slavery was much worse. The holocaust was intended to wipe out a people in a generation. Slavery kept many generations in inhuman conditions. Life and liberty at the will of a capricious master. He also probably had at least one child with a slave. That was not a consensual relationship. It was rape.Robert E Lee was a vile man. There is no debate about it. He was honorable among other vile slave owners. What does it mean to be considered honorable by child abusers, torturers and rapists?Some actual facts.
The Myth of Robert E. Lee And The "Good" Slave Owner

Robert E. Lee was a treasonous, child abusing terrorist. He condoned and participated in the brutal physical abuse of numerous people. He split children from their mothers and sold them off like beasts of burden. It was extremely common for slaveowners to have sex with women(and men) that they owned. I have no actual evidence he did, though there is some historical evidence he may have had at least one child with a slave. Even if he did not have sex with slave he at least condoned the rape and sexual terrorism that was going on around him.
I have no problem putting myself above this monster.

Maybe you should actually read what I wrote instead of making up shit and lying about what I wrote..Lets see what I actually wrote. I acknowledge there is no hard historical evidence that he raped his slaves. I just mention that there is some possible evidence he did. Some of that is possible genetic showing a relationship between some black families and Lee. This needs to be further examined and some better historical access to actual Lee family records. I do not make the allegation that he did, all I do is mention that there some controversy on the subject.
What I do accuse of him and what he is guilty of, is condoning the practice. His father-in-law fathered at least two children by slaves. His father was known to visit the slave quarters also. Rape of slaves was what his social group did.So you are lying about what I wrote. How christian of you. Edited by Theodoric, : Spelling

quote:

---

In 1826, Custis admitted the paternity of Maria Carter, who had been born in 1803 to Arianna "Airy" Carter (1776-1880), an African-American slave maid at the Arlington estate who had earlier resided at Mount Vernon as a slave of Martha Washington. Maria lived and worked at Arlington as a slave until 1826, when she married Charles Syphax, a slave who oversaw the dining room of Arlington House. Soon after Maria's marriage, Custis freed her and gave her a 17-acre (7-hectare) plot in the southwest corner of the Arlington estate. Maria subsequently raised ten children on her property. Tall trees and stretches of grassland reportedly surrounded Maria's white cottage.[21][30] He is also believed to have fathered a girl named Lucy with the slave Caroline Branham.[31]

---

George Washington Parke Custis - WikipediaYou can follow the links to the original sources.

He kept his own child in slavery for 23 years.

As always you completely miss or ignore the point that is being made. As I have said repeatedly, even if he did not rape slaves, most of his social group did rape slaves. He did nothing and said nothing to protest this. Yes he was a man of his society. It was a vile horrible, society that anyone with any sense of decency would not defend.

OK enough with the insults. If you cannot have a civil debate you should not be here. I am sorry I let you bait me and I react with insults. You need to stop with the insults. Now. If you cannot debate and in good faith I will ask the Admin to do something about it. I am sure others will support that.

Care to present any facts or evidence for your accusations?

Stunning truly stunning. I would attribute it to a complete lack of self awareness, but I truly believe we are in the presence of the Queen Mother of all trolls. We should all bow down to such greatness.

I rarely see movies anymore. I just cannot stand the idiocy. I have a 9 year old and 12 year old so I do see kids movies. Kids movies seem to be where the quality is. Coco and Ferdinand were excellent. I also thought Zootopia, Sing and The Secret Life of Pets were excellent.The movies I despise the most are "historical" ones. Usually they take a bare snippet of a historical event or person and then present something that is not historical at all. For example, Hidalgo. None of the movie happened in real life, though it was marketed as historical and biographical. They took the tall tales of an admitted liar and even further embellished them. It is almost bibilical because the tall tales and myths were presented as factual.
Here is a site that goes through some of the worst "historical" movies. Braveheart and The Patriot are two that drive me the craziest. Partly because Mel Gibson is a vile human being, but mostly because they take very interesting and compelling stories and completely destroy them while claiming they are historic.

Anyone can roll out a red carpet. As a matter of fact even the crappiest movies in the world had a red carpet premiere. Means nothing, just that someone is paying money for promotions

Because very people will pay to see them. They can be preached to for free, so why pay to have an ignorant, grifter spew hate?