1. #28426
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    13,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CSTowle View Post
    Figured I'd track down and link the article in question (Wonkette and 3/5 Compromise). As I thought, most certainly not defending the slaveholders position but don't take my word for it. Also, didn't have any pop-ups so guess they got that bit figured out. Good on them.

    https://www.wonkette.com/sweet-chris...ths-compromise
    Their main arguments are that the three-fifths compromise didn't work, and that it was wrong to count any human being as less than a full person.

    After the American Revolution, the enslaved population exploded in the South, growing from around 650,000 to 3.9 million in 1860. The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 doubled the size of the United States but also expanded American slavery into the West. If the point of the Three-Fifths Compromise was to stop slavery eventually, which it wasn't, then it failed miserably. Americans literally fought a four-years long bloody war over the issue.
    The South agreed with the perspective that it was wrong to consider slaves as fractions. They wanted slaves counted as full human beings for this particular purpose.
    Legally quantifying a human being as less than a full person is "impugning their humanity." That's how fractions work. Impugning is almost too nice a word for it. Impugning sounds like you suggested Black people didn't promptly RSVP to their enslavement.
    The Wonkette piece also argues that it would have been better if America had never existed. I can understand that argument, though it would hardly be a popular one to wield against a politician in Tennessee, and it certainly doesn't justify the tone or the "Sweet Christ!" headline.
    The former White House squatter's lost cause BS, the 1776 Project, rationalized this compromise and the perpetuation of slavery in general as necessary to ensure the union. The South would've bolted, likely preferring to remain under British rule so long as they still had enslaved humans preparing their tea and crumpets. Seriously, these people were fucking shiftless. But, and I know this is asking a lot, if you could look at this from enslaved people's perspective, why should they give a damn if the American experiment endures if they'll live and die in bondage regardless? Slavery was abolished in British colonies in 1833 and 1794 in France, before that asshole Napoleon reinstated the “trade," but it was abolished there completely by 1848. All these dates are earlier than 1863. I appreciate the romance languages so would have no problem speaking French today if it meant ending slavery sooner.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  2. #28427
    Astonishing Member CSTowle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,923

    Default

    If anything the reputation the CIA has for recruiting and promoting people who hold a very "traditional" (re: white/christian/heterosexual/right-wing) view of the world and looking at smaller, particularly non-white countries as opportunities for exploitation or targets for destabilization I'm glad we might be making an effort to recruit people who might take a minute to look at someone who looks like themselves and say, "Hey, that there's a human being. Maybe we should try treating them as such."

    Of course, this is probably an overblown PR move and we're probably still mostly looking at those "traditional" recruits. And there's the likelihood minority candidates are going to be pressured to adopt or act as if they follow the same worldview in order to be accepted/promoted. Still, it's a start.
    Formerly finfangfool

  3. #28428
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    13,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BeastieRunner View Post
    Have any of you read the WPA Slave Narratives?

    Those have often been cited as reasons for NOT passing the Civil Rights Act and lot of current Rs are starting to cite them again as "proof" the slaves enjoyed being owned.

    A lot of the people interviewed, 70 years later, lived in the house as children. So they had very rose-tinted views of slavery.

    It was a bit of fool's errand to do it so late.
    It's still better that it was done late, than to have not done it all, even if some misinterpreted it.
    https://www.npr.org/2021/02/17/96876...w-deal-program

    There was a further complication that the information may have been unreliable. Did elderly African Americans in the South react differently to white interviewers?

    https://www.loc.gov/collections/slav...ve-collection/

    As noted earlier, the staffs of the Writers' Projects in the states in which former slaves were interviewed were overwhelmingly white. The relative absence of black interviewers introduced an important source of bias, for the interviewer's race was a significant factor in eliciting responses from the former slaves. The etiquette of Southern race relations influenced the definition of the interview situation for these aged African Americans, and some of their interviewers were even members of the former slaveholding families. As a result, informants may frequently have told their white interviewers "what they wanted to hear." For similar reasons many were undoubtedly less than fully candid or refused to tell a complete story, resulting in a kind of self-censorship.

    Fortunately, some black interviewers were involved in obtaining the narratives, and it is therefore possible to assess the influence of race by comparing the responses of those interviewed by whites with those of people interviewed by blacks. For example, in a systematic analysis of the Slave Narrative Collection and similar interviews obtained earlier by Fisk University interviewers, Paul D. Escott found that 72 percent of the ex-slaves interviewed by whites rated the quality of their food as good, while only 46 percent of those interviewed by blacks did. Similarly, 26 percent of those responding to white interviewers expressed unfavorable attitudes toward their former masters compared to 39 percent of those who responded to black interviewers.28

    However, it is important to recognize that distortion is not something inherent in the interview situation, but is relative to the specific questions asked by the researcher. There are questions and issues that were not affectively charged by the race of the interviewer. For example, in a systematic analysis of family patterns in the ex-slave interviews, Herman R. Lantz found no evidence that the race of the interviewer affected the overall reporting of family relationships.29 Therefore, depending upon how unobtrusive or subtle the measures used by the researcher, how much the race of the interviewer affected responses is an open question.

    Another problem surrounding the Slave Narrative Collection concerns the representativeness of the informants. Despite the large number of interviews obtained by the Writers' Project, less than two percent of the available ex-slaves were interviewed. This in itself is not an insurmountable problem, except that it has been impossible to determine the processes by which informants were selected. There appears to have been little concern in the Writers' Project for systematic sampling procedures or for obtaining a representative sample of the former slaves, since the problem is nowhere mentioned in the project's extensive correspondence. The skew of the sample can be seen simply in the following figures: while blacks over eighty-five years of age lived primarily in rural areas in the 1930s, those whose accounts are found in the collection were overwhelmingly urban residents. Apparently the primary basis for selection was availability; those in closest proximity to the cities in which the Federal Writers were based were most likely to be interviewed. Finally, the number of interviews obtained by each of the participating states varied considerably, ranging from three in Kansas to nearly seven hundred in Arkansas.
    There was also a question of whether some stories hint at something that the former slaves may not be willing to express.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ssion_era.html

    Wen Josephine Anderson, a formerly enslaved Floridian, was visited by a white government interviewer in the fall of 1937, she told him a ghost story. Anderson described to Jules Frost a “white man” who walked alongside her as she traversed the railroad tracks one morning. “When I walk slow he walk slow, an when I stop, he stop, never oncet lookin roun,” the transcript of Anderson’s interview, rendered in dialect, reads. “My feets make a noise on de cinders tween de rails, but he doan make a mite o’ noise.” Anderson asked the man—who she declared to Frost to be a “hant”—to go away, by saying, “Lookee here, Mister, I jes an old colored woman, an I knows my place, an I wisht you wouldn’t walk wid me counta what folks might say.” The man went away, as bidden.

    Why would Anderson tell a visiting researcher a ghost story? Was the tale a simple bit of folklore, passed on without motive? Or was it, as historian Catherine Stewart argues in her new book Long Past Slavery: Representing Race in the Federal Writers’ Project, a way for Anderson to comment on race relations in Jim Crow Florida—a means for a black interviewee to make an argument about the unwelcome presence of a white interviewer in her home, and to point out the danger she perceived in his presence, all while preserving a mask of civility and giving the interviewer what he had asked for? “While Federal Writers’ Project interviewers like Frost were engaged in writing down African American ghost stories,” Stewart writes, “former slaves such as Josephine Anderson were conjuring up tales about power and racial identities.”
    Another interpretation of the story is that it may a reference to the researcher.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  4. #28429
    Astonishing Member CSTowle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,923

    Default

    I'd still say, even just reading what you've quoted Mets, that any reasonable person would conclude the writer at Wonkette was clearly not advocating for counting slaves as full citizens for the purpose of giving white slaveowners more representation, as you seemed to argue before (and again, please correct if I'm mistaken). They're arguing it's just one more indignity heaped upon a mountain of them.
    Formerly finfangfool

  5. #28430
    Invincible Jersey Girl Tami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    27,982
    Original join date: 11/23/2004
    Eclectic Connoisseur of all things written, drawn, or imaginatively created.

  6. #28431
    Silver Sentinel BeastieRunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    11,851

    Default

    It is fantastically janky. He wants you to tweet his crap for him but all the text gets cut off when you do.

    He wants you to share videos for him but all the vid links break when you use them.

    He wants you to like his posts but the like button contains broken code.

    His main picture is him signing the Bible ... with a sharpie.

    They didn’t even spring for a link shortener so now you’ve got a trail of digital gibberish all up in your tweet.

    The content is largely GoFundMe for his legal woes.

    It is like walking through a digital version of his presidency. Broken, janky, angry, and makes no sense.

    I hope people don't engage with it.
    Last edited by BeastieRunner; 05-05-2021 at 02:34 PM.
    "Always listen to the crazy scientist with a weird van or armful of blueprints and diagrams." -- Vibranium

  7. #28432
    Ultimate Member Gray Lensman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    12,388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CSTowle View Post
    I'd still say, even just reading what you've quoted Mets, that any reasonable person would conclude the writer at Wonkette was clearly not advocating for counting slaves as full citizens for the purpose of giving white slaveowners more representation, as you seemed to argue before (and again, please correct if I'm mistaken). They're arguing it's just one more indignity heaped upon a mountain of them.
    Basically. The Southern States wanted to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted slaves to count as a full person for every benefit, and as zero for every obligation.
    Dark does not mean deep.

  8. #28433
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    13,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CSTowle View Post
    I'd still say, even just reading what you've quoted Mets, that any reasonable person would conclude the writer at Wonkette was clearly not advocating for counting slaves as full citizens for the purpose of giving white slaveowners more representation, as you seemed to argue before (and again, please correct if I'm mistaken). They're arguing it's just one more indignity heaped upon a mountain of them.
    You're mistaken. I have not hinted that Wonkette was making any argument for the purpose of giving white slaveowners more representation. It would be the practical result had northerners agreed to spare slaves this one indignity, but that's not the reason for the Wonkette piece.

    It partly represents a disgust with unpleasant choices, and the people willing to advocate for it, combined with shameless opportunism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray Lensman View Post
    Basically. The Southern States wanted to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted slaves to count as a full person for every benefit, and as zero for every obligation.
    I don't think anyone is disputing this.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  9. #28434
    Amazing Member Adam Allen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    Their main arguments are that the three-fifths compromise didn't work, and that it was wrong to count any human being as less than a full person.



    The South agreed with the perspective that it was wrong to consider slaves as fractions. They wanted slaves counted as full human beings for this particular purpose.


    The Wonkette piece also argues that it would have been better if America had never existed. I can understand that argument, though it would hardly be a popular one to wield against a politician in Tennessee, and it certainly doesn't justify the tone or the "Sweet Christ!" headline.
    It seems like you are somewhat going with a foregone conclusion (and assuming a politician in Tennessee should) that the forming of America was a good thing; therefore, the 3/5 compromise was an unfortunate but necessary evil.

    I think the tone of the "Sweet Christ!" headline is justified in response, because you are (without intending to, I'm sure) essentially asserting that racism in the form of institutional slavery being baked into the foundation of a new nation is okay. I mean, given that you think America is great, I guess I can see why you would think that. It's still wrong though, and anyone being astounded at these assumptions is absolutely justified.

    We are still dealing with the fallout of how racism was baked into the start of the country, in modern day. There were riots about racial justice throughout the country in the last year. How is it a given that the country forming under a racist compromise was definitely for the better?
    Be kind to me, or treat me mean
    I'll make the most of it, I'm an extraordinary machine

  10. #28435
    Old school comic book fan WestPhillyPunisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    24,232

    Default

    As a person of color, I think I would've punched that clown's lights out. In fact, I KNOW I would've decked him.

    Because they're dumber than a box of rocks and hopelessly beholden to Trump since they need the support of his followers. Nothing more complicated than that.
    Avatar: Here's to the late, great Steve Dillon. Best. Punisher. Artist. EVER!

  11. #28436
    Invincible Jersey Girl Tami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    27,982

    Default

    Arizona Election Auditors Check Ballots for Bamboo Fibers After Conspiracy Theorists Claim 40,000 Votes Were ‘Flown in’ from Asia

    The already bizarre circumstances surrounding Arizona’s controversial GOP-led audit of the 2020 presidential election became even stranger Wednesday. Auditors are reportedly checking ballots for bamboo fibers in an effort to confirm an absurd conspiracy theory that fraudulent votes created in Asia were somehow counted in Arizona in November.

    In an interview with journalist Dennis Welch of local CBS affiliate KTVK, Tucson resident and volunteer observer John Brakey explained the bamboo theory in greater detail.

    “Well, there’s accusations that 40,000 ballots were flown in to Arizona and stuffed into the box, okay, and it came from the south east part of the world — Asia — and what they’re doing is to find out if there’s bamboo in the paper,” Brakey said.
    He then gestured to a piece of equipment that wasn’t captured in the video interview but which was apparently being used to take extremely high definition photographs of individual ballots for inspection.

    “That camera right there, that they [use] to take a picture of the ballot, they can really look at depth and find out is it a hand marked paper ballot because it’s a 5k camera. You can see the folds in the ballot, because 92-percent of all the ballots here should’ve been folded because they came in through an envelope,” he said, adding that he was “on a mission for facts.”

    Welch then asked Brakey, who explicitly stated that he did not believe the bamboo-fraud theory, why auditors would be interested in finding bamboo.

    “Because they use bamboo in their paper processing,” Brakey responded, specifying that by “they” he meant “people in South East Asia.”
    Original join date: 11/23/2004
    Eclectic Connoisseur of all things written, drawn, or imaginatively created.

  12. #28437
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    13,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Allen View Post
    It seems like you are somewhat going with a foregone conclusion (and assuming a politician in Tennessee should) that the forming of America was a good thing; therefore, the 3/5 compromise was an unfortunate but necessary evil.

    I think the tone of the "Sweet Christ!" headline is justified in response, because you are (without intending to, I'm sure) essentially asserting that racism in the form of institutional slavery being baked into the foundation of a new nation is okay. I mean, given that you think America is great, I guess I can see why you would think that. It's still wrong though, and anyone being astounded at these assumptions is absolutely justified.

    We are still dealing with the fallout of how racism was baked into the start of the country, in modern day. There were riots about racial justice throughout the country in the last year. How is it a given that the country forming under a racist compromise was definitely for the better?
    It's not a given.

    I do believe that the forming of America is a good thing. I recognize that people may believe differently, but they should also understand that their view is going to be unpopular. No one should write anything for a general audience in the United States based on the understanding that the forming of America was a bad thing. That is going to be a fringe opinion.

    I'll make an aside that I hold some views that are unpopular. But I generally recognize when I'm in a clear political minority. I would not in good faith write a piece with a headline like "Jesus Christ, Democrats are against surge pricing!" because I understand that reasonable people can be against a controversial thing that I understand to be ultimately useful.

    I'm not saying that a politician in Tennessee should say that America is a good thing because this is so obviously true. That is based on my understanding of what ordinary voters believe. If the position of the Democratic party were that the foundation of America was a bad thing, I suspect they would lose elections in Tennessee, as well as many other states.\

    I'm not asserting that slavery being baked into the foundation of the United States is okay. My whole point on the three-fifths compromise is that the people against it under the logic that slaves should count as full humans were ultimately criticizing abolitionists for not giving slaveowners a complete political victory.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  13. #28438
    Amazing Member Adam Allen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    It's not a given.

    I do believe that the forming of America is a good thing. I recognize that people may believe differently, but they should also understand that their view is going to be unpopular. No one should write anything for a general audience in the United States based on the understanding that the forming of America was a bad thing. That is going to be a fringe opinion.

    I'll make an aside that I hold some views that are unpopular. But I generally recognize when I'm in a clear political minority. I would not in good faith write a piece with a headline like "Jesus Christ, Democrats are against surge pricing!" because I understand that reasonable people can be against a controversial thing that I understand to be ultimately useful.

    I'm not saying that a politician in Tennessee should say that America is a good thing because this is so obviously true. That is based on my understanding of what ordinary voters believe. If the position of the Democratic party were that the foundation of America was a bad thing, I suspect they would lose elections in Tennessee, as well as many other states.\

    I'm not asserting that slavery being baked into the foundation of the United States is okay. My whole point on the three-fifths compromise is that the people against it under the logic that slaves should count as full humans were ultimately criticizing abolitionists for not giving slaveowners a complete political victory.
    Slavery was baked into the formation of the country, though. If America is, unambiguously, a good thing, then how do you get away from concluding that the institution of slavery was, in the least, okay?

    You can't really have it both ways -- saying that the country is just great, while simultaneously acknowledging that something inexcusably evil was a part of how it was created.

    We can't travel back in time and undo it, but we can unilaterally condemn it as something that was wrong. This includes the 3/5 compromise, because the country would not have been formed without it. If we say the compromise was just necessary, then we are saying it was not the greatest evil -- just political expedience.

    That is worth a "Jesus Christ" because, again, that political expedience has been paid for with generations of violence and suffering.
    Be kind to me, or treat me mean
    I'll make the most of it, I'm an extraordinary machine

  14. #28439
    Old school comic book fan WestPhillyPunisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    24,232

    Default

    Crazy shit like this is why satirists are going out of business.

    ====================

    Mitch McConnell Says He’s ‘100%’ Focused On Stopping Biden’s Administration

    The Kentucky Republican side-stepped a question about GOP infighting between Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and former President Donald Trump. Mitch tried that nonsense when Barack Obama was in the White house, and that tactic failed then too. Those who fail to learn from history, yadda, yadda, yadda!

    **********

    Liz Cheney Says ‘History Is Watching’ As GOP Leaders Try To Punish Her For Telling Truth

    The Republican said the GOP’s ongoing embrace of former President Donald Trump “will do profound long-term damage to our party and our country.” Unfortunately, Qpublicans don't care about history, just kissing Trump's ass.

    **********

    South Carolina House Adds Firing Squad To Execution Methods

    The bill, approved by a 66-43 vote, will require condemned inmates to choose either being shot or electrocuted if lethal injection drugs aren’t available. Which, in turn, led to this exchange between a couple of ghouls on Faux News....

    Fox News Hosts Praise Firing Squads: Now You Can ‘Shoot ‘em, Stick ‘Em Or Fry ‘Em’

    **********

    Caitlyn Jenner, California Gubernatorial Candidate, Says She’s ‘All For’ Trump’s Wall

    The former Olympic champion told Fox News that she would “secure” the border wall and “do my absolute best” to eliminate California’s sanctuary protections. So, who wants to tell Cait that WALLS DON'T WORK?

    **********

    Texas Republican Slams GOP For Hating ‘A Good Hunk Of America’

    “I don’t know what we stand for. We stand for owning the libs,” former congressional candidate Michael Wood told MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace. Qpublicans hate what Trump hates, which is just about everything. It's as simple as that.

    **********

    Trump Proves His Hold Over GOP Again As House Leaders Prepare To Purge Liz Cheney

    The action has alarmed authoritarian experts who point to parallels in the old Soviet Union as well as in Nazi Germany. Once again, this is all about keeping Trump happy so his psychotic base will support the GQP in the upcoming midterms.
    Last edited by WestPhillyPunisher; 05-06-2021 at 01:34 AM.
    Avatar: Here's to the late, great Steve Dillon. Best. Punisher. Artist. EVER!

  15. #28440

    Default

    It was on this date in 2015 that “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” had a profile of Bobby Franklin, a former member of the Georgia House of Representatives who in 2008, he wrote an opinion editorial in the Georgia Journal where he said President George H.W. Bush was “worshipping pagan Gods”, and that we didn’t has much to fear from Obama bin Laden as we did “God’s coming wrath”. Over the course of a month in late 2010 and early 2011, Franklin was pushing for a law to require taxpayers in Georgia to pay their state taxes in gold or silver coins, only and then campaigned for Georgians’ rights to erect 40-foot-tall walls around their houses, and f attempting to resolve Georgia’s metaphysical issues, by proposed the “Freedom of Choice and Security Act” which sought to legally define the nature of evil within Georgia. He would still go on to argue against the issuing of Driver’s Licenses in Georgia, trying to use the Magna Carta as his justification, and used the Book of Corinthians as his argument to try to prevent the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” from being enacted. On women’s rights, Franklin sought to change the legal definition of the “victim” in a rape or sexual assault to the “accuser”, and to charge the accuser with the cost of the trial if the defendant was found not guilty (because that would TOTALLY encourage victims to come forward). Franklin also submitted a bill that would criminalize miscarriages if it could not be proven that the mother did nothing to be part of the cause, and the punishment for not carrying a child to term successfully would be… THE DEATH PENALTY. Which is pretty terrible when you consider one in four pregnancies result in a miscarriage, and now, 25% of pregnant women, already devastated that the baby they were hoping for was not to be, would also be the subject of a police investigation with their own life in the balance. For whatever reason in March 2011, he criticized the United States for establishing a “No Fly Zone” in Libya to aid its rebels in overthrowing Qaddafi in a bizarre way because he apparently sympathized with the dictator’s regime, and compared it to our own country’s tolerance of abortion. Bobby Franklin died of a heart attack suddenly in July of 2011.

    In 2016, 2017, 2018, as well as 2019, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” presented profiles of Richard “Dickie” Bell, a Republican representing District 20 of the Virginia State Assembly since 2009, when he was appointed to his seat by disgraced former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. Bell, who not coincidentally is a church deacon, got everyone’s attention when he forgot about that whole separation of church and state and sponsored a creationist bill, HB 207. That might be putting it mildly, as Bell’s legislation looked a lot like it was cut-and-paste written based on the “Academic Freedom Act”, which would allow students to question scientific discussion based on their faith. Upon a lot of voices getting raised in caution at what Bell was pitching, he actually tried arguing that his bill was just “misunderstood”, which was hard to believe, when he started citing how the debate would center around discussions on evolution and climate change. The creationist effort failed, but maybe folks in Virginia should have been paying attention prior to that moment in 2014 (and since), because there’s a lot of “WTF?” in Dickie Bell’s legislative record, that contains some extreme policy stances on top of some support for downright insane bills, including the time he submitted HB 154, which would have placed everyone in Virginia on an organ donor list, unless they placed themselves on an “opt out” registry. And he was surprised… SURPRISED that people got online to complain about Dickie Bell trying to turn the state into a bad version of “Repo: The Genetic Opera”. A smattering of examples from the rest of his voting record includes votes for a ban on human microchip implantation, to prevent something that’s only happening in dystopian science fiction novels, that he voted for HB 505, which authorizes citizens to carry concealed firearms in establishments that serve alcohol (because booze does such wonders for impulse control, and gun added to the mix is a winning combination), voted to bring back the electric chair as a method of execution in Virginia, voted for HB 189, which would allow adoption agencies to refuse to allow people to adopt for “religious reasons”. Y’know, like if the adoptive parents are gay and voted for Virginia’s HB 1, which if passed, would have defined life at conception, and thus made not just abortion, but using most methods of contraception murder. After the mass shooting at the Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, South Carolina, their state legislature voted to remove the Confederate flag from being displayed at the state grounds. Going the opposite direction, Dickie Bell decided to co-sponsor and vote for HB 587, to make it HARDER to remove Confederate iconography from around Virginia. Nice priorities, Dickie. Dickie Bell did not have to face a Democrat in an election in 2011, 2013, or 2015 and the GOP hasn’t had anyone oppose him in a primary since he was appointed to office back in 2009. Bell finally retired prior to the 2019 elections at the age of 82. As such, we will also retire his profile at this time and take a look at another wacky Republican today instead. (Current crazy/stupid scoreboard, is now 864-45, since this was established in July 2014.)
    X-Books Forum Mutant Tracker/FAQ- Updated every Tuesday.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •