Herschel Walker Paid for Girlfriend’s Abortion, Report Says

I'm sorry that you think that RECOGNIZING intellectual dishonesty is somehow dishonest. It isn't. Your hypocrisy is the intellectually dishonest thing here. And your lame emojis won't make up for that.

 

IS THAT WHAT WALKER DID? Seriously?

 

Oh my... if all else fails after you deflect by the use of the red herring fail, you go for personal attacks. As if that's going to work...
You seem to call everyone a hypocrite when you lose the debate.

My point stands. Your intellectual dishonesty is glaringly obvious. Do better.

Have a nice day! Buh-bye.

 

Yes it was Democrats who got upset for taking down statues of traitors and who fly the traitors flag right?

 

I don't know the answer to that. Do you? Do you have some crystal ball that gives you the absolute facts on this matter?

 

That wasn't the issue. Republicans are fielding some of the worst qualified candidates in history. Walker has no idea what to do.

 

You are accusing others of hypocrisy . . . by appealing to your own hypocrisy. You have no point. You are just screaming at your own weaknesses in a mirror. But I understand your need to retreat.

 

Herschel Walker’s son lashed out at him Monday on Twitter after the Republican U.S. Senate candidate denied a report that he paid for an ex-girlfriend’s abortion in 2009.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/herschel-walker-son-attacks-him_n_633b9623e4b0e376dbf9e02f

Walker called the allegation a “flat-out lie” and said he denied the report “in the strongest possible terms.”

“I’m not taking this anymore. I planning to sue the Daily Beast for this defamatory lie. It will be filed tomorrow morning,” he wrote in a Twitter statement.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/herschel-walker-girlfriend-abortion-report_n_633b7d42e4b02816452ce8e7

 

It's the best way to address people floundering for answers.....

 

I am not a "you guys". Dem politicians absolutely have a problem with ones right to bear arms. I live in a dem controlled state and the second amendment is unrecognizable here.


While there are differences, one thing that is the same is hypocrites imposing their preferred brand of government overreach on others.

Pro-lifers explain their position and why it is different in their case. No different.

 

It would be close. Dems may be in the lead.

 

Bahahahah my man’s is super salty.

Also I love how he says they begged him not to run because it would air out his dirty laundry which this young man would not want to do. And then he proceeds to air out his dirty laundry on Twitter for the world to see.

Either he’s a liar or a dumbass… or both.

 

The southerners were demonstrably and objectively not traitors.

 

Except during the Civil War. In which they were demonstrable and objectively both: seceding from the Union and abandoning their oaths in order to protect the institution of slavery.

 

If you and I enter into an agreement and we both willfully sign a contract that defines our rights and responsibilities under said agreement.

Years later I come back and say, “You know I never liked this part of our agreement because I consider it to be immoral. As such I’m no longer going to uphold that portion of our contract whether you like it or not.” You respond and say, “That’s fine. If you want to unilaterally alter our agreement without my consent then I want out of our partnership.”

Who is the traitor? You or I?

If I then come back and say, “No you’re not leaving our partnership and if I have to murder your men, women and children to stop you then that’s what I’m going to do.”

Who is in right and who is in the wrong? Furthermore if placed in that position would you not fight back?

 

Nothing in the agreement guaranteed race-based chattel slavery. The ones who abandoned their oaths in order to preserve said slavery were the traitors. And they were the ones who initiated physical force.

 

Yes it did. The fugitive slave clause did so.

Furthermore the northern states sent an army into foreign territory. An act of war by ANY historical measure.

 

LMAOROG

Top military officer labels Confederacy as treasonous as Pentagon takes ‘hard look’ at rebel ties


“The Confederacy, the American Civil War was fought, and it was an act of rebellion,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, told members of the House Armed Services Committee. “It was an act of treason at the time against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution, and those officers turned their back on their oath.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2020/07/09/milley-confederate-bases-trump/

NO PAYWALL LINK
https://archive.ph/XWayY

 

If you and I enter into an agreement and we both willfully sign a contract that defines our rights and responsibilities under said agreement.

Years later I come back and say, “You know I never liked this part of our agreement because I consider it to be immoral. As such I’m no longer going to uphold that portion of our contract whether you like it or not.” You respond and say, “That’s fine. If you want to unilaterally alter our agreement without my consent then I want out of our partnership.”

Who is the traitor? You or I?

If I then come back and say, “No you’re not leaving our partnership and if I have to murder your men, women and children to stop you then that’s what I’m going to do.”

Who is in right and who is in the wrong? Furthermore if placed in that position would you not fight back?

 

No, it didn't. The "fugitive slave clause" does not specify race-based chattel slavery, it is STILL part of the Constitution, it was still being used AFTER race-based chattel slavery was outlawed, and even the Confederacy acknowledged that the Constitution didn't go far enough to protect their racial slavery "rights."

 

Text of the fugitive slave clause:

“No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.”

Which means if one state had slavery the other state was CONSTITUTIONALLY OBLIGED to return their slaves upon escape. An agreement they WILLFULLY signed onto. They cannot refuse to uphold their obligations under a contract and then demand through threat of violence that the other side continues to uphold theirs. That’s preposterous.

And if they DO refuse to uphold their obligations and then refuse to let the others out of the contract, then THEY are the traitors.

 

Who, these people?



But we do have to give DemoKKKrats credit for bringing diversity to racism and anti-Semitism and respectability to racists and anti-Semites:



Truly "progressive"....

 

The clause doesn't mention race or even slavery. It is still part of our Constitution. It was still enforced in courts after the Civil War in ways that had nothing to do with race-based chattel slavery. If it guaranteed race-based chattel slavery, then race-based chattel slavery would STILL be legal. Again, the Confederates COMPLAINED about the Constitution not going far enough to protect their "rights" to race-based chattel slavery.

 

It doesn’t have to mention race based chattel slavery. It states explicitly ANY “person held to labor or service.” That means indentured servitude or race based slavery or chattel slavery or ANY OTHER form of service or labor. Such as a prisoner. All of them were covered.

It doesn’t matter if you like that or think it was wrong. That was the fact of life and the constitution.

 

Are you willing to condemn the Daughters of the Confederacy? Congrats if you do. I've yet to meet ANY conservative willing to do that. And are you willing to do what Obama did and condemn Farrakhan's racism?