Herschel Walker Paid for Girlfriend’s Abortion, Report Says

I'm willing to condemn anyone connected to the KKK, as many conservatives have done, and who you say you've met and what you claim they've said has nothing to do with what Joe Biden thinks and says.

Is Joe Biden a conservative?

No, he's not.

I'm not willing to give Farrakhan the respect and dignity Obama extended to him, no, and Obama's actions speak louder than his empty politically-motivated words. If he actually found Farrakhan and his racism and anti-semitism offensive he wouldn't have gone sleazing up beside him for a photograph. I'll add that I won't let Obama slide for his empty politically-motivated words like you and many other people have, either. Obama knew who and what Farrakhan was when he had that photograph taken.

Oh, and for bonus points, I wouldn't get caught dead in William Ayers' and Bernadine Dohrn's home, much less launch my political career in it like Obama did. Would you?

 

Oh I’ve read that misquoted trash that the author refused to allow him to fix:

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/What_I_Really_Said_in_the_Cornerstone_Speech

Here’s what he ACTUALLY said. Read it and learn:


As for my Savanna speech, about which so much has been said and in regrd to which I am represented as setting forth "slavery" as the "corner-stone" of the Confederacy, it is proper for me to state that that speech was extemporaneous, the reporter's notes, which were very imperfect, were hastily corrected by me; and were published without further revision and with several glaring errors. The substance of what I said on slavery was, that on the points under the old Constitution out of which so much discussion, agitation, and strife between the States had arisen, no future contention could arise, as these had been put to rest by clear language. I did not say, nor do I think the reporter represented me as saying, that there was the slightest change in the new Constitution from the old regarding the status of the African race amongst us. (Slavery was without doubt the occasion of secession; out of it rose the breach of compact, for instance, on the part of several Northern States in refusing to comply with Constitutional obligations as to rendition of fugitives from service, a course betraying total disregard for all constitutional barriers and guarantees.)

I admitted that the fathers, both of the North and the South, who framed the old Constitution, while recognizing existing slavery and guarnateeing its continuance under the Constitution so long as the States should severally see fit to tolerate it in their respective limits, were perhaps all opposed to the principle. Jefferson, Madison, Washington, all looked for its early extinction throughout the United States. But on the subject of slavery - so called - (which was with us, or should be, nothing but the proper subordination of the inferior African race to the superior white) great and radical changes had taken place in the realm of thought; many eminent latter-day statesmen, philosophers, and philanthropists held different views from the fathers.

The patriotism of the fathers was not questioned, nor their ability and wisdom, but it devolved on the public men and statesmen of each generation to grapple with and solve the problems of their own times.

The relation of the black to the white race, or the proper status of the coloured population amongst us, was a question now of vastly more importance than when the old Constitution was formed. The order of subordination was nature's great law; philosophy taught that order as the noraml condition of the African amongst European races. Upon this recognized principle of a proper subordination, let it be called slavery or what not, our State institutions were formed and rested. The new Confederation was entered into with this distinct understanding. This principle of the subordination of the inferior to the superior was the "corner-stone" on which it was formed. I used this metaphor merely to illustrate the firm convictions of the framers of the new Constitution that this relation of the black to the white race, which existed in 1787, was not wrong in itself, either morally or politically; that it was in conformity to nature and best for both races. I alluded not to the principles of the new Government on this subject, but to public sentiment in regard to these principles. The status of the African race in the new Constitution was left just where it was in the old; I affirmed and meant to affirm nothing else in this Savannah speech.

My own opinion of slavery, as often expressed, was that if the institution was not the best, or could not be made the best, for both races, looking to the advancement and progress of both, physically and morally, it ought to be abolished. It was far from being what it might and ought to have been. Education was denied. This was wrong. I ever condemned the wrong. Marriage was not recognized. This was a wrong that I condemned. Many things connected with it did not meet my approval but excited my disgust, abhorrence, and detestation. The same I may say of things connected with the best institutions in the best communities in which my lot has been cast. Great improvements were, however, going on in the condition of blacks in the South. Their general physical condition not only as to necessaries but as to comforts was better in my own neighbourhood in 1860, than was that of the whites when I can first recollect, say 1820. Much greater would have been made, I verily believe, but for outside agitation. I have but small doubt that education would have been allowed long ago in Georgia, except for outside pressure which stopped internal reform.

 

And the seceding states worried that wouldn't stick. And said so.

Yet the seceding states said they worried that slave power was on the wane.

 

It most certainly is true. The confederates also had Indian slaves. Did they not?

 

Perhaps a hobby. Perhaps this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party

 

Of course they did lol the northern states and their proxy the federal government refused to uphold the constitution and rulings from the scotus lol

 

Yes. AFTER the war was over, he tried changing his tune . . . despite giving similar speeches in the past. Notice how this was AFTER they lost the war? Of course you didn't bother to pay attention to that. Nor did you look at any of his previous speeches.

But, hey, let's try looking at the Mississippi declaration of causes for secession, since he helped draft it and he signed off on it. You ready?

Okay, so let's start with the first paragraph:

"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course."

Oh, man, it sounds like the next sentence is going to spell out, without any room for denial, the reason they are seceding! Would you like to read the next sentence, or are you already ready to backtrack? We both know it is the latter. But if you develop the courage required to read what comes next, we can go over it. You won't, but the offer stands. It's just one more sentence. Why so scared to read it?

 

FAKE NEWS I'm pro life and I too have financially helped girls who felt their only choice was an abortion. This is a real problem for the progressive puritans who tend toward black and white thinking.

While obviously pro life, it appears that he sees and responds to the human element like most of us do.

 

You mean that the courts might one day figure out that black people are humans. Yes, that's what the Confederates were worried about as well.

 

FYI, support for 1/6 makes you an insurrectionist. A traitor is one that gives support to am adversary.

 

If you're referring to me I'm neither a "gun banner" nor for "unlimited immigration". I'm all about moderation for all things.

 

He paid to abort his own illegitimate child. Good to see republican hypocrisy still knows no bounds.

 

I showed that wasn't true

 

Weird now the federal Gov't needed ESP to know who was wanted and who wasn't, 150 years ago? Going to show anything that the feds obstructed?

 

That the guy who won the republican primary for Senator in GA is a colossal hypocrite.


But, of course, given they backed Trump, fornicator, liar, hypocrite, cheat, sex predator extraordinaire, hypocrites aren't a problem for the right.

 

I get it now, you would support slavery today because a majority of Southern states wanted it? CONServatives always decades if not centuries behind on doing what's right

 

Fake News. You are claiming a contradiction between:

1. Pro-Life
2. Assisting a woman to obtain an abortion.

There is no necessary contradiction between 1) and 2). Many who are pro-life also support abortion under some circumstances. But, I understand that for a Black & White thinker given to fundamentalist close-mindedness that this may make no sense at all, not you of course, I'm confident that you are a broadminded understanding person that just happens to see this particular subject in such concrete terms.

The good news is that here in America even black and white closed-minded fundies are free to hold and express their views. Not that you need such accommodation as you are no such person.

 

If he is Lenny, then who is George?

 

And that absolutely is incorrect.... Never seen a one that has a problem with the general concept... Much like I've never seen a Republican fail to stretch that one simple concept into Pandora's Unrestricted Arms Locker...

But I was talking about the difference between making decisions about your own pregnancy and making decisions for the good of the public health, as you cleverly alluded to...

 

Walker isn't

Trump-endorsed Senate candidate Herschel Walker supports a total abortion ban: 'there's no exception in my mind'
https://www.businessinsider.com/her...ortion-ban-no-exception-georgia-senate-2022-5

 

Yes, some Republicans support abortion in order to preserve a woman's health, should it be in danger.

But, is that the abortion that Walker paid for in 2009? No, this abortion is one that Walker didn't want to be responsible for, pay alimony for, etc.


This, from Walker's son:

 

Going to show where they didn't?

 

That's much more restrictive than my view, and apparently much more restrictive than his actual practice.

His opponent, on the other hand, supports taxpayer funded abortion with no restrictions, up to the moment of even partial birth.

Walker's view, as he conducts his personal life is certainly closer to my view than than his opponents.

This race is tight, but, the polls have it Warnock +1.3%

 

His son's angry with him. It happens.

His views on abortion, as he practices them, is certainly closer to most voters than Warnocks.

 

Sorry, unable to respond, Laughing too hard while trying to clean the iced tea that just came outta my nose out of my keyboard..