Church Shooting

[Magox]

Oh No! Tasker, you must be devastated! Rand Paul must be an avid reader of the Huffington Post.

 

“I think the flag is inescapably a symbol of human bondage and slavery, and particularly when people use it obviously for murder and to justify hated so vicious that you would kill somebody, I think that that symbolism needs to end, and I think South Carolina is doing the right thing,” Paul said.

 

[birdog1960]

better late than never (like here for example). but why did it take the murder of 9 people to convince presumably fairly intelligent people that the flag was a destructive symbol? kinda doesn't smell right.

[Magox]

better late than never (like here for example). but why did it take the murder of 9 people to convince presumably fairly intelligent people that the flag was a destructive symbol? kinda doesn't smell right.

 

Yeah, sorta reminds me of just a few years ago when Obama said he believed that marriage should be between a man and a woman and that he was not in favor of gay marriage and then all of a sudden his view evolved.

 

Weird.

[B-Man]

better late than never (like here for example). but why did it take the murder of 9 people to convince presumably fairly intelligent people that the flag was a destructive symbol? kinda doesn't smell right.

 

 

That whole post doesn't smell right.

 

 

While I have posted positive reasons for the flag not being on the Capital grounds,

 

You CANNOT make that leap that flag was responsible for the murders.

 

why did it take the murder of 9 people to convince presumably fairly intelligent people that the flag was a destructive symbol ?

 

 

 

That line is BS........bd.

 

 

 

.

Edited June 23, 2015 by B-Man

[boyst]

better late than never (like here for example). but why did it take the murder of 9 people to convince presumably fairly intelligent people that the flag was a destructive symbol? kinda doesn't smell right.

I'm a moron and recognize this statement as stupid. I should get a trophy.

 

To believe that people do not evolve is ridiculous. To believe that politicians don't pander is naive. To deny both is hilarious.

[TakeYouToTasker]

so you mean like the assurance of equal rights under the law? that kind of federal intervention?

 

was strom thurmond a hero of yours?

 

In opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957, he conducted the longest filibuster ever by a lone senator, at 24 hours and 18 minutes in length, nonstop. In the 1960s, he opposed the civil rights legislation of 1964 and 1965 to end segregation and enforce the constitutional rights of African-American citizens, including suffrage. He always insisted he had never been a racist, but was opposed to excessive federal authority. He attributed the movement to practice constitutional rights to Communist agitators.^[5] In 1948, Thurmond stated:

"all the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the

Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, into our schools, our churches and our places of recreation and amusement."

[

5

]

Starting in the 1970s, he moderated his position on race, but continued to defend his early segregationist campaigns on the basis of states' rights in the context of Southern society at the time.^[6] He never fully renounced his earlier viewpoints.^[7][8]

Six months after Thurmond died in 2003, his mixed-race, grown daughter Essie Mae Washington-Williams revealed that he was her father. Her mother Carrie Butler had been 16 years old and working as his family's maid when she became involved with Thurmond, who was 22. Although Thurmond never publicly acknowledged Essie Mae Washington, he paid for her education at a historically black college and passed other money to her for some time. She said that she kept silent out of respect for her father^[9] and denied that the two had agreed that she would not reveal her connection to Thurmond.^[10] His children by his marriage eventually acknowledged her.^[9] Her name has since been added as one of his children to his memorial at the state capital

 

so i suppose the laws and the army didn't have to force a negro into his bed, then.

 

Clearly the fereal government wasn't required to intergrate Thurmond's personal life.

 

 

Amended for accuracy.

 

The underlying State's Right at issue was slavery. You just cannot separate the two.

 

 

 

You can, and absolutely should, seperate the ideals of the philosophy from the sins of man. Yours in an ugly and inappropriate conflation, used by would be dictators to undermine self governance and human sovereignty. No part United States is in danger of instituting slavery or segregation, or in any way institutionalizing racism. It's inappropriate to raise up those spectors when discussing the merits of State's Rights in the year 2015.

Edited June 23, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[IDBillzFan]

If it's not that important to you, then why get so upset? Clearly for many African Americans and others its an important symbolic move, that in my view was long over due.

 

I never said I was upset. I said I was embarrassed. Because we're fools led by fools who do what other fools tell them to do to avoid looking foolish.

[birdog1960]

I'm a moron and recognize this statement as stupid. I should get a trophy.

 

To believe that people do not evolve is ridiculous. To believe that politicians don't pander is naive. To deny both is hilarious.

evolution? i'll bet there are many racists that deny it and are simultaneously negative examples for its existence.

[Deranged Rhino]

You can, and absolutely should, seperate the ideals of the philosophy from the sins of man. Yours in an ugly and inappropriate conflation, used by would be dictators to undermine self governance and human soveriegnty. No part United States is in danger of instituting slavery or segrgation, or in any way institutionalizing racism. It's inappropriate to raise up those spectors when discussing the merits of State's Rights in the year 2015.

 

I have no problem with the notion of contemporary state's rights, we agree on that. But that's not what the confederate flag represents -- unless you really make an effort to stretch that interpretation. The flag is a symbol of the confederacy's willingness (and South Carolina in particular) to fight a war with its own brethren to keep the institution of slavery. That's why the flag has always been symbolic and divisive. People who fly it, whether they realize it or not, are flying a symbol of this nation's original sin.

 

That said, the flag has nothing to do with what happened in that church.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Oh No! Tasker, you must be devastated! Rand Paul must be an avid reader of the Huffington Post.

 

As I've stated earlier, Paul is a politician, and politicians are capitulating because it's a tall task to vie for political power while dealing with persitent charges of unfounded racism. Paul is no different in this regard.

 

You, on the other hand, are not a public figure running for reelection. You're simply the malinformed nitwit they're scrambling to appease.

[DC Tom]

 

Amended for accuracy.

 

The underlying State's Right at issue was slavery. You just cannot separate the two.

 

You actually can, as secession was not strictly about slavery in all Confederate states. In most of the deep South it was a primary issue (no coincidence that South Carolina was the first state to secede.) But in border states, it was certainly more about states' rights to self-determination within the federal structure. It's why a good number of Confederate states seceded after Lincoln's call-up of the militia to suppress the insurrection of seceding states, and specifically cited the federal government's lack of recognition of states' rights to secede (the Virginia convention, for example, was rather specific on that matter - one mention of slavery, and eleven of states' rights in their declaration.) And Texas, of course, had a history as a sovereign nation before joining the Union, so had a very strong sense of their independent rights as a state. What's more, certain slaveholding states didn't secede (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware) because even though they were pro-slavery, they were also pro-Union.

 

Which isn't to say slavery wasn't a driving issue (though it was less slavery per se than the conflict between competing economic models - the mercantilism of Northern manufacturing and commerce, and the agricultural landed gentry of the South - cheap labor was necessary to the latter, but not to the former.) Just to say that the story is never as simple as a single issue.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

I have no problem with the notion of contemporary state's rights, we agree on that. But that's not what the confederate flag represents -- unless you really make an effort to stretch that interpretation. The flag is a symbol of the confederacy's willingness (and South Carolina in particular) to fight a war with its own brethren to keep the institution of slavery. That's why the flag has always been symbolic and divisive. People who fly it, whether they realize it or not, are flying a symbol of this nation's original sin.

 

That said, the flag has nothing to do with what happened in that church.

 

South Carolina wasn't fighting a war with it's own brethren. It was fighting a war against outsiders who sought to deny them their sovereingty; which was a precursor of their agreement to join the United States in the first place. Any encroachment large enough to cripple their economy would have been sufficient. Any argument to the contrary is absurd.

Edited June 23, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[boyst]

evolution? i'll bet there are many racists that deny it and are simultaneously negative examples for its existence.

my Allah you're dense

 

Evolution of thoughts and beliefs. See St Obama for more insight there. The dude talks sideways and changed his stance more then Caitlyn Jenner tucked and in heels.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

You actually can, as secession was not strictly about slavery in all Confederate states. In most of the deep South it was a primary issue (no coincidence that South Carolina was the first state to secede.) But in border states, it was certainly more about states' rights to self-determination within the federal structure. It's why a good number of Confederate states seceded after Lincoln's call-up of the militia to suppress the insurrection of seceding states, and specifically cited the federal government's lack of recognition of states' rights to secede (the Virginia convention, for example, was rather specific on that matter - one mention of slavery, and eleven of states' rights in their declaration.) And Texas, of course, had a history as a sovereign nation before joining the Union, so had a very strong sense of their independent rights as a state. What's more, certain slaveholding states didn't secede (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware) because even though they were pro-slavery, they were also pro-Union.

 

Which isn't to say slavery wasn't a driving issue (though it was less slavery per se than the conflict between competing economic models - the mercantilism of Northern manufacturing and commerce, and the agricultural landed gentry of the South - cheap labor was necessary to the latter, but not to the former.) Just to say that the story is never as simple as a single issue.

 

 

Absolutely, that's a reason I've been hitting South Carolina in particular so hard with those comments. It was the cauldron of slavery in the Americas before they were ever a state. But slavery was the issue at bar in nearly every decision made in the lead up to war. From the economic models, to the social construct of the antebellum south, to the political rhetoric of the day. Slavery was the ink that stained everything it touched. That same ink is still deeply embedded into every confederate flag flying today.

[3rdnlng]

those and some other not very admirable, desirable or attractive traits comprise a fairly accurate profile of many american racists.

 

 

they almost certainly know. but conceding this would concede the more fundamental reasons for the defense of the symbol.

Yes, racism is bad and racists usually have more than a few other unattractive qualities. WTF is your point? Next you'll be trying to claim that since drug abuse and dysfunctional families are quite normal in the inner city, that there is a lot of racism going on there.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

South Carolina wasn't fighting a war with it's own brethren. It was fighting a war against outsiders who sought to deny them their sovereingty; which was a precursor of their agreement to join the United States in the first place. Any encroachment large enough to cripple their economy would have been sufficient. Any argument to the contrary is absurd.

 

Their economic model depended upon slavery, as you would concede. Especially in South Carolina, there was no other cause or reason for secession more paramount than the desire to keep their slaves.

Edited June 23, 2015 by GreggyT

[TakeYouToTasker]

Their economic model depended upon slavery, as you would concede. Especially in South Carolina, there was no other cause or reason for secession more paramount than the desire to keep their slaves.

 

And the Northern economy was dependent apon Southern slavery as well. The overwhelming majority of the money made by Americans in the slave trade settled in the North, and many of our longstanding institutions and established financial legacies were funded by it, and never would have existed without it.

 

Once the North had move past it's emminent needs, it denied it's own history and involvement, and turned on the Southern economy, in favor of it's own continued aggrandizement.

 

That is beside the point, however. The North was in no way interested in the welfare of blacks. They were interested only in their own economic interests, and the South was interested only in theirs. The Union, when it was entered into, was understood to been unfastened and voluntary by all involved.

[K-9]

... Which isn't to say slavery wasn't a driving issue (though it was less slavery per se than the conflict between competing economic models - the mercantilism of Northern manufacturing and commerce, and the agricultural landed gentry of the South - cheap labor was necessary to the latter, but not to the former.) Just to say that the story is never as simple as a single issue.

Cheap labor. That's a good one. The south had no "competing economic model" without it.

 

Not a single issue? Perhaps. But it's all window dressing. When I view all the other issues as spokes on a wheel, the hub is the issue of slavery. It all comes back to that.

 

All of it is moot anyway. If you or anyone else could convince me or anyone else that slavery wasn't the crux of the argument for the south's secession, what does that change? What would this new insight bear in today's debate?

[B-Man]

It shouldn’t be a surprise that Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C., has taken an unspeakable crime and made it the occasion for an astonishing Christian witness.

 

In an unforgettable scene at the bond hearing last week for Dylann Roof, whose own uncle mused about flipping the switch for his execution after he gunned down nine people at an Emanuel Bible study, tearful family members of the victims told Roof that they forgive him and that he should repent.

 

They were voices of love responding to hate, of unbelievable mercy and forbearance in the face of cruelty and murderous provocation, of an almost miraculous faith.

 

In his sermon at Emanuel the Sunday after the shootings, the Reverend Norvel Goff Sr. said members of the media wondered how the family members were capable of such heroic grace, before declaring they wouldn’t be mystified if they knew the true “daddy” of those families, God the Father.

 

Goff’s performance was itself extraordinary — exuberant, joyful, unifying, and supremely confident that “no weapon formed against us shall prosper,” just days after Roof had wielded a murderous weapon within the church’s very walls

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420166/emanuel-a.m.e.-black-church-america-rich-lowry

[Magox]

 

As I've stated earlier, Paul is a politician, and politicians are capitulating because it's a tall task to vie for political power while dealing with persitent charges of unfounded racism. Paul is no different in this regard.

 

You, on the other hand, are not a public figure running for reelection. You're simply the malinformed nitwit they're scrambling to appease.

 

 

 

Are you seriously this shallow to believe that anyone that doesn't fit your narrow world-view is someone that you can neatly put in a box and categorize it with the drivel you just spouted? It doesn't work that way, hard-head. Believe it or not, some people do think for themselves, and MY OWN personal view of the confederate flag has just about always been one of intolerance and division.

 

My views were formed as someone who lived in the deep south for almost two decades, and I witnessed the sort of characters who burnished the flag as a symbol of pride and defiance. These individuals FROM MY EXPERIENCES were typically racist bigots, and I specially saw this first hand when I moved to Kannapolis N.C when I was a young teenager. My skin complexion is darker than most white people, but not so dark that I look like your typical Mexican field worker. However, I was relentlessly mocked by these individuals as a spik, fence jumper, etc. I saw how they spoke about black people, it was very common that they called them !@#$s and had some very hateful views.

 

But make no bones about it, this wasn't just some one-off sort of instance, it was endemic, widespread. Now, I'm not saying that the confederate flag for all or even most people who supported it are racist or bigots, I have no way of knowing this, but from my point of view, many of the people who did support this flag enough to have it plastered in the back of their pick up truck or raised in front of their homes, were unseemly people that did hold these sentiments. That was my view, that was from my experiences.

 

So for me, this is an issue and decision that I felt was long overdue. I never agreed with the notion of having the confederate flag, which I view as a symbol of division and intolerance should be raised on government property. If you want to raise the flag on your property or have a bumper sticker of it on the back of your truck or even put in a historical museum, that's fine by me. But in my view, never belonged on government property that could in any way or shape could possibly be misconstrued as a symbol that represented the folks of any state.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Magox