Church Shooting

[birdog1960]

 

Monroe and Wayne counties I believe.

wonder what makes them such beacons of hope.

i thought this interview did a good job explaining the continued prevalence of the white supremacist movement: http://www.npr.org/2015/06/24/417045112/narrative-change-makes-white-supremacy-groups-more-dangerous-expert-says.

 

basically it's about demographics. from 20% nonwhite to 40% in 40 years. and the backlash can in part be explained by "if they get more, i get less". same as for the aca or socialized medicine imo.

 

GREENE: And what's drawing people might be a new narrative, one that seems to capture Dylann Roof. It's the idea that racial diversity is threatening the survival of white people.

Edited June 24, 2015 by birdog1960

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Yes, it was. "The Preservation of the Union" through force of arms did nothing more than subjugate the entire South to the interests of the North against their will. Any argument that the North was justified in doing this is exactly the same thing as a husband beating his wife and chaining her up in the basement with the logic that preserving their marriage was more important than her exercising her rights to leave him because she was unhappy.

 

Wow.

[Alaska Darin]

the anecdote was given to address how and why i would fix loopholes in gunlaws. done.

Except, putzenhammer there isn't a LOOPHOLE. Gun dealers still have to do exactly the same paperwork at gunshows that they do in their shops. Straw buying for individuals who aren't legally allowed to buy firearms has been a felony since the late '60s. So once again, you ignorantly espouse that we need to prohibit something to cover for issues that don't actually exist. Keep listening to NPR and the Brady folks, hippie.

 

Typical ignorant hypocrite liberal.

What's the instructive example? Was it that you violated what you think the law should be?

He thinks that waving a magic wand will keep guns out of the hands of criminals even though statistics CLEARLY show that only a tiny percentage of guns used in crime are legally purchased at gun shows. It's liberalism at it's apex. Keep thinking it...it'll be so. Sunshine and unicorns will keep those pesky "cons" at bay. Attacking the real problems is far too difficult. That's why we end up with **** like Obamacare and the Department of Education.

[IDBillzFan]

i thought this interview did a good job explaining the continued prevalence of the white supremacist movement: http://www.npr.org/2015/06/24/417045112/narrative-change-makes-white-supremacy-groups-more-dangerous-expert-says.

 

The white supremacist movement? Are you freaking kidding me? One white kid kills nine black people and you're reading about the prevalence of the white supremacist movement, but dozens of blacks murder hundreds of blacks every freaking weekend, and what is NRP writing about that? Where are the articles about how the policies of the left, in cities like Detroit and Baltimore and NY and LA, are keeping blacks at the bottom of the food chain, blaming the police for all their ills while gangbangers and drug dealers murder little kids left and right just be part of the cool group?

 

But hey...maybe if we can just get rid of one more flag, all will be well with the world, amirite?

 

Fools.,

Edited June 24, 2015 by LABillzFan

[boyst]

I'm still waiting to hear how the preservation of the Union was a tragic occurrence.

what a pity.

 

And since transgreg will read this too.

 

The preservation of the union was tragic in that it did not preserve the Union. It destroyed the south and drove a further wedge between the races of the south. The Union you speak of burned the south down, took about everything that they could, plundered their riches, stole and removed anything they could of value. The ordinary home was burned down, the common man was left with nothing. The house he lived in destroyed - forced to poverty he would never reclaim until that great idea of the new idea and the tva gave him a fighting chance. Meanwhile the black man was forced in to the street. No home, no skill, no opportunity bit to work for the man.

 

Meanwhile, the dmn Yankees thought they were high and mighty and tell it that they did something great. They freed the black man and enslaved an entire region.

[Rob's House]

I'm still waiting to hear how the preservation of the Union was a tragic occurrence.

Because now yankees are welcome to come down here at their leisure.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/04/28/the-most-racist-places-in-america-according-to-google/

 

 

Heh.

Interesting methodology. Apparently anti-white sentiment doesn't count.

I disagree that's the most apt analogy. A better one would be if the husband were beating his wife, keeping her chained in the front yard where he would deliver his beatings, and the neighbors were forced to watch. Not doing anything would be almost as great of a sin as what the husband is committing against his wife.

 

Sometimes to thwart a great evil -- and slavery in the Americas was unquestionably a great evil -- requires great force.

The problem with all of this is that you're promoting the propaganda of the statists. Anyone who thinks Lincoln sent troops into the south to end slavery is an idiot and a fool. But if they sell it as such they legitimize the invasion and occupation of sovereign states. If they can make it about slavery it sells better than telling the truth - that it was about a government illegitimately maintaining power.

 

To expound upon the concepts discussed earlier, and simplified to a point that Max Fischer might understand:

 

Secession - Over slavery

Invasion - Over Power

Defense - Over Sovereignty.

[meazza]

Because now yankees are welcome to come down here at their leisure.

 

Interesting methodology. Apparently anti-white sentiment doesn't count.

 

The problem with all of this is that you're promoting the propaganda of the statists. Anyone who thinks Lincoln sent troops into the south to end slavery is an idiot and a fool. But if they sell it as such they legitimize the invasion and occupation of sovereign states. If they can make it about slavery it sells better than telling the truth - that it was about a government illegitimately maintaining power.

 

To expound upon the concepts discussed earlier, and simplified to a point that Max Fischer might understand:

 

Secession - Over slavery

Invasion - Over Power

Defense - Over Sovereignty.

 

I'll respond for him.

 

FAUX NEWS!!!

[Deranged Rhino]

what a pity.

 

And since transgreg will read this too.

 

The preservation of the union was tragic in that it did not preserve the Union. It destroyed the south and drove a further wedge between the races of the south. The Union you speak of burned the south down, took about everything that they could, plundered their riches, stole and removed anything they could of value. The ordinary home was burned down, the common man was left with nothing. The house he lived in destroyed - forced to poverty he would never reclaim until that great idea of the new idea and the tva gave him a fighting chance. Meanwhile the black man was forced in to the street. No home, no skill, no opportunity bit to work for the man.

 

Meanwhile, the dmn Yankees thought they were high and mighty and tell it that they did something great. They freed the black man and enslaved an entire region.

 

Abolishing the institution of slavery was the only way to heal the divide between the races in this country brought on by the African slave trade. You're delusional if you believe the black man "had it better under slavery" than they do today. In fact, it's pretty incendiary to even suggest that -- especially looking back through a modern lens. Was the transition seamless? Absolutely not -- but progress is never a straight line. The institution of slavery, in all its forms, was evil at its core. There can be no dispute about this. The monetary value of slave, especially after 1808, made it in the owner's interests to care for their slaves -- but on their terms.

 

Had the Confederacy been allowed to break away peacefully, the institution of slavery would have been given further legitimacy, which, in turn, would have re-legitimized the African slave trade itself. I don't know if you're familiar with the actual numbers of men, women, and children who met their brutal deaths as a result of this trade (which lasted for well over two centuries) but I assure you their dead out number those lost by BOTH sides of the Civil War by an astronomical amount. We're talking millions of people. The ones lucky enough to survive, were greeted with a system that did not care for them as humans, but as chattel.

 

You might think they were better off in chains, but you're kidding yourself. It's just not true. The Civil War did not further the racial divide in this country. Now, reconstruction... that's a different story.

 

 

Because now yankees are welcome to come down here at their leisure.

 

 

 

The problem with all of this is that you're promoting the propaganda of the statists. Anyone who thinks Lincoln sent troops into the south to end slavery is an idiot and a fool. But if they sell it as such they legitimize the invasion and occupation of sovereign states. If they can make it about slavery it sells better than telling the truth - that it was about a government illegitimately maintaining power.

 

To expound upon the concepts discussed earlier, and simplified to a point that Max Fischer might understand:

 

Secession - Over slavery

Invasion - Over Power

Defense - Over Sovereignty.

 

I hear what you're saying but I'm not trying to frame it in a historical context. Boyst said there was nothing good that came out of the Civil War -- which is a ridiculous thing to say considering that it effectively ended slavery in western world. There's a myriad of issues at play when analyzing the decisions of the men involved and the decisions to go to war, no disagreement there. I've never meant to suggest that everyone was fighting for the same cause. I've read hundreds of first hand accounts of the war from all sorts of folk, enough to know that there was a lot of complexity to the times.

 

From a personal perspective, and I would think it's a pretty universal one, the end of slavery -- even with the cost of the war and reconstruction -- was a benefit to this country. Which is why Boyst's stance, to me, is ridiculous.

[Dorkington]

Because now yankees are welcome to come down here at their leisure.

 

Interesting methodology. Apparently anti-white sentiment doesn't count.

 

The problem with all of this is that you're promoting the propaganda of the statists. Anyone who thinks Lincoln sent troops into the south to end slavery is an idiot and a fool. But if they sell it as such they legitimize the invasion and occupation of sovereign states. If they can make it about slavery it sells better than telling the truth - that it was about a government illegitimately maintaining power.

 

To expound upon the concepts discussed earlier, and simplified to a point that Max Fischer might understand:

 

Secession - Over slavery

Invasion - Over Power

Defense - Over Sovereignty.

White people aren't oppressed in any meaningful way, so no, it doesn't and shouldn't count.

 

Yes, I say that knowing there are anti white crimes occasionally, but it is not a systemic problem.

[Rob's House]

 

Abolishing the institution of slavery was the only way to heal the divide between the races in this country brought on by the African slave trade. You're delusional if you believe the black man "had it better under slavery" than they do today. In fact, it's pretty incendiary to even suggest that -- especially looking back through a modern lens. Was the transition seamless? Absolutely not -- but progress is never a straight line. The institution of slavery, in all its forms, was evil at its core. There can be no dispute about this. The monetary value of slave, especially after 1808, made it in the owner's interests to care for their slaves -- but on their terms.

 

Had the Confederacy been allowed to break away peacefully, the institution of slavery would have been given further legitimacy, which, in turn, would have re-legitimized the African slave trade itself. I don't know if you're familiar with the actual numbers of men, women, and children who met their brutal deaths as a result of this trade (which lasted for well over two centuries) but I assure you their dead out number those lost by BOTH sides of the Civil War by an astronomical amount. We're talking millions of people. The ones lucky enough to survive, were greeted with a system that did not care for them as humans, but as chattel.

 

You might think they were better off in chains, but you're kidding yourself. It's just not true. The Civil War did not further the racial divide in this country. Now, reconstruction... that's a different story.

 

 

 

I hear what you're saying but I'm not trying to frame it in a historical context. Boyst said there was nothing good that came out of the Civil War -- which is a ridiculous thing to say considering that it effectively ended slavery in western world. There's a myriad of issues at play when analyzing the decisions of the men involved and the decisions to go to war, no disagreement there. I've never meant to suggest that everyone was fighting for the same cause. I've read hundreds of first hand accounts of the war from all sorts of folk, enough to know that there was a lot of complexity to the times.

 

From a personal perspective, and I would think it's a pretty universal one, the end of slavery -- even with the cost of the war and reconstruction -- was a benefit to this country. Which is why Boyst's stance, to me, is ridiculous.

Without getting too deep into it, the only thing I'd add is that the African slave trade had already been outlawed and slavery in general, which was not exclusive to the south or even to America, was falling out of favor in the west and would likely have ended by the turn of the century regardless of the war. Had that happened I think both blacks and whites would have ended up better off and without the racial tension that hangs around like herpes.

White people aren't oppressed in any meaningful way, so no, it doesn't and shouldn't count.

 

Yes, I say that knowing there are anti white crimes occasionally, but it is not a systemic problem.

This line of thought may have had merit at one time but that time has long since past. When people like you stoke the racial flames for whatever your reason (white guilt, to be one of "the good ones", ignorance, stupidity, or something else I haven't thought of) you're not helping anything "heal" and you're not helping black folks or white folks. You're just perpetuating the problem and making it worse.

 

And do some research about how occasional anti-white crimes are. Just because the media highlights anything and everything that could possibly be construed as white on black violence and ignores it when it's the other way around, doesn't mean that's the reality of the situation.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/white-americans-are-biggest-terror-threat-u-s-study-n380931?cid=sm_tw&hootPostID=286087e8a44bc73516c0825c60699e68

 

Anyone want to argue that NBC News would identify any other racial group like this?

[Deranged Rhino]

Without getting too deep into it, the only thing I'd add is that the African slave trade had already been outlawed and slavery in general, which was not exclusive to the south or even to America, was falling out of favor in the west and would likely have ended by the turn of the century regardless of the war. Had that happened I think both blacks and whites would have ended up better off and without the racial tension that hangs around like herpes.

 

Total agreement that the slave trade was in no way exclusive to the south. It was a (multi)national problem and filled the coffers of northerners, southerners, Europeans and Africans alike. But it's 100% false that slavery was falling out of favor in the Americas prior to the Civil War, or that the Congressional act of 1808 had any impact on stopping the flow of slaves from Africa. That's just not what happened.

 

The slave trade itself was outlawed in 1808 (1807 in Britain) and was enforced largely through British naval might -- but it was monumentally ineffective. Domestic slave trading continued, even accelerated after 1808 in southern colonies and the actual trading of slaves continued in the Americas. Slavery was big, multinational business, and Brazil and Cuba especially, were hungry consumers for the trans Atlantic slave trade all the way up through the Civil War. In fact, over a quarter of the total number of slaves brought across the Atlantic happened after 1808 -- mostly because the English didn't have the right to search every nation's merchant vessels looking for slavers (along with numerous other countries, Russia, Mexico, and Argentina were the primary benefactors of this loop hole). America didn't allow the British to search American merchants either, and thanks to the large number of slave holding members of Congress (and in positions of influence like SecState), there was very little done by the American "navy" to stop the trading of slaves. American shipbuilders profited nicely when the need for faster ships became necessary due to the ever rising demand for product. After 1810, nearly 1/3rd of slave ships sailing were built in American ports.

 

Cuba and Brazil had open ports for slavers, and profits continued to rise well into the middle part of the century. There was no sign of this declining. It took the Civil war for Brazil and Cuba to close their ports and for America to get serious about stopping the trans Atlantic trade (which continued for five years after the war ended, though decreased annually in large percentages). Had the Confederacy been given legitimacy, there is no question the trans Atlantic trade would have continued in heavy numbers. There's also the probability that the Confederacy itself would have opened its ports to slavers, which would have prolonged the institution of slavery by another century -- if not more.

 

There's no question reconstruction made the racial divide more hostile. But had the Confederacy not been destroyed, slavery would have continued and countless more generations would have suffered. There's really no question about that.

Edited June 25, 2015 by GreggyT

[FireChan]

White people aren't oppressed in any meaningful way, so no, it doesn't and shouldn't count.

 

Yes, I say that knowing there are anti white crimes occasionally, but it is not a systemic problem.

Anti-white remarks don't count as racism? Are you trying to sound like a caricature?

[TakeYouToTasker]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/04/28/the-most-racist-places-in-america-according-to-google/

 

 

Heh.

Does this account for, and eliminate, black usage of the word?

 

Wow.

Say more words, if you have more.

White people aren't oppressed in any meaningful way, so no, it doesn't and shouldn't count.

 

Yes, I say that knowing there are anti white crimes occasionally, but it is not a systemic problem.

Black on white crime is multitudes more common than the reverse.

 

Further, list for me the ways in which black Americans are oppressed.

Edited June 25, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[DC Tom]

White people aren't oppressed in any meaningful way, so no, it doesn't and shouldn't count.

 

Yes, I say that knowing there are anti white crimes occasionally, but it is not a systemic problem.

 

I tried volunteering this weekend for a Habitat for Humanity project. Not one of the three current projects in the area will accept a white straight male volunteer.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

I tried volunteering this weekend for a Habitat for Humanity project. Not one of the three current projects in the area will accept a white straight male volunteer.

 

For real?

[boyst]

 

Abolishing the institution of slavery was the only way to heal the divide between the races in this country brought on by the African slave trade. You're delusional if you believe the black man "had it better under slavery" than they do today. In fact, it's pretty incendiary to even suggest that -- especially looking back through a modern lens. Was the transition seamless? Absolutely not -- but progress is never a straight line. The institution of slavery, in all its forms, was evil at its core. There can be no dispute about this. The monetary value of slave, especially after 1808, made it in the owner's interests to care for their slaves -- but on their terms.

 

Had the Confederacy been allowed to break away peacefully, the institution of slavery would have been given further legitimacy, which, in turn, would have re-legitimized the African slave trade itself. I don't know if you're familiar with the actual numbers of men, women, and children who met their brutal deaths as a result of this trade (which lasted for well over two centuries) but I assure you their dead out number those lost by BOTH sides of the Civil War by an astronomical amount. We're talking millions of people. The ones lucky enough to survive, were greeted with a system that did not care for them as humans, but as chattel.

 

You might think they were better off in chains, but you're kidding yourself. It's just not true. The Civil War did not further the racial divide in this country. Now, reconstruction... that's a different story.

 

 

 

I hear what you're saying but I'm not trying to frame it in a historical context. Boyst said there was nothing good that came out of the Civil War -- which is a ridiculous thing to say considering that it effectively ended slavery in western world. There's a myriad of issues at play when analyzing the decisions of the men involved and the decisions to go to war, no disagreement there. I've never meant to suggest that everyone was fighting for the same cause. I've read hundreds of first hand accounts of the war from all sorts of folk, enough to know that there was a lot of complexity to the times.

 

From a personal perspective, and I would think it's a pretty universal one, the end of slavery -- even with the cost of the war and reconstruction -- was a benefit to this country. Which is why Boyst's stance, to me, is ridiculous.

no way am I saying they were better off then now.

 

There has been countless evidence suggesting that the practice was dying down - partly because the pressure put on importing slaves and partially because of inefficiency.

 

Thew transition is my point. That the outcome was tragic is true. The whole thing was tragic and while light at the end of the tunnel emerged some time later and you're right progress was made in the abolishing of slavery it still took more of a toll then most people want to consider.

[TakeYouToTasker]

no way am I saying they were better off then now.

 

There has been countless evidence suggesting that the practice was dying down - partly because the pressure put on importing slaves and partially because of inefficiency.

 

Thew transition is my point. That the outcome was tragic is true. The whole thing was tragic and while light at the end of the tunnel emerged some time later and you're right progress was made in the abolishing of slavery it still took more of a toll then most people want to consider.

Slavery was on the way out in the South, the economy was transitioning away. Most scholarly estimates conclude it's end in roughly a generation due to economic pressures.

[Deranged Rhino]

no way am I saying they were better off then now.

 

There has been countless evidence suggesting that the practice was dying down - partly because the pressure put on importing slaves and partially because of inefficiency.

 

Thew transition is my point. That the outcome was tragic is true. The whole thing was tragic and while light at the end of the tunnel emerged some time later and you're right progress was made in the abolishing of slavery it still took more of a toll then most people want to consider.

 

To the first part, apologies if I was putting words into your mouth.

 

For your second, see my longer post above, the practice was not dying down.

 

To your third. I don't want to imply that the cost wasn't steep, it was steep. I only mean to talk in terms of big picture when I say the war brought an end to slavery -- not just in the US, but it effectively ended the trans Atlantic trade.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

To the first part, apologies if I was putting words into your mouth.

 

For your second, see my longer post above, the practice was not dying down.

 

To your third. I don't want to imply that the cost wasn't steep, it was steep. I only mean to talk in terms of big picture when I say the war brought an end to slavery -- not just in the US, but it effectively ended the trans Atlantic trade.

International slave trading was abolishing in 1808.

[Deranged Rhino]

International slave trading was abolishing in 1808.

 

Read my other post. I go into great detail as to why the proclamations of the British and the American Congress did little to stop the trans Atlantic slave trade. Over a quarter of the total number of slaves came across the Atlantic after 1808. (edited to put the post here to save the trouble of having to go back, I thought this was still page 23)

 

 

Total agreement that the slave trade was in no way exclusive to the south. It was a (multi)national problem and filled the coffers of northerners, southerners, Europeans and Africans alike. But it's 100% false that slavery was falling out of favor in the Americas prior to the Civil War, or that the Congressional act of 1808 had any impact on stopping the flow of slaves from Africa. That's just not what happened.

 

The slave trade itself was outlawed in 1808 (1807 in Britain) and was enforced largely through British naval might -- but it was monumentally ineffective. Domestic slave trading continued, even accelerated after 1808 in southern colonies and the actual trading of slaves continued in the Americas. Slavery was big, multinational business, and Brazil and Cuba especially, were hungry consumers for the trans Atlantic slave trade all the way up through the Civil War. In fact, over a quarter of the total number of slaves brought across the Atlantic happened after 1808 -- mostly because the English didn't have the right to search every nation's merchant vessels looking for slavers (along with numerous other countries, Russia, Mexico, and Argentina were the primary benefactors of this loop hole). America didn't allow the British to search American merchants either, and thanks to the large number of slave holding members of Congress (and in positions of influence like SecState), there was very little done by the American "navy" to stop the trading of slaves. American shipbuilders profited nicely when the need for faster ships became necessary due to the ever rising demand for product. After 1810, nearly 1/3rd of slave ships sailing were built in American ports.

 

Cuba and Brazil had open ports for slavers, and profits continued to rise well into the middle part of the century. There was no sign of this declining. It took the Civil war for Brazil and Cuba to close their ports and for America to get serious about stopping the trans Atlantic trade (which continued for five years after the war ended, though decreased annually in large percentages). Had the Confederacy been given legitimacy, there is no question the trans Atlantic trade would have continued in heavy numbers. There's also the probability that the Confederacy itself would have opened its ports to slavers, which would have prolonged the institution of slavery by another century -- if not more.

 

There's no question reconstruction made the racial divide more hostile. But had the Confederacy not been destroyed, slavery would have continued and countless more generations would have suffered. There's really no question about that.

Edited June 25, 2015 by GreggyT