Breaking: Charleston SC, white male shoots 8 people at Souths oldest black church

[JoeB131]

American conservatives are right wing racist bigots and frightened little ninnies....

sorry, you libs have demonstrated that you are the bigots here.


this one shooter is not representative of the American south and only a bigot would claim otherwise.

this one shooter grew up in the south,a nd apparently no one told him, "Hey, that's crazy talk" when he started talking smack about shooting black people.

 

[Correll]

seriously?

of course not. it was harmless fluff.

boss hog was indeed a joke.

the confederate flag? just a harmless prop showing that the duke boys were "good ole boys".


the car? a 1969 dodge charger? that was fine.

daisy duke? i took her very seriously.

of course, i was very young.

my point, as i have clearly stated over and over again, the fact that the nation wide american community accepted the portrayal of the flag as harmless, disproves the current lib claim that it is, and has always been a symbol of treason and slavery and racism and hatred.

in the 1980s it was harmless.

what has changed since the 1980s?

The rise of people like David Duke.

The story of the Klu Klux Klan in pictures racism civil rights and murder - Flashbak

The sharp rise in hate groups in the last 25 years.

Hate and Extremism Southern Poverty Law Center

Where have you been watching reruns of the Duke boys?

david duke didn't rise. he was a flash in the pan based on hiding his past. once it came out he was disgraced.

do you know what his support was in that presidential election he ran? look it up, it will make you feel better.


sharp rise in hate groups?

a big increase is a trivial number is nothing to be impressed with.

what has really changed is that libs have grown increasingly intolerant of viewpoints that don't agree with theirs.

thus, you no longer just disagree with them, you have to be a bad person, and be marginalized.

you have become bigots.

Why do you work so hard to argue a losing point? It seems to be your thing. Consensus if forming to remove the flag. It would be political suicide to oppose it given the circumstances.

you continually put up these reasons for your position.

when i destroy them, instead of responding, you revert to fallacy of argument by assertion.

with some fallacy of ad populum thrown in for good measure.

the flag is a harmless symbol of regional pride. it has been seen that way for generations.

Do you not see the consensus forming against you? That is not a fallacy. The flag is all but gone.

i asked what has changed since the 80s.

you said "rise of people like david duke"

i point out, correctly that they they are tiny fringe, they have not "risen".

did you look up dukes election results? did it make you feel better?

so, now that that "Reason" has been disproven, have you changed your position on the issue?

no.

that shows that that was not your real reason.

the real reason is that you libs have grown increasingly intolerant and bigoted against anyone that disagrees with you.

since your agenda has been a poor seller in the south, now the flag is a problem.

referencing your success in demonizing the flag does not justify your demonizing the flag.

that is a completely circular argument.

you are not attacking and attempting to suppress and marginalize a culture that you hate.

 

[Correll]

why? what would happen if modern 2015 america had the same view of the flag as 1979 america?

They don't. That's the point.

you said "thankfully" that mine is a minority opinion.

so, i asked you why, what would happen if modern 2015 america had the same view of the flag as 1979 america?

you seem to be thankful about something, so what it is that you are thankful that we are avoiding?

you know what i think the difference would be?

i think it would deprive you libs of a tool to bash the south with.

and that that would be the only difference.

you would still bash them based on other excuses, of coures

Hypothetical ramblings from your own imagination.

and yet you won't tell me what you are thankful for...

you deny that my reason is right, but will not offer one of your own.

It's self explanatory.

no it is not. there is no mention in your above posts about how the world would be worse if the modern us looked upon the flag as a harmless symbol of southern pride.

what would the difference be?

 

[2aguy]

No...they happen all the time in Marseille, they have several shootings in France, recently against a Jewish school, they just happened in Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, and they have had attacks with guns and a hand grenade in Britain......and they are increasing because the Europeans are importing immigrants from countries where violence is the norm...vs...European national pacifism....there crime and violence rates are going to go up.....

The point is you have to list a BUNCH of countries to get multiple citations.

Here's an easy way. I will let you pick ANY Industrial Democracy you want, and you list all the mass shootings that have happened in just that ONE country.

I will list all the mass shooting that have happened in the United States in the same time period.

And as every gun nut like you probably fears hearing, "I'll bet you mine is longer!"

Violence is cultural....in Europe they aren't as violent as our inner city populations, where most of our violence is. They all have things in common, feudalism...which created a class society where the commoners had no access to weapons or the ability to fight, and World War 1 and 2 as well as nazi occupation in all of those countries...they have been beaten down as people and have developed a national pacifism...which you could see back when hitler was coming to power, and now, when Putin is rampaging through the Ukraine....

Also....in Britain..they can search your house when they want.....it is easier to control the population when the police have more power....and that is even more so in Japan, China, South Korea...........citizens have fewer rights in those countries...for speech and searches......

A combination of things keeps their violence down....

Tell me how one extreme gun control law stops their criminals from getting hand grenades, rocket propelled grenades, pistols and fully automatic rifles.......since their criminals get them all the time whenever they want even with their extreme gun control.....their gun control laws are more extreme than ours and their criminals get all of those weapons easily......

Explain that joe......

 

[JoeB131]

none of the presidential candidates for the gop has ever offered any racist policies to appeal to the racist southerns to get them to switch parties.

Really?

How about Reagan when he talked about Welfare Queens and "young bucks" on welfare?

How about Bush-41 when he put out the "Willie Horton" ads?

 

[2aguy]

the south switch came with the growth of a strong middle class.

google "southern Strategy"...google "dog whistle GOP"

And then google "The Truth about the Southern Strategy." It is one of the greatest political magic tricks ever pulled off, the democrats lie about this mythical activity, and blacks continue to believe it. The Republicans won the new, non racist south, the democrats kept pulling in the racist south.....

 

[Correll]

He still is a teaper hero....they are just pussies and wont admit it

The most they will say is that Blacks are killing whites ...as a defense for the 9 homicides...

link, who is defending his homicides?

This morning the killing of whites by Blacks was being used to deflect....its all over these threads

this thread has wondered all over the place.

no one is defending this guy or his actions.

if you think they are, link to show it.

otherwise, you are the one who is reading in stuff that is not there.

it is part of your closed mind.

these people disagree with you, they must be evul.

WTF is wrong with you?!?! As time goes on your posts become more cryptic and repetetive.
It's all over this and other threads.

simply referring to the high level of black on white crime, relative to white on black crime is not a defense of this guy.

 

[2aguy]

none of the presidential candidates for the gop has ever offered any racist policies to appeal to the racist southerns to get them to switch parties.

Really?

How about Reagan when he talked about Welfare Queens and "young bucks" on welfare?

How about Bush-41 when he put out the "Willie Horton" ads?

Moron....al gore brought up willie horton first in an interview......

 

[Correll]

"The event that truly awakened me was the Trayvon Martin case," the suspected gunman wrote.
—Mother Jones

john hinkley was motived because he knew that he and jodie foster had something going.

sane people should not be held responsible for the delusions of the mad.

Except that the actions of Roof are rooted in a matrix of political beliefs that are shared by many such as conservative right wingers the backbone of the GOP...nobody shared any of the Hinkley beliefs about Jody Foster

think try to think

the unibomber was spot on with the green weenies.

are they marginalized in your mind?

are you one of them?

what environmental group are you linking him too....is it mentioned in his manifesto ?

and of course al gore's book was found in his hovel.......remember that...so I guess al gore supports sending bombs to people and is culpable for the unibomber...right?

their ability to be fair in their judgments is zero.

 

[2aguy]

none of the presidential candidates for the gop has ever offered any racist policies to appeal to the racist southerns to get them to switch parties.

Really?

How about Reagan when he talked about Welfare Queens and "young bucks" on welfare?

How about Bush-41 when he put out the "Willie Horton" ads?

Yeah...the welfare queen...another myth.....

Linda Taylor welfare queen Ronald Reagan made her a notorious American villain. Linda Taylor s other sins were far worse.



Though Reagan was known to stretch the truth, he did not invent that woman in Chicago. Her name was Linda Taylor, and it was the Chicago Tribune, not the GOP politician, who dubbed her the “welfare queen.” It was the Tribune, too, that lavished attention on Taylor’s jewelry, furs, and Cadillac—all of which were real.

As of 1976, Taylor had yet to be convicted of anything. She was facing charges that she’d bilked the government out of $8,000 using four aliases. When the welfare queen stood trial the next year, reporters packed the courtroom. Rather than try to win sympathy, Taylor seemed to enjoy playing the scofflaw. As witnesses described her brazen pilfering from public coffers, she remained impassive, an unrepentant defendant bedecked in expensive clothes and oversize hats.

Linda Taylor, the haughty thief who drove her Cadillac to the public aid office, was the embodiment of a pernicious stereotype.

So another lie by the democrats.......

 

[Correll]

none of the presidential candidates for the gop has ever offered any racist policies to appeal to the racist southerns to get them to switch parties.

Really?

How about Reagan when he talked about Welfare Queens and "young bucks" on welfare?

How about Bush-41 when he put out the "Willie Horton" ads?

reagan mentioned welfare queens like once.

and concerns about inter generational welfare and welfare fraud were/are valid issues.

willie horton? brought up by gore first, and was a completely valid issue.

a couple was raped and assaulted for hours by a vicious thug because of dukakis lib policy and actions.

like i said. "dog whistle" is code for "we can't find any racism, but we NEED to find racism to justify our constant use of the Race Card and race baiting"

 

[2aguy]

seriously?

of course not. it was harmless fluff.

boss hog was indeed a joke.

the confederate flag? just a harmless prop showing that the duke boys were "good ole boys".


the car? a 1969 dodge charger? that was fine.

daisy duke? i took her very seriously.

of course, i was very young.

my point, as i have clearly stated over and over again, the fact that the nation wide american community accepted the portrayal of the flag as harmless, disproves the current lib claim that it is, and has always been a symbol of treason and slavery and racism and hatred.

in the 1980s it was harmless.

what has changed since the 1980s?

The rise of people like David Duke.

The story of the Klu Klux Klan in pictures racism civil rights and murder - Flashbak

The sharp rise in hate groups in the last 25 years.

Hate and Extremism Southern Poverty Law Center

Where have you been watching reruns of the Duke boys?

david duke didn't rise. he was a flash in the pan based on hiding his past. once it came out he was disgraced.

do you know what his support was in that presidential election he ran? look it up, it will make you feel better.


sharp rise in hate groups?

a big increase is a trivial number is nothing to be impressed with.

what has really changed is that libs have grown increasingly intolerant of viewpoints that don't agree with theirs.

thus, you no longer just disagree with them, you have to be a bad person, and be marginalized.

you have become bigots.

Why do you work so hard to argue a losing point? It seems to be your thing. Consensus if forming to remove the flag. It would be political suicide to oppose it given the circumstances.

you continually put up these reasons for your position.

when i destroy them, instead of responding, you revert to fallacy of argument by assertion.

with some fallacy of ad populum thrown in for good measure.

the flag is a harmless symbol of regional pride. it has been seen that way for generations.

Do you not see the consensus forming against you? That is not a fallacy. The flag is all but gone.

The flag should be gone...although it is a free speech issue and an issue for South Carolina, the flag is a symbol of democrat racism and needs to be taken down.....

 

[Correll]

the south switch came with the growth of a strong middle class.

google "southern Strategy"...google "dog whistle GOP"

And then google "The Truth about the Southern Strategy." It is one of the greatest political magic tricks ever pulled off, the democrats lie about this mythical activity, and blacks continue to believe it. The Republicans won the new, non racist south, the democrats kept pulling in the racist south.....

hell, i believed it when i was young.

i was taught about it in public school.

i started to doubt it when i saw them claiming stuff reagan was doing was part of the southern strategy.

eventually i researched it to find when the gop stopped pandering to racist in the south.

and i could not find any of the pandering at all, all the way back to nixon.

 

[2aguy]

American conservatives are right wing racist bigots and frightened little ninnies....

sorry, you libs have demonstrated that you are the bigots here.


this one shooter is not representative of the American south and only a bigot would claim otherwise.

I believe he represents the history of the south pretty well.
What world do you live on?

The history of the democrat controlled south...he is an old school democrat...modern democrats want to enslave all the races, not just blacks....they have evolved in their racism....

 

[Correll]

All crime is hateful and anti-social if you believe in Rousseau and Locke. Law's based on emotions or assumptions open our nation and its liberty up to Orwellian abuses by the federal government.

I agree. But if you take 'hate crime' to mean politically motivated crime with the intent of sparking public hatred and violence toward specific groups, I'd say this qualified. He was clearly intending to start a race war.

the Supreme Court clarified free-speech cases in Brandenburg v. Ohio 1967 (?) that the case turned upon whether or not people were going to follow the word's of the defendant. Brandenburg was a White supremacist that advocated that White's must overthrow the U.S. government. He was arrested under an Ohio state law against subversion of the government. The High Court ruled that there must be evidence that people would actually follow through on the defendants avocations. The Court ruled that Brandenburg was a nut case and no right minded individual would pay attention to anything he said. Same with kook in Charleston. He can advocate all he wants...but no one is going to follow.

Uh huh... and you think there's zero chance that this will spark more riots? And inspire more racists nuts to flip out? He might not get his 'race war', but there's a very real risk his act will prompt other violence.

I'm not big on the idea of 'hate crimes' myself. I think the concept is a stretch, and often dumbed to the simplistic idea of being any crime inspired by hatred.

His actions should not spark violence from sane law abiding citizens.

My brother just flew in from Europe and noticed blacks at home depot acting different. He didn't know what happened but could tell something was wrong.

Can you blame black people for being fed up with us crackers?

yes.

that was racist by the way.

you just held the entire white race responsible for the actions of one white nut.

bigot.

 

[2aguy]

the south switch came with the growth of a strong middle class.

google "southern Strategy"...google "dog whistle GOP"

And then google "The Truth about the Southern Strategy." It is one of the greatest political magic tricks ever pulled off, the democrats lie about this mythical activity, and blacks continue to believe it. The Republicans won the new, non racist south, the democrats kept pulling in the racist south.....

hell, i believed it when i was young.

i was taught about it in public school.

i started to doubt it when i saw them claiming stuff reagan was doing was part of the southern strategy.

eventually i researched it to find when the gop stopped pandering to racist in the south.

and i could not find any of the pandering at all, all the way back to nixon.

There was no pandering to the racist south...the Republican party, and nixon in particular supported civil rights while the democrats were beating peaceful civil rights marchers with nightsticks....but the democrats realized that they couldn't keep blacks from voting and there were a lot of black votes out there....so LBJ realized they could buy those votes with government hand outs.....that is when the democrats changed tactics....not beliefs......

And then they had to scrub their past...that is why whenever you see the civil rights era mentioned by democrats in education or journalism, they never use, "the democrat segregationist" j. william fulbright...they actually scrub him completely since bill clinton was his studetn.........they use "Southern" hiding the "democrat" part of the racists.......

And then they lied about the "Southern Strategy" and the democrats in journalism keep reporting on the lie.......

 

[2aguy]

not true because if a group of white guys beat up a black guy that could be a hate crime just like if a bunch of black guys beat up a white guy because he's white that's a hate crime - also

Well, Crime is by its nature, hateful... That's why we call it crime and not "Rufus didn't pay for those shoes'.

It's a crime because Rufus stole property from Mr. Penney, who was selling those shoes to feed his family and the families of those he hired to sell his goods. When one steals the property of others they are disrespecting that persons humanity; he is showing that he has no regard for the rights of Mr.Penney; rights which were a gift to Mr. Penney, from God. Thus Rufus was demonstrating a disrespect for; or an offense against, or a sin against God; OKA: Hate.

So, there's no reason to reframe the issue as "Hateful", when the word Crime already does that.

Now, with that said; and as I pointed out above and as I have pointed out hundreds of times throughout this board, Hate Crimes are SUBJECTIVE... and it is a RARE day when a "Hate" crime is set against a black person for a crime against a white person, or where a Hate-crime is declared where a homosexual person murders a straight person. And where subjectivism enters the law, the law fails to serve justice.

Simple stuff... Law only works where it remains OBJECTIVE.

It is objective. If there is evidence that objectively proves that the crime was motivated by hatred of a particular race, it is a hate crime. For example, a man goes into a bkack church and announces that he going to shoot all the black folks there cause they be raping the white women and, later, when he us arrested, he says he did it to start a race war, that would be be objective proof of a hate crime. Get it?

I asked him why some murderers get the death penalty and some get life. Clearly some murders are worse than others. Why? I suspect the motivation.

If I kill my wife for cheating on me its not the same as Jeffrey Dahmer.

And Jeff didn't even get the death penalty.

This guy deserves the death penalty for multiple homicides. But not a so called "hate crime."

Well at least you understand not all crimes are created equal. When it is determined the crime was the result of " hate bigotry or racism" the punishment will be greater, which is the purpose of hate crime laws.

Maybe hate crime laws will prevent hate crimes.

Here's a problem with hate crimes though. Let's say a black bites off more than they can chew with me and while giving them the beat down I say the N word. That's not a hate crime.

he killed 9 people....how much greater can the punishment be......? You lefties...do you ever really engage your brains....?

 

[Correll]

No...they happen all the time in Marseille, they have several shootings in France, recently against a Jewish school, they just happened in Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, and they have had attacks with guns and a hand grenade in Britain......and they are increasing because the Europeans are importing immigrants from countries where violence is the norm...vs...European national pacifism....there crime and violence rates are going to go up.....

The point is you have to list a BUNCH of countries to get multiple citations.

Here's an easy way. I will let you pick ANY Industrial Democracy you want, and you list all the mass shootings that have happened in just that ONE country.

I will list all the mass shooting that have happened in the United States in the same time period.

And as every gun nut like you probably fears hearing, "I'll bet you mine is longer!"

mmm, you are aware that the us if far larger than these individual european nations, right?

 

[2aguy]

we went off topic to discuss obama's statement.

obama made a comment about mass violence.

it was being discussed as the paraphrase of mass murder.

joe changed to wording to a very different word, shooting instead of murder, in order to make his point.

i was just pointing out that he felt he had to.

and that he tried to slide that little adjustment past us dishonestly.

odd you couldn't grasp that fact.

you being so smart and all.

so, do you have anything to actually say about that?

lol, rhetorical question, i know the answer is no.

guy, nobody does "mass violence" without a gun. You are a complete retard. I know it's a tough week for Southern Retards, as one of your own just got caught doing something really stupid.

In Australia they use arson, in other places around the world they use bombs....moron....

 

[JoeB131]

Before we start, I want to point out that 2AGuy, the nuttiest of the gun nuts, could not find a European country that has anywhere near the number of mass shooting incidents we have in the US.

Violence is cultural....in Europe they aren't as violent as our inner city populations, where most of our violence is.

And we are back to 'it's just the darkies killing each other, so that makes it okay." argument. Even though we are talking about a racist who shot a bunch of unarmed black people. This person will say with the same lack of fucking irony if those grannies had been packing, they could have stopped this madman.

They all have things in common, feudalism...which created a class society where the commoners had no access to weapons or the ability to fight, and World War 1 and 2 as well as nazi occupation in all of those countries...they have been beaten down as people and have developed a national pacifism...which you could see back when hitler was coming to power, and now, when Putin is rampaging through the Ukraine....

Uh, in the Ukraine, you have plenty of people fighting. The problem is, if Putin wanted to, he could crush the whole of the Ukraine in about a week. Instead, what you have there is the Russians living in the Ukraine not wanting to be part of the Ukraine anymore. And expressing that with- wait for it - guns.

Also....in Britain..they can search your house when they want.....it is easier to control the population when the police have more power....and that is even more so in Japan, China, South Korea...........citizens have fewer rights in those countries...for speech and searches......

Horseshit. The British have the same protections against unlawful searches we have.

Search Warrants Avoiding the Pitfalls UK Police Law Blog

But you do have a point. The police do have an easier time controlling an unarmed population. That's why they don't have 500+ Police shootings a year.

American Cops Just Killed More People in March than the UK Did in the Entire 20th Century The Free Thought Project

Just last month, in the 31 days of March, police in the United States killed more people than the UK did in the entire 20th century. In fact, it was twice as many; police in the UK only killed 52 people during that 100 year period.

According to the report by ThinkProgess, in March alone, 111 people died during police encounters — 36 more than the previous month. As in the past, numerous incidents were spurred by violent threats from suspects, and two officers were shot in Ferguson during a peaceful protest. However, the deaths follow a national pattern: suspects were mostly people of color, mentally ill, or both.

Um, er. Founding Fathers... Er, um Freedom?

Tell me how one extreme gun control law stops their criminals from getting hand grenades, rocket propelled grenades, pistols and fully automatic rifles.......since their criminals get them all the time whenever they want even with their extreme gun control.....their gun control laws are more extreme than ours and their criminals get all of those weapons easily......

Explain that joe......

They don't get them that often, guy, that's the point. You maybe have one incident a decade, and when they do have an incident, they tighten down the laws to keep from it happening again.

In this country, we have an incident like this, we find out the person was batshit crazy and got a gun anyway, and the NRA goes out and makes sure that guns are even more freely available.