IDBillzFan Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 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. He is equally bold for pointing this out, because as soon as all the online progs are done shaming people into pulling down a flag, they'll be shaming people for suggesting God exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 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. Don't take my replies as absolving the north of the sins of slavery. Hell, NY state didn't outlaw slavery until almost 1830. I love studying the civil war and slavery in the Americas in general, so I could talk about this subject all day (and I enjoy a good debate as you know). However, I don't want to link the confederate flag to the shooting because I don't think the flag caused the killer to act and don't want to have my comments misconstrued or to derail the thread anymore than it already is. I do think removing the confederate flag from state grounds is long overdue, so I applaud that decision. I just don't agree that it will solve anything related to the murder of those nine people. I do agree with many on here that it's a side-show... it just happens to be a side show I tangentially agree with. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 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. You're free to hold whatever views you'd like, but you holding them doesn't give them any merit, and your foundational "knowledge" is wrong. The Confederate flag, no matter how you perceive it, or how others may has misappropriated it, is not a racist symbol. The American flag, held up as the official symbol of the Klu Klux Klan, if far more racist in those regards. I'm not interested in capitualting to those who don't know their history, and don't understand symbolism; and intead rush to demonize things they have feelings about rather than work to actually understand. You can't feel your way through difficult problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 You're free to hold whatever views you'd like, but you holding them doesn't give them any merit, and your foundational "knowledge" is wrong. The Confederate flag, no matter how you perceive it, or how others may has misappropriated it, is not a racist symbol. The American flag, held up as the official symbol of the Klu Klux Klan, if far more racist in those regards. I'm not interested in capitualting to those who don't know their history, and don't understand symbolism; and intead rush to demonize things they have feelings about rather than work to actually understand. You can't feel your way through difficult problems. It's not about feeling, ya nitwit. It's how I saw things and how I formed my thoughts on this matter, contrary to your shallow attempt to categorize it as simply another case of being Huffingtonpostonized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Just so we're all on the same page with this argument, I presume that everybody does realize that the confederate flag in question is not the actual confederate flag, but the battle flag designed to avoid confusion between the 'stars & stripes' and the 'stars & bars'? I can't help but suspect that an awful lot of the protestors have no clue about that. I think it's interesting how new meaning can be assigned to an existing symbol, and then the symbol is vilified for what it then represents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 It's not about feeling, ya nitwit. It's how I saw things and how I formed my thoughts on this matter, contrary to your shallow attempt to categorize it as simply another case of being Huffingtonpostonized. It's quite obviously about your feelings, as your entire post was about ancedotal experiences and how you felt about them; and a noteworthy absence of large picture historical facts. The fact that you came to the same exact conclsions as the Huffington Post is hillarious. Just so we're all on the same page with this argument, I presume that everybody does realize that the confederate flag in question is not the actual confederate flag, but the battle flag designed to avoid confusion between the 'stars & stripes' and the 'stars & bars'? I can't help but suspect that an awful lot of the protestors have no clue about that. I think it's interesting how new meaning can be assigned to an existing symbol, and then the symbol is vilified for what it then represents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America As I stated earlier, it's being done with the exectution of a carefully crafted narrative with the purpose of delegitimizing State's Rights philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) 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. the point of the linked articlle was that roof was an outlier. an unusual, rebel flag waving, drug addled, dysfunctyionally ancestored, moronic, alcoholic racist. the point is that he wasn't an outlier. he's quite typical. Edited June 23, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 It's quite obviously about your feelings, as your entire post was about ancedotal experiences and how you felt about them; and a noteworthy absence of large picture historical facts. The fact that you came to the same exact conclsions as the Huffington Post is hillarious. Why were you reading the Huffington Post? And could you please link me the part of the article that mirrored my sentiments. Thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 the point of the linked articlle was that roof was an outlier. an unusual, rebel flag waving, drug addled, dysfunctyionally ancestored, moronic, alcoholic racist. the point is that he wasn't an outlier. he's quite typical. Typical of whom, exactly? The boogymen created by your hateful mind? Why were you reading the Huffington Post? And could you please link me the part of the article that mirrored my sentiments. Thanks in advance. Because I read contributions from across the entire political and philisophical spectrums, as I'm not fixed on a singular position. I've had my mind changed by compelling arguments many times in the past, and assume I will again. Additionally, it keeps me well informed even in the event that my mind is unchanged. Do you object to this? If so, why? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/22/confederate-flag-racist_n_7639788.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 As I stated earlier, it's being done with the exectution of a carefully crafted narrative with the purpose of delegitimizing State's Rights philosophy. That is mind-numbingly bat-schit crazy. You think that this is all some sort of conspiracist attempt to delegitimize State's rights? You do realize that it's the state that is going to decide to take down the flag from the Capitol grounds, don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 the point of the linked articlle was that roof was an outlier. an unusual, rebel flag waving, drug addled, dysfunctyionally ancestored, moronic, alcoholic racist. the point is that he wasn't an outlier. he's quite typical. There you go again. Quite typical ? The media must be missing quite a few shooting/murder stories then. He is the definition of an outlier, despite your apparent bias against the caricature beliefs you have assigned to the majority. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 There you go again. Quite typical ? The media must be missing quite a few shooting/murder stories then. He is the definition of an outlier, despite your apparent bias against the caricature beliefs you have assigned to the majority. . do you know some real high quality racists then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 the point of the linked articlle was that roof was an outlier. an unusual, rebel flag waving, drug addled, dysfunctyionally ancestored, moronic, alcoholic racist. the point is that he wasn't an outlier. he's quite typical. I tell you man, you are a complete tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 do you know some real high quality racists then? Thanks for the gibberish. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 That is mind-numbingly bat-schit crazy. You think that this is all some sort of conspiracist attempt to delegitimize State's rights? You do realize that it's the state that is going to decide to take down the flag from the Capitol grounds, don't you? The state is taking it down under extreme pressure from race baiters, in an enviroment intentionally designed to portray small government advocates as racists. The politicians involved, many of whom are running very visible campaigns, are not in any rush to try and battle the faux-racism narrative, which the media would certainly make them do, so they are capitulating out of political expediency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Typical of whom, exactly? The boogymen created by your hateful mind? Because I read contributions from across the entire political and philisophical spectrums, as I'm not fixed on a singular position. I've had my mind changed by compelling arguments many times in the past, and assume I will again. Additionally, it keeps me well informed even in the event that my mind is unchanged. Do you object to this? If so, why? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/22/confederate-flag-racist_n_7639788.html You aren'tfixed on singular issue? Now that's a laugh, look in the mirror bud, you are as rigid as they come. Oh, and that link you just happened to google up and post, in no way shape or form mirrors the point I made. Quick, google up another Huffington Post article, maybe the next one will come a little closer to what I was saying. The article you linked, and I'm guessing you didn't read (at least I hope so, because if not, it seriously speaks to your inability to comprehend what you are reading), speaks to the history of the flag. Which ironically, was the point that you were attempting to make in that helps form your thoughts and opinions. No where in my statements did I make the case from a historical standpoint, but rather from how I formed my own thoughts from my own personal experiences and how I believe that the flag is a symbol that divides many people. Try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 (edited) You aren'tfixed on singular issue? Now that's a laugh, look in the mirror bud, you are as rigid as they come. Perhaps it only seems that way to you since you aren't making any compelling arguments, and are making overt appeals to your own personal feelings as a definative source? Oh, and that link you just happened to google up and post, in no way shape or form mirrors the point I made. Quick, google up another Huffington Post article, maybe the next one will come a little closer to what I was saying. The article you linked, and I'm guessing you didn't read (at least I hope so, because if not, it seriously speaks to your inability to comprehend what you are reading), speaks to the history of the flag. Which ironically, was the point that you were attempting to make in that helps form your thoughts and opinions. No where in my statements did I make the case from a historical standpoint, but rather from how I formed my own thoughts from my own personal experiences and how I believe that the flag is a symbol that divides many people. Try again. I don't need to "try again", because I was accurate. From the article, which summarizes it's stance, in the end, with an appeal to the position of John Oliver: "...but many activists, politicians and regular citizens want it gone altogether, citing it as a symbol of racism and hate. Even South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley called for the flag's removal from the statehouse at a Monday press conference, saying that the symbol "does not represent the future of our great state." Edited June 23, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Cheap labor. That's a good one. The south had no "competing economic model" without it. I know,...but it's not a euphemism. The south's economic model required intensive, unskilled manual labor at low cost, with little to no labor mobility. Exploitative conditions, basically. Slaves fit that bill well, but weren't a necessity. Sharecropping worked just as well, as did the use of scrip (which worked particularly well, since scrip was never paid or accepted at par.) I've never seen anyone do the research, but I would not be the least bit surprised if many Southern landowners benefited economically from "emancipation," as their former slaves became a source of cheap labor that no longer required even the meager support slaves required. On the other hand, it is telling, though not definitive, to note that the Civil War and Reconstruction did not end the South's economic system, merely changed the legal status of the labor force (and opened it up to non-blacks.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Towards TYTT's larger point................. Remember when just 3 days ago the lefts argument was "You can have the flag, just not on public property." Hope you learned your lesson. Did you *really* think they were just going to stop there? ‘The New Puritans': Lefty mob seeks sellers’ scalps over Confederate flag, but THIS stuff’s OK?; http://twitchy.com/2015/06/23/the-new-puritans-lefty-mob-seeks-sellers-scalps-over-confederate-flag-but-this-stuffs-ok/ Michelle Kosinski ✔ @MKosinskiCNN A GROUNDSWELL, now, against the Confederate flag. Walmart, ebay banning it... etc... Fascinating to see. 12:52 PM - 23 Jun 2015 Oh yes. It’s just fascinating to watch the leftist mob in action. Some decisions just shouldn’t be left to the public. Choosing what to shop for is one of them. Next up on the hit list? Amazon: So far, the mob can only muster selective outrage, you see. Confederate flag memorabilia is verboten. Other symbols synonymous with hate? Not so much: Nazi memorabilia Che Guavera items USSR items You see, Leftists can force people to bake a cake against their beliefs and stop someone from selling items they don't approve of. It's amazing. Land of the Free. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 I know,...but it's not a euphemism. The south's economic model required intensive, unskilled manual labor at low cost, with little to no labor mobility. Exploitative conditions, basically. Slaves fit that bill well, but weren't a necessity. Sharecropping worked just as well, as did the use of scrip (which worked particularly well, since scrip was never paid or accepted at par.) I've never seen anyone do the research, but I would not be the least bit surprised if many Southern landowners benefited economically from "emancipation," as their former slaves became a source of cheap labor that no longer required even the meager support slaves required. On the other hand, it is telling, though not definitive, to note that the Civil War and Reconstruction did not end the South's economic system, merely changed the legal status of the labor force (and opened it up to non-blacks.) I've got atleast one good source on this in my library at home. I'll try to dig it up over the next day or so, and I'll PM you the name and author. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts