Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 02:37 PM) Insisting that people who want to see symbols of white supremacy removed from government buildings are only talking about distractions and don't care about "real issues" is insulting. Then stop talking about it. Pray tell, SS, what should the focus be here? How are you going to prevent this type of crime going forward? What sort of education would you give this young man to prevent the conclusions he's come to in his life?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 02:35 PM) I think it would be monumentally stupid to completely ignore the reasons that people do things, the ideologies that drive them and the sources of those ideologies and just chalk it all up to 'crazy'. Nobody "made" it a story about race except the guy who killed nine black people because of their race and his racist beliefs. You cannot separate that from the story, and you cannot separate the legacy of white supremacist violence in this country. That's where you and I differ. You're not talking this guy out of his hate. You're not re-educating him. He's not a logical person, clearly. But if you want to keep on with that pipe dream, go ahead. Just know he felt compelled to act because no one else has. He wanted to make an example to start a race war. Maybe if he knew that this sort of act would never get any coverage, he wouldn't have done it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 02:30 PM) So let's say instead nobody said a word about the flag and we just talked in platitudes about "race relations" and "this psychotic lone wolf." What are we left with when this thing is 'forgotten'? I think it would be far healthier for this country to ignore this s***. Don't give this guy the time of day. Don't show his picture, don't spread his name, don't cite to his website, etc. It's a tragedy, the survivors deserve some recognition, but leave it at that. Making it a story, in particular a story about race relations or a stupid flag, only emboldens these crazies to commit these acts for publicity.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 02:24 PM) Lost in all of this "who cares, symbols are meaningless" protestation about taking down the flag is an argument that taking down the flags somehow precludes anything else. I don't see why state governments displaying symbols of white supremacy isn't a "real issue." I don't see why removing symbols of white supremacy from government displays isn't a step in the right direction. I don't see how removing those symbols harms further advances in any way. Why shouldn't we care what people who support flying white supremacist symbols think? They're every bit a part of the "real issue" as anyone else, and in states like South Carolina, they represent a majority (in 2014, 61% of South Carolinians felt the flag should still fly and 42% felt 'strongly'). Seriously? Have you been hiding under a rock the last 30 years? The nation has the patience of a 2 year old with stuff like this. As soon as another story hits in a day or two, this thing will be forgotten. How's that Baltimore police story coming along? Lots of movement there i'm sure.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 02:13 PM) The fact that so many Americans seem to have more of an objection to calls for taking the flag of white supremacists off of state capitols than to the flag itself is pretty pathetic. No one with a brain objects to that, it's the distraction that I have an issue with.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 01:58 PM) I am more surprised people want to waste time on this versus what actually happened in SC. Shoot, this is some good PR. Walmart, Ebay, and now Amazon. The white supremcy flag was fine last week, but "Oh! A national story?! We're not cool with it now either!" The fact that it still works on the American people really saddens me.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 10:10 AM) I would be willing to believe southerners DID become more states rights/anti-fed centric after the civil war in which they took up arms against their own country and lost, and then for 15 years were basically not allowed representation in the federal government. Of course, it should have been a lot longer, and reconstruction should have been fully seen through, but it did not, because people like Jenks would look back and say "well, they just wanted freedom to govern themselves' rather then "wow these people took up arms against the country to create a white supremacist empire, we should probably take control until that stops" That's not at all what i'm saying/what I would say. They all committed treason in my book. I'm simply stating where I think the whole fascination with the confederate flag comes from today. And it comes from that "we're different and proud of it" mantra of the Civil War. We'll agree to disagree on whether that was part of the argument leading up to the Civil War. I'm still not sure how you don't think that was part of it (again, PART, not THE reason) when a lot of the argument was the South was going to die economically without slavery and that slavery was a great thing. Yes they tried everything, including federal power to keep slavery around, but at some point they decide that for survival they needed to band together and leave. Let me ask you guys this: in 2015, you've got (or recently had) Walmart and other stores selling tons of confederate gear. You have billboards proudly displaying the confederate flag on billboards and barn sides. You have the confederate flag raised in public squares. Do you REALLY believe that's because people of the south want to enslave blacks again and live in a white supremacist empire? If not, what % of people down there do you think actually believes that? I'm going with maybe 1%. KKK members, aryan army members and wack jobs like this guy in SC. No one else.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 10:00 AM) States rights are just another example of NOT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. Unless it's something I actually want in my neighborhood...so I'm willing to make exceptions if it's advantageous. That's EVERY policy since there are no absolutes.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 09:45 AM) The radical Republicans who favored abolition were not a powerful coalition in 1861. Hell, even after four years of war and with a Northern-dominated Congress, it still wasn't easy to pass the 13th Amendment. The slave-holding South was no longer such a dominant powerhouse in the federal government, but the federal government was nowhere near abolition and slavery had already been allowed to expand to some territories. When it came to Kansas, the pro-slavery states attempted to rig the game to expand slavery and then quickly turned to violence against anti-slavery forces. They saw the writing on the wall, especially once Lincoln was elected. A lot of that was attempted northern compromise but I don't think anyone truly believed it would last. Again, pointing to a few examples when they were being pro-federalist when it was advantageous for them to do so isn't really persuasive. That's like saying the US isn't about free trade because we have some very specific exclusionary rules on government contracts. There will always be and there has always been inconsistencies in practice and policy.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 09:26 AM) No, just no. There are so many primary source documents where the causes are made excruciatingly clear by all sides, and "states rights" never enters in to it (an easy counterpoint is the Confederate constitution itself which forbid member states from ever outlawing slavery). It was because they saw their political power waning if they could not force slavery into new territories (Bloody Kansas) and they wanted to establish a pan-American empire of slavery (see various quotes in the piece I linked earlier this morning). But the entire basis for this was they had laws expressly allowing slavery, whereas the north did not, and the federal government (and northern states) wanted them to first stop spreading it into new territories, and second to abolish it in the southern states. The south didn't want to play by the new rules, mostly for economic reasons, but so what. They wanted the freedom to do what they thought was best, which was to continue slavery as their main economic engine. At the heart of that argument is states rights v. federal power, which the south had always argued for in the mid 1800's leading up to the Civil War. edit: to be clear, i'm not refuting at all that the war was about defending slavery first and foremost. I'm just pointing out that part and parcel of that is also the idea that southerners didn't want the north telling them what to do. That was the case before the civil war, after the civil war, and today. Just because you can point to some examples when the south has been inconsistent on that point (e.g., putting in their own constitution that confederate law was the law of the land and they no law could abolish slavery) doesn't make it any less true.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 09:16 AM) For very specific "states rights," generally speaking, and even then only selectively. Please do not buy into the garbage that anything about the civil war or the ensuing 100 years of apartheid was about a principled stand for "states rights." No it was quite clearly about racism/slavery, but a part of that too was "you can't tell us what to do." I think ignoring that is equally egregious as claiming the civil war wasn't about slavery.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 23, 2015 -> 08:37 AM) For those who haven’t been following this issue, in 2012 the Supreme Court gave individual states the option, if they so chose, of blocking the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid, a key part of the plan to provide health insurance to lower-income Americans. But why would any state choose to exercise that option? After all, states were being offered a federally-funded program that would provide major benefits to millions of their citizens, pour billions into their economies, and help support their health-care providers. Who would turn down such an offer? The answer is, 22 states at this point, although some may eventually change their minds. And what do these states have in common? Mainly, a history of slaveholding: Only one former member of the Confederacy has expanded Medicaid, and while a few Northern states are also part of the movement, more than 80 percent of the population in Medicaid-refusing America lives in states that practiced slavery before the Civil War. And it’s not just health reform: a history of slavery is a strong predictor of everything from gun control (or rather its absence), to low minimum wages and hostility to unions, to tax policy. So will it always be thus? Is America doomed to live forever politically in the shadow of slavery? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/22/opinion/...c=recg&_r=0 If you take the time to click on the map of the 22 states, you see virtually the entire Confederacy, Missouri (border state), Wisconsin (Scott Walker explains that one)...Maine is another outlier. Arkansas is the only state EXPANDING coverage. Also, KY and West Virginia, basically border states. Has nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with the southern states generally being anti-federal government and pro-state's rights. That's what they've been for the last 150 years and now it's more about principle than politics for people down there.

By the way, this is precisely why I hate that opportunists are using this tragedy as a way to get the flag down. I totally agree with that in principle. But the talk and reaction to this is now about a stupid flag and not about that church and the loon that killed their members. It once again places blame on someone/something other than the person that committed the act, even if its being done indirectly.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 22, 2015 -> 05:00 PM) I do not believe in the Confederate apologia (it was about states rights! etc.). I can buy it in South Carolina. They're weirdly proud of being the first state to secede. Given the reaction that most South Carolinians have had to this tragedy, it's pretty clear they're not supporting what the flag originally meant or even what it may have meant in the 60's, which is why it's laughable that you think having this flag some how plays a part in this demented dude's view of America and black people specifically. Take away the confederate flag and that guy is still holding onto those views and his hate. Yep, take down the flag and get a bunch of rich white dudes in power to tweet a few "I don't believe this is right" and the problem of looney racists will be solved!

Broke down and finally got a ps4. MLB The Show 2015, Bloodborn, Last of Us and The Order: 1886. Pretty happy so far with the purchase.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 22, 2015 -> 12:25 PM) This is false. I have first-hand experience. Was an actual threat made? Did it deal with "terrorism?" I don't see how it's illegal for someone to be arrested for writing a racist manifesto on the internet.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 22, 2015 -> 12:00 PM) Just wanted to point out that, for better or worse, this is literally what the FBI does (as well as keeping tabs on people who engage in certain types of political activity). They don't have the man power nor the legal authority to do anything about it though.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 22, 2015 -> 11:50 AM) Several studies have come out in recent years arguing that the rate of "Mass shootings" classified typically as 4 or more people shot in a single event is actually going up and in some cases fairly rapidly. http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/09/why-y...oting-rise.html The conclusion: not by much, and it still amounts to less than 1% of the murders every year.

What a choke job by Dustin. Don't go back to the coke!

Yeah because what a rich white dude says would REALLY help. Gmab.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 20, 2015 -> 01:08 PM) 1. I posted the link. You could choose not to follow it. 2. I feel understanding the thoughts that leads people to become terrorists is important in building a society that doesn't breed them. We turn our backs on the hatred people spew on a daily basis then when it comes back in the form of a terrorist with a gun we raise our hands and say "oh how could we have known". So again, what's your solution? Great we got rid of a dumb flag. You think that's stopping this guy from his hate? Should we start up some thought police? Keep tabs on anyone that has posted terrible things on the internet?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 19, 2015 -> 02:21 PM) There's no constitutional requirement that the government display the Confederate flag. And while people may have a constitutional right to be racist a** holes, I have a similar right to point out the connection between that and people being killed by a racist a**hole while doing what he believed racist a**holes should be doing. And when their whole state government decides "Hey it's a great idea to show off that we're racist a**holes", then I have a similar right to point out that "everyone being ok with a bunch of racist a**holes is part of the problem" I was pointing out that even if we know someone's racist (not a crime) you can't prevent them from getting a gun (constitutional right). Hence the no response. There's little we can (should) do in that situation. What's your solution Balta? You're President for the day. Someone reports there's a racist in the south. Are you trying to convince Congress to pass a law that prevents racists from getting a gun (assuming you can get it done?) Should we do full background checks to buy a gun? How are you going to use the legal system to prevent a sick person like this from killing people absent entire gun bans, which even then isn't going to do it because prohibitions never, ever work.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 20, 2015 -> 11:56 AM) But according to some we can't possibly know his motivation. So which is it, the confederate flag didn't cause this or the confederate flag and its history and all it represents caused (sorry, "motivated") this?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 19, 2015 -> 02:12 PM) On page 1-3 of this thread it was asked several times why no one reported "Guy from South Carolina who owns a gun making racist remarks and threatening to kill people based on race" and the comments in several cases were effectively that they thought it was no big deal (hence why I added the quote on page 1). It's no big deal because that is normal. So if you don't like someone's speech/beliefs you should deny them constitutional rights? That's the answer?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 19, 2015 -> 02:04 PM) Nobody is saying that the flag created his hatred or racism, but it is absolutely a symbol of it. Why do you think he chose to wear the South African and Rhodesian flags? I suppose but if it didn't cause or contribute to it why is it imperative they take it down?