6 Black Churches burned

[Correll]

Mac wants to bring people together.

He thinks the President blew it in SC. He should have said the following:

"Ladies and gentlemen, now is a time for the races to come together."

"To all racists and bigots and white supremacists, please....... accept our apologies. We are so sorry that we have gotten upset when you have shown hatred toward us. We will work harder to meet your approval. We will pull our pants up. Our young women will close their legs and we will pay our higher interest rates with smiles on our faces. We won't demand that our unarmed men not get shot. Whatever we can do to change how you feel about us. Just give us time. Meanwhile, go ahead and say whatever you like about our culture. We don't want to upset you by demanding that you treat us with respect. We haven't earned that yet."

"We are so so sorry"

Yeah LoneLaugher keep praising a man who done nothing to actually to fix the racial scars of this nation. Oh he made some speeches very good speeches but on policy he is just same as and even worse than Bush. If Pres Obama wanted to fix the scars of racism of this nation he would look to end the war on drugs that has killed and destroyed more black lives then Jim crow ever did.

well i have my doubts about that policy, it would be a real attempt to address the problem.

 

[Correll]

no, you made the claim that these church arsonists are the same people they always were.

so, show me who they always were.

one example does't do that.

you are trying to distract with the confederate flag. we have discussed that before and will again.

but right now the topic is church arsonists.

please support your claim that they are generally white racists attacking blacks.

a link to a fbi data sheet would be good.

What I find most offensive about your posts is the effort you spend defending a 150 year old flag and trying to excuse the actions of racists while you ignore the fact that 9 people were slaughtered and it was followed up by the burning of six black churches

Attitudes like yours are why you lost your fucking flag

what i find offensive about your posts is that you think you can define my thoughts and actions and then tie me to other peoples actions based on your assumptions about me, and then you get offended when i call you on your nonsense.


you stated that these church arsonists are the same people they have always been.

i have asked you to support that claim.

you posted one photo from 1963.

how many church arsons have there been since 1963?

how many of them were black churchs, and how many white?

how many of them were white racists attacking blacks?

why do you think that you get to define reality based on what you want to be true, and why do you think i should accept this reality?

you made a claim, support it or admit that you were just making up crap.

OK...you got me there

It is not the "same people" that were burning churches and lynching 50 years ago
It is their descendants who we thought woulf have learned by now

That is the "Southern Heritage" that you defend so much

i don't play gotcha games like that.

if i was making a joke, i would have used a laughing icon to let you know.

no. link to support your claim that church arsonists are generally white racists attacking blacks.


i may be assuming something here incorrectly.

you are aware that white churches get burned too, right?

OK

How many white churches have been burned in the last week?

sorry, i didn't catch that, were you aware of that or not?

 

[reconmark]

No these incidents will not cause a race war. The stupidity of the white racists and some Conservatives is that Black people have nothing better to do than react to the obvious shenanigans of white racists.
The majority of Black people are trying to make a better life for themselves and their children, they don't have time to slither around at night like snakes burning other people churches in an attempt to re-establish apartheid in this country.

 

[rightwinger]

What I find most offensive about your posts is the effort you spend defending a 150 year old flag and trying to excuse the actions of racists while you ignore the fact that 9 people were slaughtered and it was followed up by the burning of six black churches

Attitudes like yours are why you lost your fucking flag

what i find offensive about your posts is that you think you can define my thoughts and actions and then tie me to other peoples actions based on your assumptions about me, and then you get offended when i call you on your nonsense.


you stated that these church arsonists are the same people they have always been.

i have asked you to support that claim.

you posted one photo from 1963.

how many church arsons have there been since 1963?

how many of them were black churchs, and how many white?

how many of them were white racists attacking blacks?

why do you think that you get to define reality based on what you want to be true, and why do you think i should accept this reality?

you made a claim, support it or admit that you were just making up crap.

OK...you got me there

It is not the "same people" that were burning churches and lynching 50 years ago
It is their descendants who we thought woulf have learned by now

That is the "Southern Heritage" that you defend so much

i don't play gotcha games like that.

if i was making a joke, i would have used a laughing icon to let you know.

no. link to support your claim that church arsonists are generally white racists attacking blacks.


i may be assuming something here incorrectly.

you are aware that white churches get burned too, right?

OK

How many white churches have been burned in the last week?

sorry, i didn't catch that, were you aware of that or not?

OK
How many white churches have been burned in the last week?

 

[Statistikhengst]

The LIBs are behind the church fires.
In each case a small fire was started on a side of the church where the fire department could quickly access the building. The fire department is called and only then did does someone ignite the little fire when they hear the fire engines coming.
The fucking LIBs do this kind of thing all the time.
They plant nooses in DEM yards. They self mutilate themselves and claim they were raped by White men. They put up LIB political posters then deface and destroy them.

Nice show paranoia! However, it ain't so... what you think... lol.... lol...

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Manonthestreet]

Do we even know whats so............libs do love staging fake hate crimes

 

[Statistikhengst]

Why but of course!!!

I see your point, brother idiotus!!

ALL blacks all over the planet must show forgiveness, otherwise they are just uppity negeros!!!

Man, of man, why didn't we think of that!!!???!!!

DORK.

asshole.

I see you are honing your debating skills, yet setting the bar very low for yourself.

At this rate, even ants are very confident of being above your bar!!

?

i admit that is did not misrepresent your argument before i insulted you.

but is that really a failing?

it really isn't my thing.

you insulted me. i insulted you back.

what did you expect?

dummy.

Poor KKKorell, all dressed up with no where to go.

The similarities to Muslim women wearing a Burkah are, well, interesting...

lol!

you have the nerve to complain about my level of debating, and when i point out that i was just returning an insult, what is your answer?

to call me a racist!

lol!

it is amazing to me that your inflated self image can survive your idiotic asshole behavior.

do you have anything to say about the topic, asshole?

Your deeds betray you.

Your very first day in USMB, you made a beeline straight for the race/racism subforum. You have made plenty of comments demeaning blacks. And now you must live with your deeds.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

fair point. saddam was more of a regional leader.

which doesn't take away from will's point.

Correction he was "OUR Regional leader" a stooge...in the photo JFK is meeting with Nikita Khrushchev...less than 20 years after WW2...both leaders of Nuclear Armies.... meetings like those were essential to keeping Nuclear peace...the picture of Saddam was when Saddam was told to use gas on the Iranians on behalf of the US......

nope.

we had an interest in not seeing iran conquer iraq, so we gave some minor support.

very little compared to the amount of material that he was able to buy himself on the open market.

only someone looking to smear america would try to spin that little bit of support into saddam being "our regional leader".

diplomacy requires meetings, and not just between us and soviet leaders. try to be less dishonest.

I see you know nothing of history.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

asshole.

I see you are honing your debating skills, yet setting the bar very low for yourself.

At this rate, even ants are very confident of being above your bar!!

?

i admit that is did not misrepresent your argument before i insulted you.

but is that really a failing?

it really isn't my thing.

you insulted me. i insulted you back.

what did you expect?

dummy.

Poor KKKorell, all dressed up with no where to go.

The similarities to Muslim women wearing a Burkah are, well, interesting...

lol!

you have the nerve to complain about my level of debating, and when i point out that i was just returning an insult, what is your answer?

to call me a racist!

lol!

it is amazing to me that your inflated self image can survive your idiotic asshole behavior.

do you have anything to say about the topic, asshole?

If you want to tick him off properly calling him a statist............It makes steam come out of his ears...........

His purpose is the mongoose the thread..........dancing around like a chicken on skillet..............

They know that their side has fanned the flames............so they divert...........it's expected........

Isn't that WRIGHT STATIST..............

"WRIGHT"



Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I would say the President has addressed it, quite eloquently as well.

So, seven years into his presidency, he says this (whatever he said on your 37-minute video).

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that, during that speech, he challenged both ends of the issue to seriously and sincerely look in the mirror and work diligently to clean their own house before pointing the finger at the other, yes? Let me know where that is in the speech, I'd be happy to see him saying that at such an important moment.

Seven years - that is my point.

.

If you aren't willing to watch the entire video and honestly try to understand the context of his messages to America, then you have no credibility to speak to what the pres has said or not said.
It is exactly that sort of willful ignorance and baseless assertions about the actions of the pres that brings racist recriminations upon you.

37 minutes?

post a link to the transcripts. cut and paste the bits you consider so relevant.

You're right, if only Obama were less wordy , you might have been able to understand his message. Thanks Obama, thanks for dividing us with our short attention spans.

i generally don't listen to speeches. from anyone.

to much filler and low information content bs.

the points can almost always be summed up in a few bullet points.

37 minutes of obama?

no fucking way.

One would think that if someone were genuinely concerned of how their black president speaks to racial divides in America, that they would certainly want to hear what he had to say in response to the overtly racial attacks against nine innocent black folks. I suppose I could be wrong, but I don't think so. You have no genuine interest at all.

 

[2aguy]

fair point. saddam was more of a regional leader.

which doesn't take away from will's point.

Correction he was "OUR Regional leader" a stooge...in the photo JFK is meeting with Nikita Khrushchev...less than 20 years after WW2...both leaders of Nuclear Armies.... meetings like those were essential to keeping Nuclear peace...the picture of Saddam was when Saddam was told to use gas on the Iranians on behalf of the US......

nope.

we had an interest in not seeing iran conquer iraq, so we gave some minor support.

very little compared to the amount of material that he was able to buy himself on the open market.

only someone looking to smear america would try to spin that little bit of support into saddam being "our regional leader".

diplomacy requires meetings, and not just between us and soviet leaders. try to be less dishonest.

I see you know nothing of history.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Yes...during clinton the rapists terms in office there was a hysteria that black churches were being burned....turns out they were burned for the insurance money...of course that wasn't pointed out and had to be dug up later.....

 

[Statistikhengst]

More Killed by White Extremists Than Jihadists Since 9/11

lol!!!

"since 9-11?"


games libs play with stats.

sure, why would you talk about 9-11 when discussing jihadists murder counts?

lol!

The statement is correct. "Since 911".

Poor butthurt KKKorrell.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[2aguy]

On the clinton era ( bill clinton the violent rapist).....

Bestselling author Michael Fumento reports The Great Black Church-burning Hoax.

But when I contacted the law enforcement officials of several states on the CDR list, a very different picture emerged.


The CDR, it turned out, regularly ignored fires set by blacks and those that occurred in the early part of the decade, and labeled fires as arsons that were not — all in an apparent effort to make black church torchings appear to be an escalating phenomenon.

For example CDR lists ten churches allegedly torched in Alabama, but State Fire Marshall John Robison says that only one of these was a confirmed arson. All the others were accidental, undetermined, or weren’t fires at all but vandalisms.

CDR somehow managed to omit three bonafide black church arsons that took place in Alabama in 1994. In two cases the culprits were black. Moreover, the group left out ten black church arsons that took place before 1994, creating the illusion that the burning of black churches is a recent phenomenon.

Even the claim that black churches have been singled out for arson is questionable. In 1995, according to USA Today, there were 45 arsons against white churches and 27 against black ones in the surveyed states.

Other than saying that some black churches over the years have fallen prey to racists, we can’t easily infer motives. "We have not uncovered in [Alabama’s] 38 cases a single piece of information to substantiate racially-motivated fires," said Robison. Further, "There have been no dramatic increases, except for this year because of the media hype." Other states’ officials have told him the same.

So yeah.....not a big deal............we have a history of these things and they aren't about racism....been there, done that...and the racist democrats tried to create racial hatred back then too....

 

[Mac1958]

So, seven years into his presidency, he says this (whatever he said on your 37-minute video).

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that, during that speech, he challenged both ends of the issue to seriously and sincerely look in the mirror and work diligently to clean their own house before pointing the finger at the other, yes? Let me know where that is in the speech, I'd be happy to see him saying that at such an important moment.

Seven years - that is my point.

.

If you aren't willing to watch the entire video and honestly try to understand the context of his messages to America, then you have no credibility to speak to what the pres has said or not said.
It is exactly that sort of willful ignorance and baseless assertions about the actions of the pres that brings racist recriminations upon you.

37 minutes?

post a link to the transcripts. cut and paste the bits you consider so relevant.

You're right, if only Obama were less wordy , you might have been able to understand his message. Thanks Obama, thanks for dividing us with our short attention spans.

i generally don't listen to speeches. from anyone.

to much filler and low information content bs.

the points can almost always be summed up in a few bullet points.

37 minutes of obama?

no fucking way.

One would think that if someone were genuinely concerned of how their black president speaks to racial divides in America, that they would certainly want to hear what he had to say in response to the overtly racial attacks against nine innocent black folks. I suppose I could be wrong, but I don't think so. You have no genuine interest at all.

For those of us who believe that each side should clean its own house before attacking the other, a little more balance would be helpful.

He doesn't have to, of course. As long as we're not concerned with actually improving race relations.

.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

If you aren't willing to watch the entire video and honestly try to understand the context of his messages to America, then you have no credibility to speak to what the pres has said or not said.
It is exactly that sort of willful ignorance and baseless assertions about the actions of the pres that brings racist recriminations upon you.

37 minutes?

post a link to the transcripts. cut and paste the bits you consider so relevant.

You're right, if only Obama were less wordy , you might have been able to understand his message. Thanks Obama, thanks for dividing us with our short attention spans.

i generally don't listen to speeches. from anyone.

to much filler and low information content bs.

the points can almost always be summed up in a few bullet points.

37 minutes of obama?

no fucking way.

One would think that if someone were genuinely concerned of how their black president speaks to racial divides in America, that they would certainly want to hear what he had to say in response to the overtly racial attacks against nine innocent black folks. I suppose I could be wrong, but I don't think so. You have no genuine interest at all.

For those of us who believe that each side should clean its own house before attacking the other, a little more balance would be helpful.

He doesn't have to, of course. As long as we're not concerned with actually improving race relations.

.

He obviously isn't concerned at all. Neither were you. My post applied to you as well.
It's pretty difficult to be " balanced" when you won't even listen to your pres speak directly to the very points you accuse him of not addressing.

 

[Mac1958]

37 minutes?

post a link to the transcripts. cut and paste the bits you consider so relevant.

You're right, if only Obama were less wordy , you might have been able to understand his message. Thanks Obama, thanks for dividing us with our short attention spans.

i generally don't listen to speeches. from anyone.

to much filler and low information content bs.

the points can almost always be summed up in a few bullet points.

37 minutes of obama?

no fucking way.

One would think that if someone were genuinely concerned of how their black president speaks to racial divides in America, that they would certainly want to hear what he had to say in response to the overtly racial attacks against nine innocent black folks. I suppose I could be wrong, but I don't think so. You have no genuine interest at all.

For those of us who believe that each side should clean its own house before attacking the other, a little more balance would be helpful.

He doesn't have to, of course. As long as we're not concerned with actually improving race relations.

.

He obviously isn't concerned at all. Neither were you. My post applied to you as well.
It's pretty difficult to be " balanced" when you won't even listen to your pres speak directly to the very points you accuse him of not addressing.

The fact that we're not going to sit through a 37-minute video does not mean that we're not interested in improving race relations.

I can't believe I actually just typed that.

I'm sure he challenges both sides to look in the mirror and clean their own houses. I'm sure he exhorts both sides to come together. Just tell me where it is in the video and I'll be very happy to check it out.

Looking forward to it.

.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You're right, if only Obama were less wordy , you might have been able to understand his message. Thanks Obama, thanks for dividing us with our short attention spans.

i generally don't listen to speeches. from anyone.

to much filler and low information content bs.

the points can almost always be summed up in a few bullet points.

37 minutes of obama?

no fucking way.

One would think that if someone were genuinely concerned of how their black president speaks to racial divides in America, that they would certainly want to hear what he had to say in response to the overtly racial attacks against nine innocent black folks. I suppose I could be wrong, but I don't think so. You have no genuine interest at all.

For those of us who believe that each side should clean its own house before attacking the other, a little more balance would be helpful.

He doesn't have to, of course. As long as we're not concerned with actually improving race relations.

.

He obviously isn't concerned at all. Neither were you. My post applied to you as well.
It's pretty difficult to be " balanced" when you won't even listen to your pres speak directly to the very points you accuse him of not addressing.

The fact that we're not going to sit through a 37-minute video does not mean that we're not interested in improving race relations.

I can't believe I actually just typed that.

I'm sure he challenges both sides to look in the mirror and clean their own houses. I'm sure he exhorts both sides to come together. Just tell me where it is in the video and I'll be very happy to check it out.

Looking forward to it.

.

You have no genuine interest either. Too black for you to tolerate for 40 min?

 

[LoneLaugher]

If you aren't willing to watch the entire video and honestly try to understand the context of his messages to America, then you have no credibility to speak to what the pres has said or not said.
It is exactly that sort of willful ignorance and baseless assertions about the actions of the pres that brings racist recriminations upon you.

37 minutes?

post a link to the transcripts. cut and paste the bits you consider so relevant.

You're right, if only Obama were less wordy , you might have been able to understand his message. Thanks Obama, thanks for dividing us with our short attention spans.

i generally don't listen to speeches. from anyone.

to much filler and low information content bs.

the points can almost always be summed up in a few bullet points.

37 minutes of obama?

no fucking way.

One would think that if someone were genuinely concerned of how their black president speaks to racial divides in America, that they would certainly want to hear what he had to say in response to the overtly racial attacks against nine innocent black folks. I suppose I could be wrong, but I don't think so. You have no genuine interest at all.

For those of us who believe that each side should clean its own house before attacking the other, a little more balance would be helpful.

He doesn't have to, of course. As long as we're not concerned with actually improving race relations.

.

Both sides need to clean house. Absolutely. Both sides are to blame for one side being bigots.

The racists and bigots need to clean house. But Mac hasn't said how. They are waiting on the negroes to clean house first. How can they be expected to abandon their bigotry until the negroes do their house cleaning.

What is the negro house cleaning? Why....it's to stop asking to be treated equally. It's to stay home and be nice when they are gunned down in the streets by police officers. It's to look at the past....a past in which they have been oppressed and discriminated against....both legally and otherwise.....and offer absolute forgiveness. It's to accept their portion of the blame for being hated by bigots.

 

[Mac1958]

You have no genuine interest either. Too black for you to tolerate for 40 min?

DING! And there it is.

I'm too racist to watch a video.

The PC Police are alive and well here.

I rest my case. Play with someone else, thanks.



.

 

[Ravi]

Like flying the con flag on government property to appease racists and traitors? IMO that is a much worse expression of PC than stupid misunderstanding over the word niggardly. But no one on the right will admit that.

the niggardly example was just to show a very clear example of a gratuitous accusation of racism.


what do you call a mindset where an accusation is all that is required to prove guilt?

that's what happened to that guy.

one moron made an accusation and he was fired.


you realize that that mindset is not limited to the word niggardly, right?

He was rehired.

only because he was luckily part of a traditionally disadvantage group that mobilized to defend him.

that being said, will you answer my question?

what do you call it when an accusation is all that is needed to prove guilt?

because that is what happened to him, one moron made an accusation and he was fired.

I call it stupidity.

it's a witch hunt.

Nope, it's stupidity. People are too stupid to know that niggardly has an actual meaning that has nothing to do with the n word.