Shooting at SC Church During Bible Study - Suspect still at large

[rexlunae]

See, here's part of the problem. We all state and acknowledge that the Civil War is long over but the sad fact is that it isn't. Consider your words "As a Yankee". Why do you consider yourself a Yankee? Why not just an American? And I think the same thing every time I hear a black person state they are African American. No they're not. They're Americans....period. This is what I meant by my earlier post about not being sure that the black community is interested in "full equality."

And yet, saying that you are African American tells a very different story than simply saying that you are American, a story entangled with the darkest chapters in our history. What is it to you if people want to represent that fuller picture of where they come from?

Yes, depending on their politic and region. Consider Texas which continues to call itself a Republic. Many Southerners still consider themselves Confederates based upon a particular code of living indigenous to the South right down to the way one dresses their grits. And they aren't "yahoos!"

You literally just finished denying African Americans the right to self-definition and self-identification in your last paragraph, and here you are now justifying exactly the same behaviour for white people, even as they choose an identity far more sinister than simply being an American whose ancestors came from Africa.

Now you're getting closer to the agenda and yes, Liberals are at the forefront of it. States rights is no triviality, however, or the Framers of the Constitution wouldn't have gone to such lengths to preserve state sovereignty.

No union could possibly be so lose that the members could simply declare themselves out of it without so much as consulting the rest. If it had been allowed as conceived by the Confederates, the next time a state had a strong local sentiment against any prevailing national consensus, they'd jump ship. Massachusetts doesn't want a war to defend Louisiana from piracy? Well, just declare independence. That wasn't the understanding of the Founders, and it isn't in the Constitution. Even Jefferson saw fit to write a Declaration of Independence stating the justifications for the actions that they took. Several of the Confederate states issued statements of causes (hint: slavery), but most did not.

“Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party....each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress." Thomas Jefferson
So when Town Heretic implied that secession was illegal, he was full of hooey! That's why I suggested he revise his political stance to the left.

So, the Confederacy, in your telling the great defender of states rights had a flag with 13 stars on it. But only 11 states ever adopted statutes of secession. The other two, Missouri and Kentucky, never seceded. So why would the great defender of states rights include on its flag an indication of dominion over two states that didn't wish to go with them?

 

[bybee]

Not likely as long as the Liberal agenda continues and the black community seeks something besides "full equality."

I consider myself a reasonably accommodating citizen/neighbor. I believe you are being quite judgmental in stating "the black community" is seeking something besides "full equality"?
I'm hoping that you meant to say that "there are elements within the black community who seek something besides full equality"?

 

[Granite]

I didn't read beyond that point. A thesis that mature should come in crayon. Seven blacks at a church? Almost like they were there by accident...sociopath? Did I miss the diagnosis of the young man in question? Why not, instead, a hate filled racist murders seven black Christians in a house of worship?

Because putting it that way wouldn't allow him to call those who recognized the root of that young man's act "boobs" and offer an equally absurd premise to denigrate the more honest recognition and claims of those who called for a removal of a symbol of hatred from a seat of power. A symbol understood well enough by the murderer who was proud to associate with it.

The apologists keep embarrassing themselves every time they address this issue.

 

[rainee]

Are you guys going to stay so stupid on this?

The South has been guilty of racism. Granted many who were prejudiced did not kill or beat up anyone and never would - but hey that is what it is like when words mean something - instead of what we see here: the gob of hateful crap coated in intellectual sounding meaningless jabber thrown like semi pro baseballers

You upset me so badly I hit post too soon

Blah on you

 

[rainee]

First please answer this - is it right or wrong to mix all ethnic groups until none exist any more.
There are already several groups lost and gone forever because many died and those left diluted their identity till there was only a trace left.

Ok, so is it right or wrong?

I remind you a lot of bleeding heart liberal politicians put their children in private schools while being adamantly against vouchers for the poor to get to go to private schools.
Now I can't call that a simple word like racist is, I have to use that word for liberals: HYPOCRITES

I do believe that laws and segregation in the South were to keep black males away from white women and girls. I could be wrong, but that is what I think. I do not think this behavior existed only with white males in control in the South - but is more of just a male thing! Found where ever there are males on control. But of corse I've been called sexist.


Now then where is that Rexi....

 

[chrysostom]

First please answer this - is it right or wrong to mix all ethnic groups until none exist any more.
There are already several groups lost and gone forever because many died and those left diluted their identity till there was only a trace left.

Ok, so is it right or wrong?

just asking the question is not right

opposites attract

hope is stays that way

 

[Town Heretic]

Are you guys going to stay so stupid on this?

I don't see setting out the plain truth to people invested in transforming a political mechanism into the central issue as stupid, though most of the attempts to revise that history by them haven't exactly been on the sharp end of a pen.

The South has been guilty of racism.

Meh, nearly the whole country was to some extent. The flag controversy today is more like Uncle Tom's Cabin though different in degree. By which I mean it made people who hadn't given serious consideration to an ugly truth interested and then moved by the consideration.

The South's sin was in slavery and the human indignity of its allowance. Many a northerner understood and was complicit in the crime against humanity and many profited by it. So being anti Confederate flag needn't be anti Southerner any more than it necessitates conflating the Union with an altruistic symbol of enlightenment.

Granted many who were prejudiced did not kill or beat up anyone and never would - but hey that is what it is like when words mean something - instead of what we see here: the gob of hateful crap coated in intellectual sounding meaningless jabber thrown like semi pro baseballers

You're being too hard on yourself. All the hoop jumping is being done by people invested in making the war about something other than the stated understanding of the states who were a party to it, which I set out prior.

 

[Town Heretic]

First please answer this - is it right or wrong to mix all ethnic groups until none exist any more.

It's a problematic question. It would be wrong to deny people who want to marry the right because of their skin color and wrong to force it. Your question runs afoul of one of those as an act of social engineering and it's poorly worded if you only meant it as a reflection of individual choice, which would be completely acceptable.

There are already several groups lost and gone forever because many died and those left diluted their identity till there was only a trace left.

Now its groups and not races? What is your point, that you'd be really upset if one day people like me, with blue eyes, found ourselves on the Dodo pile of the extinct because the brown eyed people of the world intermarried with us (and vice versa) to the point where we ceased to exist? Do you really think that level of diversity is meaningful or that any distinction that is should necessarily cease to exist in a way that is (meaningful)?

Ok, so is it right or wrong?

If it's an expression of individual choices then it's right, to the extent that applies.

You know what isn't right? Flying the Confederate battle flag over a seat of government.

I remind you a lot of bleeding heart liberal politicians put their children in private schools while being adamantly against vouchers for the poor to get to go to private schools.

You think people need reminding that a great many politicians can be hypocrites?

Now I can't call that a simple word like racist is, I have to use that word for liberals: HYPOCRITES

That's because you're comfortable with unsupportable, irrational stereotypes. It happens.

I do believe that laws and segregation in the South were to keep black males away from white women and girls.

They were about keeping the race in second class status, beholding to the white majority for whatever we wanted them to have while keeping a political and economic stranglehold on their impact in the culture. The white woman fear was mostly a motivational tool for motivating tools.

 

[rainee]

Hi Rexlunae,

I like your nick, it is unusual.

Your posts on this thread have been a source of heartburn for me, I'm sorry to say.
I fear you are buying into that superficial simplicity that limits truth. Like Town at times seems to imply with statements that let the truth go so far but no further - all to fit a superior but falsely so position...

There's an understandable and very human impulse to recast the past, to place the things we value in a more favourable light.

Ok, I'm going to give you credit for thinking it is understandable and human to recast something that happens into a more favorable light. But for you to think that didn't take place almost immediately if not beforehand is a bit childish.
One wonders what we'er feeding our liberals theses days to get such gullible people.

You believe in a Civil War that was to save the Union that killed I don't know how many people and destroyed I don't know how much. Yet did you ever ask what was being saved in that Union by a war with so much death and destruction going on?

What was saved with that war? What was jeopardized?
The Railroad's Eastern Terminal went where the East wanted it to, it was argued over in the senate no longer.

The brand new industrial achievements still aided the farmers in the no slave territories that went to statehood since rich southern plantation owners did not get into that rich farm land.

But there was no industrial achievement to help with the labor intensive growing of cotton. I didn't realize that myself until this thread drove me to it that the combines that would help the wheat and corn farmers were of no help to cotton crops.

That is why after the war the victorious North East stopped wearing cotton - because they knew that was the only answer...

Oh no, they didn't, what am I saying! Lol, sorry.

Rex, do you know anything about farming, particularly anything about growing cotton? It is hard work work work, then it is no work work work, and then it is hard back breaking work work work again.

So poor people in the South were share croppers. Some plantations and farmers did keep them in a permed ant tenement feudal like situation but -- that was the best situation...
Others were like the migrants farmers of today - those that go from crop to crop at harvest time... And you know how much you care for them.

I think The South would have been a devastating competitor to what
You call the Union.

A country next door like that would have been unthinkable.

It would have been better to destroy it than let them secede.

After the war it was ruled illegal to secede, thank goodness.

Those sovereign states that were equal to their eastern state's brothers were equal no longer...

To the thinking of some... I mean.

But of course they were wrong and are still. The South doesn't have to rise again, the East is collapsing like a flan believing its own hog wash for so long.
Why do YOU think Detroit is in shambles?

Instead of telling the black peoples that they were the reason for the war they should have said greed was.

Then they could have told all people that the whites fought to build what they built and the people of color and all must build - or rebuild what they want. No humans are saviors, they can be kind but often may not be. They must build.

I fear the twenty year old killed believers because he wanted to kill without being afraid. So he went into a church.

Like some of those terrorists who are also afraid so they also attack the unsuspecting.

Do you understand? The angry black mobs of the north were prolly part of his mental feeding. I think... He was young. Unbalanced. Weak. And angrily afraid or fearfully angry...

Time to look to tomorrow, no more bs.

 

[rexlunae]

Hi Rexlunae,

I like your nick, it is unusual.

Thank you. I've used it for quite some time, since I took high school Latin.

Your posts on this thread have been a source of heartburn for me, I'm sorry to say. I fear you are buying into that superficial simplicity that limits truth. Like Town at times seems to imply with statements that let the truth go so far but no further - all to fit a superior but falsely so position...

Whereas I fear that you are buying into a convoluted rationalization scheme intended to rewrite the past in the favor of slavers, segregationists, and racists.

Ok, I'm going to give you credit for thinking it is understandable and human to recast something that happens into a more favorable light. But for you to think that didn't take place almost immediately if not beforehand is a bit childish.

Well, of course it did, and does. Humans are always subject to any number of cognitive biases and prejudices. But the answer to that is to examine what the record actually records, and there is actually a fair bit of clarity to be had.

One wonders what we'er feeding our liberals theses days to get such gullible people.

One wonders why conservatives need to lean on such shabby crutches as these specious generalizations.

You believe in a Civil War that was to save the Union that killed I don't know how many people and destroyed I don't know how much. Yet did you ever ask what was being saved in that Union by a war with so much death and destruction going on?

Of course. But while the Union was far from perfect as it existed in the 1860s as well as today, what the Confederacy offered was undeniably far worse, being a state explicitly founded upon human ownership.

What was saved with that war? What was jeopardized?
The Railroad's Eastern Terminal went where the East wanted it to, it was argued over in the senate no longer.

Well of course the South couldn't very well vote on things in Congress while attempting to leave the Union. Next you'll tell me that the Union forced the South out of the Union to get some votes through Congress.

The brand new industrial achievements still aided the farmers in the no slave territories that went to statehood since rich southern plantation owners did not get into that rich farm land.

But there was no industrial achievement to help with the labor intensive growing of cotton. I didn't realize that myself until this thread drove me to it that the combines that would help the wheat and corn farmers were of no help to cotton crops.

And that justifies forcing people to work the crop because you can't think of an economical way to do the work otherwise? Have you read the things that Southern thought leaders wrote about slavery, and it's supposed virtues?

That is why after the war the victorious North East stopped wearing cotton - because they knew that was the only answer...

Oh no, they didn't, what am I saying! Lol, sorry.

So what? The North's unwillingness to engage in a mass boycott is on the level of the antebellum slave system. You could also point out that prior to the closing of the Atlantic slave trade, many in the North were perfectly happy to make their living off of the filthy industry, and that the rise in the abolitionist movement coincides with the transition of the slave system into a regional interest. But that still doesn't change the fundamental moral calculus of human ownership. If it took a change in the economic situation to make the moral situation clearer, then better sooner than later.

Rex, do you know anything about farming, particularly anything about growing cotton? It is hard work work work, then it is no work work work, and then it is hard back breaking work work work again.

So poor people in the South were share croppers. Some plantations and farmers did keep them in a permed ant tenement feudal like situation but -- that was the best situation...

Others were like the migrants farmers of today - those that go from crop to crop at harvest time

If tenement farming was such a great system by comparison, why did the South require laws that stripped the former slaves of the normal freedoms that this country was supposedly built to protect?

You still aren't dealing with the fundamental nature of slavery in the South.

... And you know how much you care for them.

What???

I think The South would have been a devastating competitor to what
You call the Union.

A country next door like that would have been unthinkable.

It would have been better to destroy it than let them secede.

That argument's a stinker even on its own terms, and the fact that it's factually deficient is the kicker. There's nothing illegitimate about not wishing to compete with countries that don't follow fair labor practices. That's still the subject of a great deal of our free trade diplomacy, as American workers have a right to be worried that if we open up trade with other countries that don't have robust worker protections in place, they'll end up competing for jobs against people very nearly in slave conditions themselves. It degrades all of us to permit that, even as it makes some goods cheaper and thus more accessible.

After the war it was ruled illegal to secede, thank goodness.

Those sovereign states that were equal to their eastern state's brothers were equal no longer...

Yeah, that can happen when you commit yourself to aggressive human rights violations on a mass scale. People stop letting you run your own affairs. The period of reconstruction was intolerable to the South, but it was necessary, and it should have been longer to really achieve what it had set out to do. And before long, the former slave states were back to mostly getting their way, no longer formally holding slaves, but negating in significant part the hard-won freedom of many of their citizens again. Even if the South once had something to complain about here, they no longer do, and didn't for nearly a century before the Civil Rights era.

To the thinking of some... I mean.

But of course they were wrong and are still. The South doesn't have to rise again, the East is collapsing like a flan believing its own hog wash for so long.

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to here. The recession hit the deep South worse than just about anywhere in the US. Otherwise, I'm not seeing the collapse, but perhaps that's because I live in the West.

Why do YOU think Detroit is in shambles?

Well, clearly it's because of their unwillingness to get what they need by forcing free labor from people and crafting an elaborate justification for the practice in order to claim that it is morally virtuous. Right? That's the root of your argument?

Instead of telling the black peoples that they were the reason for the war they should have said greed was.

No one needs to tell black people what the war was about. They lived the reality of it. The convenient thing about blaming the war on an immutable human foible is that it removes any responsibility for the particular acts committed. We can't do anything about greed fundamentally, but we can do something about slavery, and it doesn't help us to ignore the elephant in the room.

Then they could have told all people that the whites fought to build what they built and the people of color and all must build - or rebuild what they want. No humans are saviors, they can be kind but often may not be. They must build.

I don't follow.

I fear the twenty year old killed believers because he wanted to kill without being afraid. So he went into a church.

Then it seems you're as eager to change what the killer said he was trying to do as you are to read a different motive into the actions of the South. Like his forebearers, the killer was pretty clear about what he was trying to do, and there are just a fair number of people who can't face that fact honestly. He didn't just go into any church. He went into a church with certain membership, and history. The sooner you face that fact, the better we'll all be.

Like some of those terrorists who are also afraid so they also attack the unsuspecting.

Do you understand? The angry black mobs of the north were prolly part of his mental feeding. I think... He was young. Unbalanced. Weak. And angrily afraid or fearfully angry...

So, by your calculus, angry, mostly peaceful, black people in the North demanding what are supposed to be Constitutional rights and something like equal treatment are a mob that justifies violence against innocent people. But white Southerners engaging in armed insurrection is a worthy attempt to preserve states' rights regardless of their underlying reasoning? There couldn't be a clearer demonstration that the work of Reconstruction was left unfinished.

Time to look to tomorrow, no more bs.

Strange how looking to tomorrow seems to involve resurrecting a false narrative of an imaginary past.

 

[bybee]

Rainee, are you implying that because there were economic reasons for slavery, slavery being that one man could own another man, slavery was therefore justified?
Whatever multiple causes underpinned the American Civil War, whatever evil side effects occurred, the abolition of slavery was and is a just and honorable goal.
Do you know that slavery still exists in Islamic Theocracies to this very day?
This is an abomination before the eyes of God and ought to be an abomination in the eyes and hearts and minds of all decent people.

 

[rainee]

Ah, Town.

Some of your other posts written while I was on hiatus were much more incinerating to the mental receiver than this one...
So let's see, sir, just what you think:

You said:

It's a problematic question.
It would be wrong to deny people who want to marry the right because of their skin color and wrong to force it.
Your question runs afoul of one of those as an act of social engineering and it's poorly worded if you only meant it as a reflection of individual choice, which would be completely acceptable.

Interesting because earlier governments made laws not only regarding who could marry but who could get unmarried.

Let's even it out now, would you agree - not only can they marry - but can also live the original meaning of marriage save for special circumstances - and stay married until death do they part, ok?

See, a liberal watering down of real and established concepts are what you may be for - is that the way to be?

Now its groups and not races?

No I was specifically thinking of natives taken from a specific place..
I forget the name now but may try later to look them up. Were they a race? I don't know...

What is your point, that you'd be really upset if one day people like me, with blue eyes, found ourselves on the Dodo pile of the extinct because the brown eyed people of the world intermarried with us (and vice versa) to the point where we ceased to exist?

I am for people seriously being very careful in taking a mate. But I draw different lines than others..
I had a friend at a Jr College who was from Japan and he was very clear about who he could not marry or get too involved with...

I was surrounded by young women in my particular religious group who would not have gone outside their denomination of faith...

I had a friend in one class who was from up north, a DJ, and a black man. He liked my sense of humor he said. But the element of no possibility of going beyond a point was as obvious to him he said as the fact that the idea of sex is like the sun in the sky - even when you can't see it because of clouds during the day - you have to know its there.. I learned a lot about guys when he told me that. He may have been a better guy friend than others...
I do not think young people should be raised to think mixing lines is the right answer as some knee jerk response as they try to react against conservatives.

Do you really think that level of diversity is meaningful or that any distinction that is should necessarily cease to exist in a way that is (meaningful)?

Listen, please listen to this account, I'll try to be short:
I was tall in 8th grade. I hated PE. I wasn't thin. I would drum up reasons to be late, trying to be too late to dress out. Came late one day and I saw a very tall young black woman standing next to Coach. Coach stopped introducing her to insult me for being late again. The very tall young woman looked at me and smiled with a great insider smile.. Suddenly I knew she was my friend more than Coach's. She was moved to class to play basketball since it was what was up next I our class's rotation. Next day I dressed out. She was put on the opposite side. She came loping toward me with two little short black girls on each side as her guards. They were actually hemming her in - so I stepped directly in front of her. They trapped her and I would stop her. So I buckled down and assumed the position to withstand a blow.
Then Without ever looking up from the ball she was bouncing toward me, she smiled like an angel and kept coming...
Suddenly she leapt in the air like a gazelle and sailed over my left shoulder, landed, bounced once and shot into the hoop easily. The whole gym came alive with cheers and gasps and claps.
Once over on the side, her first look up was to me, with an unspeakably grateful, yes grateful, smile - thanking me I think for giving her the opportunity to be what she was, which was terrific at flying I guess! After that I always tried to get in her way, stop her, whatever - and she loved it.
A white man should marry her, Town? Dilute the wonderful things God has given her?

Should the black man who would make a good mate not marry her so he can marry some ditsy blonde for some imagined social reason?

That is better to you?

You know what isn't right? Flying the Confederate battle flag over a seat of government.

That Sovereign State had the decision, they made it for the good of all because of people like you I guess.

They were about keeping the race in second class status,

So Catholic Schools keep those children in a low status? No.
If black children go to a class of all blacks That is NOT what should hold them back. Someone needs to keep telling them, even when so many have known it.
Immigrants have not cared what others thought they pushed ahead anyway. Some blacks have too. Abe was a self taught child, right?

beholding to the white majority for whatever we wanted them to have

For a time they should have taken care of. They were a stolen people brought against their will and not trained or well educated for the most part. But I do not know the world we'er talking about now so I do bow to you saying they faced unfairness.

while keeping a political and economic stranglehold on their impact in the culture.

So Gospel Music is a fable to you?
As for economics, well the South was practically decimated remember?

The white woman fear was mostly a motivational tool for motivating tools.

well this is the guy thing.

 

[Granite]

Rainee, you're far more damaged than anyone here ever knew.

 

[Town Heretic]

...Interesting because earlier governments made laws not only regarding who could marry but who could get unmarried.

I'm not a fan of laws restricting interracial marriage though. You?

Let's even it out now, would you agree - not only can they marry - but can also live the original meaning of marriage save for special circumstances - and stay married until death do they part, ok?

Right. Skin tone and superficial differences in appearance aren't necessarily impediments to a life long relationship. Even cultural differences can enliven.

See, a liberal watering down of real and established concepts are what you may be for - is that the way to be?

While anti-miscegenation laws were undone by liberal policies I don't think of it as a liberal or conservative issue.

I am for people seriously being very careful in taking a mate. But I draw different lines than others..

Does being careful involve not crossing racial lines for you? What are your lines?

I was surrounded by young women in my particular religious group who would not have gone outside their denomination of faith...

It happens. How do you feel about that?

I had a friend in one class who was from up north, a DJ, and a black man. He liked my sense of humor he said. But the element of no possibility of going beyond a point was as obvious to him...

How so?

Are you saying he understood you wouldn't cross racial boundaries when it came to dating or choosing a mate?

I do not think young people should be raised to think mixing lines is the right answer as some knee jerk response as they try to react against conservatives.

Do you think people tend to date and marry as political statements? And is the "right idea" to stay within the color bar as a way of holding some traditional line?

Listen, please listen to this account, I'll try to be short:
I was tall in 8th grade. I hated PE. I wasn't thin. I would drum up reasons to be late, trying to be too late to dress out. Came late one day and I saw a very tall young black woman standing next to Coach. ...
A white man should marry her, Town? Dilute the wonderful things God has given her?

The man she loves and who loves her should marry her. Dilute? That's just nonsense. That's the vague language of racism, elevating one above the other...though honestly I don't think for a moment you'd find that white man her inferior. So what do you want for them? For her and the white fellow to remain separate in their uniqueness but equal?

Should the black man who would make a good mate not marry her so he can marry some ditsy blonde for some imagined social reason?

Because that's why a black man would marry a white woman in your thinking?

I think you need to rethink your thinking, rainee. It needs an upgrade.

That is better to you?

It's better to me that we date and marry the object of our interest and love.

That Sovereign State had the decision, they made it for the good of all because of people like you I guess.

I think better of them and their reasoning. Or, to put it in a way you'll likely appreciate, they're a credit to our races.

For a time they should have taken care of. They were a stolen people brought against their will and not trained or well educated for the most part. But I do not know the world we'er talking about now so I do bow to you saying they faced unfairness.

Taken care of? Rainee, they were doing the work that made white living possible.

So Gospel Music is a fable to you?

No, but your above as a response to my point is fairly mythical.

 

[rainee]

Rainee, are you implying that because there were economic reasons for slavery, slavery being that one man could own another man, slavery was therefore justified?
Whatever multiple causes underpinned the American Civil War, whatever evil side effects occurred, the abolition of slavery was and is a just and honorable goal.
Do you know that slavery still exists in Islamic Theocracies to this very day?
This is an abomination before the eyes of God and ought to be an abomination in the eyes and hearts and minds of all decent people.

I'm sorry to answer out or order since Rex should be first but please let me give you, Bybee, A short answer..

I am not saying slavery is justified. Actually I do have to agree with you on that point - the North may have had any number of reasons for stopping the South from seceding but I am glad slavery was abolished.
I have to add I fear a bad boss is not always better than a good master but nevertheless it is better to be free, the Bible says something like that and I want to understand and believe it.

 

[rexlunae]

I'm sorry to answer out or order since Rex should be first but please let me give you, Bybee, A short answer..

I don't mind one bit. Bybee is focusing on something I was getting at anyway.

 

[rainee]

Rainee, you're far more damaged than anyone here ever knew.

Granite
Your words are empty.
First they mean nothing but are posing as a personal insult.

If you actually could relate to or represent even four people here then you wouldn't sound like a clown right now but as it is thanks for sharing your gigantic view of your Everyman self. (Quit drinking ok?)

 

[rainee]

just asking the question is not right

opposites attract

hope is stays that way

No, I'm not talking about things like quirks or personality, dear Chrys.

Btw I have not talked about Minnesota dairy farming to Bybee and may not but one Irishman from Chicago teaching out west said it was partly due to our having unions that kept communism from going any further than it did in areas like that with farmers like them back in the thirties...
I remember you being very angry with unions but hesitated telling there may be a connection to their beginnings and the end of a possibly blooming of Communism...
Life is complicated, yes?

 

[Granite]

Your words are empty.
First they mean nothing but are posing as a personal insult.

I find what you have to say about race to be insulting in general. You're not a well person.

If you actually could relate to or represent even four people here then you wouldn't sound like a clown right now but as it is thanks for sharing your gigantic view of your Everyman self.

You're a racist, and a snake in the grass.

(Quit drinking ok?)

I don't, actually. But thanks for thinking of it.

 

[bybee]

I'm sorry to answer out or order since Rex should be first but please let me give you, Bybee, A short answer..

I am not saying slavery is justified. Actually I do have to agree with you on that point - the North may have had any number of reasons for stopping the South from seceding but I am glad slavery was abolished.
I have to add I fear a bad boss is not always better than a good master but nevertheless it is better to be free, the Bible says something like that and I want to understand and believe it.

Thank you. I've been trying to follow all the posters in this thread. It's very interesting but it has gotten kind of convoluted at times.