Meanwhile, people who were actually victimized by this tragedy outclass the politicians by a country mile:
“I acknowledge that I am very angry,” said Bethane Middleton Brown, who said her slain sister, Middleton Doctor, would have urged love.
“She taught me that we are the family that love built,” Middleton Brown said. “We have no room for hating, so we have to forgive.”
He said both. But first he said it didn’t happen in other advanced countries. I’m guessing he realized how stupid it sounded and then put the qualifier in. But who knows? I can only respond to what actually said.
And of course it’s hilarious to see someone complain about quotes out of context and then wonder why politicians are careful about what they say.
This guy doesn’t look like he represents any large group. I mean would you trust him with your secrets? He’s clearly off his rocker, and overtly racist too.
We need to define terrorism on a national level. It’s wrong to call one group that and not another.
Has Obama ever called something racist? Just curious because he is very aware of being the first black potus and he’s a real cautious dude. He might feel it’s not his place to do it.
As The New Yorker says, it was effectively a lynching.
What I absolutely don’t understand is why the black community put up with the police and civilians committing racist crimes almost weekly. Really, at what point do you face fire with fire.
It’s just staggering.
What bearing do these two have on the killer’s motivation? He didn’t name the streets or design the flag.
it denotes a racist mindset in the state at large. which would, presumably, make someone who was already racist even more racist.
Eh? I live in London near a train station called Waterloo - what does that tell you about me?
I don’t know. I don’t live in London. I live in Georgia, the state right next to South Carolina. Racists are the ones who fly rebel flags and bitch and moan every time you want to take some confederate generals name off of a street.
Better yet:
what assumption would - you - make if a city in germany wanted to name city streets after SS generals and fly the nazi flag over city hall?
The things he said during the murders were in the news less than 24 hours aft the crime. And he has since confessed to the police, including his hopes of starting a “race war”. So WTF are we waiting for again?
Well, for whatever it’s worth: this was clearly a racist attack, and the motive was racism, and the attacker is a violent, evil thug.
wow, you couldn’t resist, could you?
I doubt many do either. Why don’t they come out explicitly and SAY it was out and out racism? Because they are politicians and ‘mainstream figures’, so they have to speak in double talk or carefully, less what they say be used against them down the road. At least until they see a solid opinion poll that tells them it’s ok to jump on the bandwagon for a good old fashioned pile on. You seriously have to ask this question in the age of weasel words and double speak?? 
I haven’t seen anyone openly saying, explicitly, that it’s not racism or racially motivated. What I’ve seen is people (read: politicians) hedging. As usual. If you have an actual solid example of someone saying, flat out that it’s not racism or racially motivated, full stop, I’d be interesting in seeing it, since that person would be an idiot of the first order.
Again, I haven’t seen anyone openly doing this, but I imagine they gain votes in their core constituencies. Not all people who vote in the various districts are open to a narrative of a white supremacist type openly motivated by a desire to start a ‘race war’ (his words, IIRC) and shooting a bunch of black men AND women in a freaking church being racially motivated when they could think the safer and more comfortable (to them) ‘this guy was just a crazy fucker’ narrative instead. If a politician makes a calculation that s/he might get more votes by using weasel words or political double-speak than coming right out and saying something then they will, regardless of which political ‘side’ they are on. Democrats do this on issues where they don’t want to come right out and say something that might upset their core voters, and Republicans do it too. Again, I’d be interested in seeing someone ACTUALLY coming right out in the open and saying that this wasn’t racially motivated by an obvious white racist fuck, but I seriously doubt anyone would have the balls to do that. Weasel words and doublespeak, however, I could definitely see that.
Ok, but the rest of your list was evidence that this guy, specifically, engaged in murder as part of a racist worldview. Someone living in South Carolina, by contrast, is evidence if nothing beyond living in South Carolina. Implying otherwise is rather prejudicial, is it not?
It’s the second part of Jon Stewart’s quote that completes the thought. To paraphrase: In a state that flies the Confederate flag, and where the streets are named after Confederate generals, he thought blacks were taking over. [implicit but unspoken: an incredibly backwards and f’ed up world view.]
With regards to the “T”-word: for reasons I don’t quite comprehend, it’s important for the Right that terrorism = Muslims, and Muslims = terrorism. If it wasn’t committed by a Muslim it’s not terrorism.
Look, no offense, but why don’t you try living in a town with less than 15,000, many of whom fly the rebel flag and venerate civil war generals, try living here for a year. Then you will be free to criticize me all you want about being “prejudicial” to people have a rebel flag decal in the window of their truck. Not ALL of them are racist but a very large number of them (flag decals) are.
icwudt
Resist what?
Make your argument plainly.
As plainly as you made yours?
I have to admit I’m also baffled by what your point was.
Yeah, not seeing it either. Thought it was just me missing some by play or something…