It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Town's White Police Official Calls Obama N-word - Refuses to Apologize

page: 21
34
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on May, 16 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: captaintyinknots

I bet your arms are sore from all that reaching you are doing.

We are talking about a word not murder.
So, your "whats good for the goose is good for the gander" logic is selective and only works where you want it to?

Sorry, bud.

The "goose and gander" defense is weak and pathetic, and youve just seen it proven.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 07:48 PM
link   
"niggardly"


definition,,
"reluctant to give or spend; stingy; miserly.
2. meanly or ungenerously small or scanty: "a niggardly tip to a waiter." adverb.
3. in the manner of a niggard.



Origin,,
look it up..

Question is,, is Obama,,niggardly? Is this what he should have said?


Was it about Money?

Origin,, for the lazy

" Origin:
1325–75; Middle English nyggard, equivalent to nig niggard (< Scandinavian; compare dialectal Swedish nygg; akin to Old English hnēaw stingy) + -ard "



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: iosolomon

Nothing in there about social backlash. What do you not understand about this?



You have just proven my point that you truly have crawled out of a Commie shoebox.



Yup. And in no way does that violate his free speech.


Actually, it does. If he has to succumb to the madness of the masses, and the masses only want "like-minded" puppets to represent them, then who will give a voice to him? Who will represent him?

But I am wasting my time with you...



Nobody is killing anybody.


I don't think you understand the metaphor. So add Shakespeare to your reading list. You strike me as someone still in high school...





You seem preoccupied with killing....


It was a play on words. "Don't kill the messenger." And now we have "Don't kill the speaker." Because that is EXACTLY what you are advocating we do. Someone says the "n" word, let's kill them! (Or, to be correct, since you are very anal, let's silence them!)



Again, get a basic education.


I am not the one who stopped my education in high school...



I've read [the Federalist Papers].


Not very well, I see.



and not one part of them protects from social backlash.


Nowhere in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence say that we should have a "government of the People, by the People, for the People," but Abraham Lincoln sure took them to mean that.

You have to, you know, use a skill that has long disappeared in American way of life, called "critical thinking." I think, with a little more effort, you can get this one right!



So now you are trying to limit MY free speech? Funny how that works.


The context of this quote was simply asking you to educate yourself. I was not limiting your free speech. It would be like arguing with a brick wall.



Tell ya what, Ill re-read them, just as soon as you learn the basics of the constitution.


I would not ask anyone to do that. In fact, I wouldn't even ask anyone to read them in the first place. But when someone is adamantly wrong, I like to direct them to it.




Ok, then, mr. scholar: Please quote for me any part of the constitution that protects from social backlash. I dare you. Just one quote.


I answered this by referring to Abraham Lincoln's interpretation of the Constitution. Do not take things so "literally."



So the constitution, supreme court, and nearly every constitutional scholar in the world is wrong?


Yes. I mean, did you really have to ask me this?

Are you just trolling on this? Someone who has read the Federalist Papers should be well-versed on how the Constitution works...so I think you are trolling me...



I feel truly embarrassed for you....


Yeah, you are trolling me...



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: captaintyinknots

I know the tactic of breaking up posts one line at a time.

Look, we are not that far apart really. You just want to police my speech.

I want to control what I say. I want you to control what you say.

It's not that difficult. I just refuse to put up with a double standard.

I wish everybody. Every Race, Creed and Color to stop using that hate filled word.

You seem to only want white people to stop using that word.

Tell me if you agree with anything I just typed...Or, just call me a liar again.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 07:54 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: iosolomon




You have just proven my point that you truly have crawled out of a Commie shoebox.
Oh goody, we've now gotten to the point where you cant defend your statement, so you pull out the namecalling! Congrats!




Actually, it does. If he has to succumb to the madness of the masses, and the masses only want "like-minded" puppets to represent them, then who will give a voice to him? Who will represent him?
Then provide me with the wording. Where in the constitution does it say this? Just quote it for me.

no running around, deflecting, namecalling and dodging. Just the direct quote from the document. Ill wait.




I don't think you understand the metaphor. So add Shakespeare to your reading list. You strike me as someone still in high school...
Kiddo, if you cant debate the topic, youve already lost.

I understand that you chose that particular metaphor to try and make an emotional point, and failed.




It was a play on words.
No, it was an attempt to elicit an emotional response. Also known as sensationalism. Always the sign of a good debater





ecause that is EXACTLY what you are advocating we do.
Nope, you are still the ONLY one talking about killing the speaker, metaphorically or otherwise. In other words, you are still sensationalizing.




Someone says the "n" word, let's kill them! (Or, to be correct, since you are very anal, let's silence them!)
Again, why do you all feel the need to lie to make your point. I have said, at least a half dozen times, that he is free to say whatever he wants. YOU, again, are the only one speaking of silencing him. (Sensationalism).

(two troll-like remarks ignored)




Nowhere in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence say that we should have a "government of the People, by the People, for the People," but Abraham Lincoln sure took them to mean that.
And?




You have to, you know, use a skill that has long disappeared in American way of life, called "critical thinking." I think, with a little more effort, you can get this one right!
Youre ignoring the, oh, say, 150 years of precedence set. That does, ya know, matter.

back to school.




The context of this quote was simply asking you to educate yourself. I was not limiting your free speech. It would be like arguing with a brick wall.
Funny, you sure backed off that one real quick....




Yes. I mean, did you really have to ask me this?
You just claimed the constitution, the supreme court, and nearly every constitutional scholar is wrong, and you are right.

I mean seriously. Think about that for a second. Give it a moment to sink in. You REALLY think you know better than all those mentioned?

yikes.




Are you just trolling on this? Someone who has read the Federalist Papers should be well-versed on how the Constitution work
Reading something and comprehending it are two VERY different things. But hey, you know better than the constitution itself, the supreme court, and people who have dedicated their lives to it.

Straight up delusional.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: captaintyinknots

I bet your arms are sore from all that reaching you are doing.

We are talking about a word not murder.
So, your "whats good for the goose is good for the gander" logic is selective and only works where you want it to?

Sorry, bud.

The "goose and gander" defense is weak and pathetic, and youve just seen it proven.


Why not?
You think it's okay for a select color of people to use it so why not.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: whyamIhere




Look, we are not that far apart really. You just want to police my speech.
Again, though, I absolutely do not. I dont know how many more times I can say that. You are free to say whatever you want.




You seem to only want white people to stop using that word.
Ill ask again: What are you basing this claim on? It certainly isnt my own words, as I have said the exact opposite, at least 4 times in this very thread.

Why the need to lie?



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: captaintyinknots

I bet your arms are sore from all that reaching you are doing.

We are talking about a word not murder.
So, your "whats good for the goose is good for the gander" logic is selective and only works where you want it to?

Sorry, bud.

The "goose and gander" defense is weak and pathetic, and youve just seen it proven.


Why not?
You think it's okay for a select color of people to use it so why not.
Where did I say that? There are now 3 of you making this claim. Please quote for me where I said anything of the sort.

here, Ill grab a quote of mine from a couple pages back saying the exact opposite:



I see you're going to dig and scratch to find any example you can of a time when it was not considered hate speech, so Ill put it like this: It should have been considered hate speech then, but the fact that it wasnt doesnt excuse the use of hate speech in other instances.


Here's another:



Ill say it flat out, though, I dont like when he, or anyone uses that word.


So, care to try again?



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: captaintyinknots

There is no use in replying to you. I call you a Commie, you call me delusional. Time will tell that you were wrong, but I wonder, will time tell whether you were also just trolling.

However, because you have some sort of mind-block, the Abraham Lincoln reference was to show you that not everything is directly written or quotable. In other words, how the First Amendment was supposed to be common-sense, but, as you pointed out, the past 150 years in this country has had a serious deficiency of that. Ever since Johnson took Office...

You do understand that those who have "dedicated their lives" to the Constitution have a vested interest in controlling the masses and ensuring their own survival. But I guess you also missed the Darwin lesson of "survival of the fittest," but more importantly, the aristocratic lesson of "hey, we can screw over the sheep since we are 'the fittest.'"

Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. Well, it was nice chatting with you, and I am afraid you'll end up replying to this... more foolishness to look forward, yay!



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Must be an election year. Time for a little divide and conquer.




posted on May, 16 2014 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: captaintyinknots

I might of confused you with others...it was going pretty fast.

If I did I'm sorry. Is it possible that in the fury you might of done the same thing ?

So you agree nobody should use that word ?

Do you agree Black people specifically should not use that word ?

Do you want to make it illegal to say that word ?

I don't care what happens to the idiot cop.

I care that my right to speak freely is intact.

I care that nobody makes subjective rules that nobody can understand.

Your turn....Call me a liar if it makes you feel better.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: iosolomon

All that, when you simply could have admitted that what you claim isnt backed by the constitution.

I hope you do get a little education, because this is sad. You call me a troll, yet you are the one claiming that you know better than the supreme court, constitutional scholars, and the document itself....I dont even know what to say to that.

Ill just sit back and wait foryou to provide ANYTHING other than your own words to back the claim that this is unconstitutional.


If this is any indication of what our citizens know of the constitution, I weep for the future.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: whyamIhere
1) ive said it many times in the thread and ill say it again: I dont want ANYONE using that word.
2) no, I dont want the word made illegal, as I respect free speech. But I consider pretty much anyone who uses it ignorant.


Thats the same position ive held this whole time, but I hope its a little clearer now



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Ok we will promise not to use it.

Scouts honor yo'



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   
*** ATTENTION ***

KEEP IT UP, POSTING BANS ARE NEXT.


ATTACK THE "BALL" NOT THE "PLAYER".



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 08:33 PM
link   
what if there stingy or miserly.??


a reply to: captaintyinknots

cause if your going too make the use of a word, an excuse for a fine,,
ie $ 200.00 two hundred dollars for instance,,
it worked for CBC, NBC, etc,, for years could not even say,, POOP.
cause it was illegal, to say on television.
How about spitting,,, $250.00 cause its more offensive,, than a word.

As far as illegal ,, darn, there were a lot of illegal words in my house, growing up.
Lots,,,,,
slap,, owww
and the beaver tail strap,
that was actually a guy , thing,, lol
poor nuns.




top topics



 
34
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join