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: 22
34
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan




- The waitress shouldn't have been listening in on a private conversation.
- I question if she's even legally allowed to be repeating what she listened in on. Is she? Maybe she is. I really don't know.


LOL!

Although many people think that waitresses are their personal nurses, and bartenders their doctors, there is no law that binds food and beverage servers to confidentiality. There are in many cases confidentiality contracts that employees are required to sign, and the repercussion of a law suit for breaking such a contract. Consider the case with the new viral video of JZ and Solange in the elevator. The hotel is pressing charges against the employee for breaking their confidentiality contract.

Breaking a contract isn't against the law. Neither is speaking ones mind.




posted on May, 16 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Read a few pages back we had too.


No waitress apparently.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: TiedDestructor

Yeah, I've read through. It doesn't matter though, because some people think and are posting, that waitresses are paid to be mindless, deaf and dumb servants! LOL!

"We reserve the right to refuse service" to anyone, including jerks like Copeland!



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

This guy was having a private conversation and he referred to a politician as a slur.



One more time, it was not a private conversation. It was a conversation in a public place by a public official.

Your husband and you, in your home is a private conversation. Your husband and you in a restaurant is a public conversation.

Whether or not you 'intend' to be overheard is immaterial.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Most of this has been said already in the thread but:

It was said in a public place. This isn't like the situation with Donald Sterling (in that sense anyways).

The Police Officer's Freedom Of Speech isn't being violated. Freedom Of Speech is not Freedom From Consequences.

The Waitress has Freedom Of Speech too.

The Police Officer is a public figure, so of course there's going to be some backlash against this, especially considering that Police don't exactly have best reputation among blacks.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

Yes, he have a right to his private conversation?

The waitress should she mind her own business and stay out of private conversations.

You have a right to a personal opinion and he should not resign because of it.

I have some personal opinions that conflict with what I have to do on the job sometimes. You follow procedure and policy and do the job and don't let personal prejudices interfere with the job. "IF" you can do that then your ok. He seems to be able to since he has had no complaints.

If the waitress worked for me I would write her up and severely reprimand her for interfering in a private conversation. She could keep her job if it was a one time thing and she understood not to do it again.

Who knows what the conversation was about or the context was?!?!

For instance...... Maybe the guy was talking about a third person and said "Frank called Obama a Ni$$er and I disagreed with him"..... she may have heard only part of it........or maybe the guy is racist??? I wasn't part of the conversation and neither was she.

Agree with the guy or not......whether he is right or wrong is irrelevant.

It's getting scary when you can't have an opinion anymore......



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

no!!!!

what are we becoming!!!!!

i heard dumbass say something!!!

OMG!!!

it's coming to the internet. lol, so watch your ass.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Does calling one white person a cracker mean you are a racist? Does calling one Mexican a wetback mean you are a racist? Does calling one person a Wop mean you are a racist? Does calling one Saudi a camel jockey mean you are a racist? Does calling one single black person a 'n-word' actually mean you are a racist? Maybe he had a good reason to call Obama that.

Why is only one of those terms automatically changed by software? (I typed the n in full) Does that make the software racist?
edit on 16-5-2014 by yamammasamonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: mwood

Nice try, but not only did the man admit it, but he is still defending it.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: yamammasamonkey

Labelling him a racist is arbitrary. Label him or dont, the town still has a right to decide if they want a man in an elected position who uses that word in that way.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: mwood

Nice try, but not only did the man admit it, but he is still defending it.


Would you rather have him "pretend" to apologize?

You know that's what they do right?



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:29 PM
link   
I agree. The voters do get to decide if they want to reelect him. I do not agree with removing a person from an elected office for reasons short of breaking the law or a negligence of their sworn duties, which it does not appear has happened in this case. a reply to: captaintyinknots



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiedDestructor

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: mwood

Nice try, but not only did the man admit it, but he is still defending it.


Would you rather have him "pretend" to apologize?

You know that's what they do right?





personally I couldnt care less. Its an ignorant statement. Thats all I really need to know, as none of it is up to me.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: yamammasamonkey
I agree. The voters do get to decide if they want to reelect him. I do not agree with removing a person from an elected office for reasons short of breaking the law or a negligence of their sworn duties, which it does not appear has happened in this case. a reply to: captaintyinknots

I respect that opinion. Personally, im glad we, as voters, have some say.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: whyamIhere

tell me any other context in which calling someone a "Fu^%ing Ni&&er" can be taken.

Please, share.

Im waiting.

This should be awesome.




Went back and read this entire thread...

This is where you and I have completely different opinions.

You think context matters. I ask who gets to judge context.

I don't think context matters at all. Nobody carries a context judge with them.

If a word is so hurtful...and it is. Nobody should say that word.

It should not be illegal. It should not be used. Especially, by the very people it hurts.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: TiedDestructor

Yeah, I've read through. It doesn't matter though, because some people think and are posting, that waitresses are paid to be mindless, deaf and dumb servants! LOL!

"We reserve the right to refuse service" to anyone, including jerks like Copeland!



are u a waitress?
do u hire them?

i've heard # that would make your hair curl, i was only the chef.

this bs of outing peoples private conversations are nothing more than commie witch hunts.

by the left, btw.




edit on 31284251131pm2014 by tsingtao because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: whyamIhere
I do get your point. But there are instances in which context is unmistakeable.

I personally agree with you, I dont think anyone should say it. But there are uses of it that are undeniably worse than others.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Double post

edit on 16-5-2014 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: FlyersFan

He has a right to his private conversation...but he doesn't have immunity to consequences.

It is up to the voters in that area what they want to do, if they decide he should resign then he should resign.

I personally would push for his resignation, because people need to learn that outdated racist views will not be tolerated anymore.


In that case you had better tell 99% of the rappers to STFU, get off the stage and give ALL of their past, present and future royalties to charity.

Cheers - Dave



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle
The people have every right to speak on that, too.

Though i do think comparing an elected official to an artist is hardly parallel




top topics



 
34
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join