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: 33
34
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Justwatchingyou

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Justwatchingyou

he doesn't need your help. back off.


Once again I can go back through this thread and cite postings where you have added to the comment of another member to add strength or "validity" to their post. This is an open forum much like a restaurant is.
There is no expectation of privacy here.

Thank you


duly noted and my apologies.




posted on May, 17 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: undo

So, your issue is with a conversation that has no legal baring?

Im seriously confused. Bwhat does it have to do with the topic, and what does it have to do with obama being half white?

A follow up: have you even bothered to read the law or is this all based on a propaganda piece on youtube?



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: undo

So, your issue is with a conversation that has no legal baring?

Im seriously confused. Bwhat does it have to do with the topic, and what does it have to do with obama being half white?

A follow up: have you even bothered to read the law or is this all based on a propaganda piece on youtube?


if holder said it, how can it be a propaganda piece? you keep moving the bar farther down the field. was not the bill for the purpose of protecting favored races and sexual orientations and only them?



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: undo

So, your issue is with a conversation that has no legal baring?

Im seriously confused. Bwhat does it have to do with the topic, and what does it have to do with obama being half white?

A follow up: have you even bothered to read the law or is this all based on a propaganda piece on youtube?


if holder said it, how can it be a propaganda piece? you keep moving the bar farther down the field. was not the bill for the purpose of protecting favored races and sexual orientations and only them?
so you still havent read it.
1) you, and your propaganda piece are presenting what was said out of context.

2) it wasnt about specifying any group to have special rights. It was about making sure homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else.

Seriously, read the darn thing.

ETA: moving the bar down the field? So going from "no such law exists" to "no such law exists" is moving the bar down the field? What game is that?
edit on 17-5-2014 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-5-2014 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: undo




whether people of faith are equally protected under the law.
Yes they are. The law will not, however, let them use religion as an excuse to attack others.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: captaintyinknots

okay, but it still doesn't explain holder's interpretation of it in the video, and that is that the bill is to protect "groups" who have been historically attacked, and that would include gays and minorities. protecting people is a good thing but the love isn't being spread around, instead it reads like a dear john letter in the middle of a war . i don't agree with attacking gays or calling black people unseemly words, and i don't agree with calling you names either. closet i came asking if one of you was trolling because the thought occured to me that the thread was filled with insults, ranging from idiot to moron and everything inbetween and the only emotional response would be to attack. typically that's called trolling for emotional reactions.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: undo




whether people of faith are equally protected under the law.
Yes they are. The law will not, however, let them use religion as an excuse to attack others.


the book they follow has those words in it. sorta like origin of the species assumes we were all monkeys once upon a time.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: undo




whether people of faith are equally protected under the law.
Yes they are. The law will not, however, let them use religion as an excuse to attack others.


the book they follow has those words in it. sorta like origin of the species assumes we were all monkeys once upon a time.
Good thing the book they follow isnt the law of the land.

Whether or not its in their book does not give them the right to attack others.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: captaintyinknots

"Which, for the record, simply extends hate crime"

I hate that concept, a crime is a crime, nothing more, nothing less, adding hate to the front of such simply diminishes all and any crimes of the same nature. A crime is a crime. END OFF!!!


Rant over, apologies.

edit on 17-5-2014 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: undo




okay, but it still doesn't explain holder's interpretation of it in the video, and that is that the bill is to protect "groups" who have been historically attacked, and that would include gays and minorities.
Whats hard to understand about it? the laws came about because certain groups were discriminated against. That doesnt change the FACT that the laws cover ALL groups.




protecting people is a good thing but the love isn't being spread around, instead it reads like a dear john letter in the middle of a war .
Can you give me one specific example of the 'love not being spread around'? I cant argue a strawman.




. i don't agree with attacking gays or calling black people unseemly words, and i don't agree with calling you names either. closet i came asking if one of you was trolling because the thought occured to me that the thread was filled with insults, ranging from idiot to moron and everything inbetween and the only emotional response would be to attack.
Im lost on most of this.

I do find it interesting, though, that after a couple dozens pages of ME being attacked, you assume that I must be the one trolling. Its the same ol mindset, really.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: captaintyinknots

"Which, for the record, simply extends hate crime"

I hate that concept, a crime is a crime, nothing more, nothing less, adding hate to the front of such simply diminishes all and any crimes of the same manner or fashion. A crime is a crime. END OFF!!!


Rant over, apologies.
I dont like the label, I would prefer they be called a discriminatory crime, just like crimes of a sexual nature are sex crimes, violent in nature are violent crimes, etc.

I personally think the term 'hate crime' is not a good term. But it is a term used for to blanket (its a category of type of crime) many different crimes, it is not a specific.
edit on 17-5-2014 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
a reply to: undo




whether people of faith are equally protected under the law.
Yes they are. The law will not, however, let them use religion as an excuse to attack others.


the book they follow has those words in it. sorta like origin of the species assumes we were all monkeys once upon a time.
Good thing the book they follow isnt the law of the land.

Whether or not its in their book does not give them the right to attack others.


they aren't attacking, they are talking about the contents of the book. the book says homosexuality is a problem. whether or not that is true, is not the issue here. the issue here is whether or not their right to discuss the contents of the book, is protected and holder basically said, no it's not.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: undo




they aren't attacking, they are talking about the contents of the book
Again, this is a strawman. Without a specific example, its all abstract.

That said, heres how it breaks down: They are protected in speaking the views of their bible. They are not protected in attacking a person, say, by burning a cross on their lawn. Just as they are offered the same protection from those that would attack them for their religious views.

Does that make sense?




the book says homosexuality is a problem.
And they are free to believe that. Using it as an excuse to act, however, is not permitted.




the issue here is whether or not their right to discuss the contents of the book, is protected and holder basically said, no it's not.
That is not what he said, but, again, I implore you, read the law. Just go read it. Quit worrying about what holder said and look at the actual law (ya know, the thing that actually HAS legal baring here).


edit on 17-5-2014 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: captaintyinknots

oh lemme see -- travyon martin case? i think what happened there was a travesty. i feel bad for travyon and for george. the reaction from our president was confusing and depressing. the reaction from the press, the black panthers, reverend jackson and so on, was depressing. it was all quite disheartening. meanwhile, even worse crimes were being perpetrated against white people (like the young couple from ...georgia was it?), some of who were democrats (so can't use the excuse that it's because they were racist white republicans, and not a peep was heard, and frankly, rarely do we hear of these events on the scale of travyon martin's case. that just breeds more racism. it actually draws racism out of people who weren't racist before that because now it's a matter of life or death. it shouldn't be that bad, but it is.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: undo



oh lemme see -- travyon martin case? i think what happened there was a travesty. i feel bad for travyon and for george. the reaction from our president was confusing and depressing. the reaction from the press, the black panthers, reverend jackson and so on, was depressing. it was all quite disheartening.

I fail to see the connection. Though the media storm around it was disturbing, it had nothing to do with hate speech.




meanwhile, even worse crimes were being perpetrated against white people (like the young couple from ...georgia was it?)
Cant argue a strawman.




some of who were democrats (so can't use the excuse that it's because they were racist white republicans, and not a peep was heard, and frankly, rarely do we hear of these events on the scale of travyon martin's case
Please, tell me that you arent arguing that black victims get more press than white ones....please....

The Trayvon Martin case was very unique.




that just breeds more racism
From those that are already racist, perhaps. The rest of us see all things like this as one thing: a tragedy.




it actually draws racism out of people who weren't racist before that because now it's a matter of life or death.
How is it a matter of life and death? I dont get the connection you are trying to make at all.

The truth is, you are clinging to anything you can. First it was that obama was half white. Then it was the (false) claim that whites arent protected from hate speech. Then it was eric holder. Now its trayvon martin. Do you have an actual point, because I am getting dizzy with all of this circling round.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   
you asked




Can you give me one specific example of the 'love not being spread around'? I cant argue a strawman


so i quoted the travyon martin example because that is viewed as a hate crime.
yet the murder, rape and torture of the couple from georgia, is just viewed as a crime, not a hate crime. so that's an example where a caucasian couple being murdered, raped and tortured (did you read about that case? it would make charles manson green with envy for its sheer barbaric debauchery) was not covered under hate crime laws. because of their skin color. this same thing has been happening in south africa now for quite awhile. only worse there. we just have more people, so the rate is higher here.

i dunno, but it's not looking good.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: captaintyinknots

Seriously, take a break man. Posting continuously takes away from the OP's topic and hurts intelligent, productive conversation and debate about the issue. I noticed you did the same thing in the thread about what Sterling said.

Taking a break will give you time to gather your thoughts and make better arguments for something you clearly have a lot of passion for.

edit on 17-5-2014 by jrod because: typO



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: undo




so i quoted the travyon martin example because that is viewed as a hate crime.
Zimmerman was not found guilty. So no, it is not viewed as a hate crime. I still fail to see how this is an example of the love not being spread around, or how it has ANYTHING to do with this topic.




yet the murder, rape and torture of the couple from georgia, is just viewed as a crime, not a hate crime
I dont know the case you are talking about, since you wont give any specifics, but were they killed based on their skin color, religion, sexual orientation, etc? If not, its not a hate crime.

I dont know how many times I can say it...PLEASE go do a little reading. its obvious you dont have a lot of experience with the information you are trying to push.




because of their skin color.
Can you back this up? Im assuming they were white. Were they killed because they were white?




this same thing has been happening in south africa now for quite awhile.
We are talking about american law. Not south african.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   
As always, its been both a pleasure and a pressure absorbing such wondrously divergent opinions on some daft dudes racist remarks, entitled or otherwise, as the case may be.
LoL

Night, night fellow ATS members, we smoke n bed me thinks!



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: captaintyinknots

it was viewed as a hate crime by pretty much the entire media, but the court, deemed otherwise. you surely don't need me to remind you of the remarks coming out of the democratic party at the time? it was deemed a hate crime. our president doesn't want to own us as his people, because of our skin color. it's really depressing. i mean that, most sincerely.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join