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.

 

Al Sharpton to have a say over how Sony makes movies

page: 5
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   
When it comes to race issues I hate the guy... But besides that he is just riding the waves. Doing what anyone else would be doing and that is adding more zeros to his bank account. Sony wants him on the team now? Good for him! No need to hate on him for everything. And someone said he is a leader for black people.... No he's not.. He's just a media goon. It's 2014 the leader is ...music... And social media




posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879


he and Jessie was told to get lost at a recent protest and booed off the stage.



Maybe there is hope for change after all, despite Obama making Al his wingman, the people in the streets don't agree with the emperor on this one.
edit on 20-12-2014 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: whyamIhere
a reply to: AgentShillington

I said nothing racist...

Everything I said was the truth.

Then you called our Founders racist and said they believe in vampires.


Hence, I think you're drunk. Or, there is an English Teacher somewhere that needs a new job.

ADD: I think it would be best if you just didn't reply to me...Merry Christmas.


Everything you said was opinion based on a biased worldview that happens to include your elevated opinion that "Black Folks" aren't doing what you think they aught to do.

Yeah, our Founding Fathers, whom you said would get a rope (a lynching reference), were racists. This isn't anything new. They believed in vampires. Yup, I just add that when people start talking about the Founding Fathers because it delights me to know that people are looking back on and up to people that lives centuries ago to help them with their current problems and it makes me chuckle because they believed in vampires.

So, if that makes me drunk... whatever. I'd rather be drunk than a bigot, I guess.


No, he pointed out Al is someone who owes the IRS lots of money and receives special treatment compared to others who owe the IRS far far less money.

Cliven Bundy owes quite a few pennies also..but Ooh!! I forgot he is not a cheat armed to the teeth he is a tax rebel



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

And at those protest they pointed guns at police and nothing happened....



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: NavyDoc


A little bit of information is a dangerous thing, and that's what you get from wikipedia.

I hope you don't let that be the end of you quest for knowledge, because, as you say, History is important to learn and understand.

Man always treats his toys well, doesn't he? No men ever mistreat animals or tractors... or even paid employees, right?

I know it might be out of vogue to do so, especially here on ATS for some reason, but here are a couple of well researched books on the subject.

The Tragedy of Lynching. Aut: Raper (Particularly good as it was written closer to the time of occurrence and the copy I have is annotated with further research.)
The Muckrakers and Lynching: A Case Study in Racism Aut: Beasley
Racial Violence in Kentucky, 1865-1940 (The first two chapters)


Look at your books. Case studies in racial violence 1865 to 1940. Like I said, lynching was a terrorist technique used during reconstruction and Jim Crow, which is what those eras cover. You are wrong about hanging being used by the founding fathers (colonial period) to control their slaves and the very book you mention above agrees with me given the very years mentioned in the title. Perhaps you don't understand exactly what period in our history the founding fathers refers to?

As disgusting as it sounds, slaves were considered property and as such, were not killed off hand. You wouldn't kill your valuable horse because it acted up either.

Yes, I do suggest you actually attempt to understand and learn history.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: NavyDoc

You aren't of the opinion that the President sets his own schedule, are you?


LOL. The President of the United States would not meet with someone he didn't want to, much less over 60 times.






Thirty-four of Sharpton’s visits were for White House events like high-profile nominations, bill signings, and soirées. Some, like the February 9, 2010, “Celebration of Music from the Civil Rights Movement,” seem well within Sharpton’s wheelhouse. But many more — including a March 18, 2010, signing ceremony for a “jobs bill” and a May 19, 2010, event honoring visiting Mexican president Felipe Calderón — leave one wondering where Sharpton’s expertise enters the picture. Others — such as the Obamas’ 2011 Super Bowl party, small-scale movie screenings in February 2011 and April 2013, and especially the president’s birthday party in August 2011 — speak to a close personal relationship between Sharpton and the first family.


www.whitehousedossier.com... ited-obama-white-house-61-times/


So you do think the president sets his own schedule.


LOL and you don't think he decides who he's going to fete in in his home and with his family dozens upon dozens of times? You honestly he is an unwilling participant?

This isn't a case of "he was on the guest list once."


So you don't think the president sets his own schedule? You are confusing me. Regardless, how is Al Sharpton going to a private party with the President the same as white people trotting Al Sharpton in front of cameras to make other White people angry?

You sure seem angry that Al Sharpton is meeting with the president...


Of course I'm not happy that a racist and con man meets with the president dozens and dozens of times. This indicates bias. Would you be happy if George Bush was friends with David Duke and met with him 61 times or would you suggest that this would indicate potential racist beliefs on the part of the President?

Once or twice, certainly is part of being a politician. 61 times is an agenda. 61 times is a relationship.

Of course, I'm getting the impression from you that you believe that a black man can do no wrong and it's all "whitey's" fault. That sum it up?



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: whyamIhere




Our Black President has set back Race in this Country by 25 years.


Where do you get the 25 year number?

I mean he really has done much for or against anyone in particular, seems pretty even across the board.

Seems every one just gets mad when he comments on anything that involved a black person, but don't see how that is setting anyone further back.

Forget commenting on a black folks the man can't even have a Hamburger in public without enraging someone.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
Ben Carson and Herman Cain ARE NOT WORTHY BLACK LEADERS

Let black people pick their OWN leaders

Not White people telling them who their leaders should be

Sharpton is lousy too but not as bad as Cain and Carson


LOL. And in what election or conference did black people elect Al Sharpton to be the representative of African Americans? He's a self proclaimed leader and shake-down artist who makes millions off of racial hatred and strife.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: NavyDoc


A little bit of information is a dangerous thing, and that's what you get from wikipedia.

I hope you don't let that be the end of you quest for knowledge, because, as you say, History is important to learn and understand.

Man always treats his toys well, doesn't he? No men ever mistreat animals or tractors... or even paid employees, right?

I know it might be out of vogue to do so, especially here on ATS for some reason, but here are a couple of well researched books on the subject.

The Tragedy of Lynching. Aut: Raper (Particularly good as it was written closer to the time of occurrence and the copy I have is annotated with further research.)
The Muckrakers and Lynching: A Case Study in Racism Aut: Beasley
Racial Violence in Kentucky, 1865-1940 (The first two chapters)


Look at your books. Case studies in racial violence 1865 to 1940. Like I said, lynching was a terrorist technique used during reconstruction and Jim Crow, which is what those eras cover. You are wrong about hanging being used by the founding fathers (colonial period) to control their slaves and the very book you mention above agrees with me given the very years mentioned in the title. Perhaps you don't understand exactly what period in our history the founding fathers refers to?

As disgusting as it sounds, slaves were considered property and as such, were not killed off hand. You wouldn't kill your valuable horse because it acted up either.

Yes, I do suggest you actually attempt to understand and learn history.


Judging a book by its cover? That is a cliche for ignorance, and you should be embarrassed.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: NavyDoc


A little bit of information is a dangerous thing, and that's what you get from wikipedia.

I hope you don't let that be the end of you quest for knowledge, because, as you say, History is important to learn and understand.

Man always treats his toys well, doesn't he? No men ever mistreat animals or tractors... or even paid employees, right?

I know it might be out of vogue to do so, especially here on ATS for some reason, but here are a couple of well researched books on the subject.

The Tragedy of Lynching. Aut: Raper (Particularly good as it was written closer to the time of occurrence and the copy I have is annotated with further research.)
The Muckrakers and Lynching: A Case Study in Racism Aut: Beasley
Racial Violence in Kentucky, 1865-1940 (The first two chapters)


Look at your books. Case studies in racial violence 1865 to 1940. Like I said, lynching was a terrorist technique used during reconstruction and Jim Crow, which is what those eras cover. You are wrong about hanging being used by the founding fathers (colonial period) to control their slaves and the very book you mention above agrees with me given the very years mentioned in the title. Perhaps you don't understand exactly what period in our history the founding fathers refers to?

As disgusting as it sounds, slaves were considered property and as such, were not killed off hand. You wouldn't kill your valuable horse because it acted up either.

Yes, I do suggest you actually attempt to understand and learn history.


Judging a book by its cover? That is a cliche for ignorance, and you should be embarrassed.


No. The book expressly states the period that it covers and as such, reflects not a whit on the founding fathers. No one expects a book that states "This book is about the time period 1865 to 1940" to expound upon the founding fathers which existed during the colonial period, some four score and seven years previously. When you present a book that states from the outset that it covers a completely different time period than your statement as evidence of your claim, then it can be disregarded as not even being relevant and I laugh at your failure of logic just as I would someone who presents me with "The life and times of Mussolini" as evidence that his pulled-out-of-his-a$$ statement about The Roman Republic was true.

So in addition to lack of understanding about history and historical time periods, I guess critical thinking is not your strong suit either.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Of course, I'm getting the impression from you that you believe that a black man can do no wrong and it's all "whitey's" fault. That sum it up?


Nope, not at all.

I am saying that white people make Al Sharpton relevant, not black people. White people put Al Sharpton on television. White people talk about Al Sharpton on the internet. White people think Al Sharpton meeting Obama 61 times is a big deal, even though white people are the ones making him relevant to the conversation.

Want Al Sharpton to go away? Stop making him important.

Also, knock it off with the racial epithets. Using them, even in a self deprecating way, tips your hand to the type of language you would be more comfortable using.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
No. The book expressly states the period that it covers and as such, reflects not a whit on the founding fathers. No one expects a book that states "This book is about the time period 1865 to 1940" to expound upon the founding fathers which existed during the colonial period, some four score and seven years previously. When you present a book that states from the outset that it covers a completely different time period than your statement as evidence of your claim, then it can be disregarded as not even being relevant and I laugh at your failure of logic just as I would someone who presents me with "The life and times of Mussolini" as evidence that his pulled-out-of-his-a$$ statement about The Roman Republic was true.

So in addition to lack of understanding about history and historical time periods, I guess critical thinking is not your strong suit either.


I'm not going to argue with you about the contents of a book you haven't read, dude.
edit on 20-12-2014 by AgentShillington because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Of course, I'm getting the impression from you that you believe that a black man can do no wrong and it's all "whitey's" fault. That sum it up?


Nope, not at all.

I am saying that white people make Al Sharpton relevant, not black people. White people put Al Sharpton on television. White people talk about Al Sharpton on the internet. White people think Al Sharpton meeting Obama 61 times is a big deal, even though white people are the ones making him relevant to the conversation.

Want Al Sharpton to go away? Stop making him important.

Also, knock it off with the racial epithets. Using them, even in a self deprecating way, tips your hand to the type of language you would be more comfortable using.


"White people" didn't usher Al into the White House 61 times by the hand.

You are blaming "white people" for Al being a lousy black leader choice, incredible.
Is blame whitey all you know?

edit on 20-12-2014 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-12-2014 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: whyamIhere




Our Black President has set back Race in this Country by 25 years.


Where do you get the 25 year number?

I mean he really has done much for or against anyone in particular, seems pretty even across the board.

Seems every one just gets mad when he comments on anything that involved a black person, but don't see how that is setting anyone further back.


Race relations with Law Enforcement is at an all time low.

All Races seemed to come together after 911.

Obama instead of rising above race. Instead of setting the example we are all the same.

He has divided us along racial lines every single chance he gets.

There was a real chance to move forward with Obama. He chose race Baiters instead.

As far as 25 years....That is purely my experience and opinion.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: NavyDoc
No. The book expressly states the period that it covers and as such, reflects not a whit on the founding fathers. No one expects a book that states "This book is about the time period 1865 to 1940" to expound upon the founding fathers which existed during the colonial period, some four score and seven years previously. When you present a book that states from the outset that it covers a completely different time period than your statement as evidence of your claim, then it can be disregarded as not even being relevant and I laugh at your failure of logic just as I would someone who presents me with "The life and times of Mussolini" as evidence that his pulled-out-of-his-a$$ statement about The Roman Republic was true.

So in addition to lack of understanding about history and historical time periods, I guess critical thinking is not your strong suit either.


I'm not going to argue with you about the contents of a book you haven't read, dude.


Okay. Let. Me. Type. Slowly. SO. You. Can. Understand.

You said this:



Maybe "back in the day" but not during the time of the Founding Fathers, in which it was used to take care of dissenters and unruly black slaves.


and offered this:


The Muckrakers and Lynching: A Case Study in Racism Aut: Beasley
Racial Violence in Kentucky, 1865-1940


as evidence. Can you not see the cognitive dissonance?
edit on 20-12-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Of course, I'm getting the impression from you that you believe that a black man can do no wrong and it's all "whitey's" fault. That sum it up?


Nope, not at all.

I am saying that white people make Al Sharpton relevant, not black people. White people put Al Sharpton on television. White people talk about Al Sharpton on the internet. White people think Al Sharpton meeting Obama 61 times is a big deal, even though white people are the ones making him relevant to the conversation.

Want Al Sharpton to go away? Stop making him important.

Also, knock it off with the racial epithets. Using them, even in a self deprecating way, tips your hand to the type of language you would be more comfortable using.


Ah racism. The usual accusation of someone without an intellectual argument. Are you saying that 61 meetings with the most powerful man in the world is not significant? That such ease of access to one of the most highly protected individuals on the planet is indicative of nothing?



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: whyamIhere
a reply to: AgentShillington

I said nothing racist...

Everything I said was the truth.

Then you called our Founders racist and said they believe in vampires.


Hence, I think you're drunk. Or, there is an English Teacher somewhere that needs a new job.

ADD: I think it would be best if you just didn't reply to me...Merry Christmas.


Everything you said was opinion based on a biased worldview that happens to include your elevated opinion that "Black Folks" aren't doing what you think they aught to do.

Yeah, our Founding Fathers, whom you said would get a rope (a lynching reference), were racists. This isn't anything new. They believed in vampires. Yup, I just add that when people start talking about the Founding Fathers because it delights me to know that people are looking back on and up to people that lives centuries ago to help them with their current problems and it makes me chuckle because they believed in vampires.

So, if that makes me drunk... whatever. I'd rather be drunk than a bigot, I guess.


No, he pointed out Al is someone who owes the IRS lots of money and receives special treatment compared to others who owe the IRS far far less money.

Cliven Bundy owes quite a few pennies also..but Ooh!! I forgot he is not a cheat armed to the teeth he is a tax rebel


Are you really comparing Cliven Bundy with Al Sharpton ?

That is all you got.....That's weak and not credible in the least.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

What are YOU having a hard time understanding?

I AM NOT GOING TO ARGUE WITH YOU ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF A BOOK THAT YOU HAVEN'T READ.

Drop it or read the book.

(That's two books, btw, just so you know.)
edit on 20-12-2014 by AgentShillington because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

I ignore that guy...

He is not in search of common ground or having any type of constructive conversation.

I'll save you some time:

White = Bad

Black = Good

Certainly not worth our time.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Who said Sharpton was elected for anything?

I don’t like Sharpton, though not for the same reasons people here don’t like him.




top topics



 
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join