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.

 

Kentucky Sheriff On Suspect Shot By Deputy: 'We Are Glad That He Is White'

page: 2
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Helious
Well, unlike say.... A city police chief, a sheriff is an elected official. If they choose to make comments like this which in my opinion are horrendous, the community in which they serve can choose to simply not re-elect them.


I heard a guy named Tommy Sotomayor on youtube say that the best thing the white community can do is kill all the black thugs they can find and keep them in a state of fear just like the 1920s. He is a black man saying this. I find that very horrendous.

But what would happen if some white people really listened to this man and did what he suggested? But he's black and he gets by with saying that, because no white person could EVER say such as that.

There are a lot of people who listen to Tommy Sotomayor, should the media be alerted to this man's ranting? He's black, does that mean he can get by with it because he is from the powerless group of people that can't be racist, because racism is only something that white people are capable of?

He said it, the media never mentioned that one. See the double standard?

Do you think it is now more horrendous for this white sheriff to say that? Which dialogue do you prefer for our country?




posted on May, 15 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

I'm not white, but if anyone comes here and tells me that "white privilege" exists, or that you're better off being white, they're going to get a smacking. I also don't want to hear whites aren't targeted, because obviously, they are. You can't shoot a black criminal without getting the usual chorus claiming racism, but shoot a white guy and "we're glad he was white".

Wake up people, we're all humans. I'm not so sure we want to draw lines in the sand against one another because in the end, we ALL lose.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: 2Spooky4Me
a reply to: infolurker

I'm not white, but if anyone comes here and tells me that "white privilege" exists, or that you're better off being white, they're going to get a smacking. I also don't want to hear whites aren't targeted, because obviously, they are. You can't shoot a black criminal without getting the usual chorus claiming racism, but shoot a white guy and "we're glad he was white".

Wake up people, we're all humans. I'm not so sure we want to draw lines in the sand against one another because in the end, we ALL lose.


Awesome post!

I'd give you 100 stars if I could.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: 2Spooky4Me
a reply to: infolurker

I'm not white, but if anyone comes here and tells me that "white privilege" exists, or that you're better off being white, they're going to get a smacking. I also don't want to hear whites aren't targeted, because obviously, they are. You can't shoot a black criminal without getting the usual chorus claiming racism, but shoot a white guy and "we're glad he was white".

Wake up people, we're all humans. I'm not so sure we want to draw lines in the sand against one another because in the end, we ALL lose.


Thank you. I feel the same way. We've got to look out for one another.



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: grandmakdw



not for killing a white guy, pfft, that is no big deal at all, libs don't care at all about that;
but for the fact he even mentioned he was relieved the guy was white.


What an absolutely horrible thing to say. My my. Are you so consumed with the righteousness of yo political affiliation you have taken leave of your senses. We are all just people. Get a grip.

(why is everything bolded? Do you really think your opinions are that significant?) Or is it just another way of shouting?





Sad to say it is reality in today's world.

I bold the parts that I think are the main point I want to get across, that's all. Frequently people read the first sentence or two and stop. So I highlight what I consider the main points of what I am saying which is often in the middle or near the end.

Actually I do believe that politically correct speech is far far more important
to the mainstream media and to the liberal/progressive/Democratic establishment
than is the life of some white guy. And that the greater evil is speaking incorrectly,
not murder.


Why else are the horrific incidences of black mobs beating up white people for fun or revenge
overlooked and often not prosecuted? Because the liberals think because of white privilege
that whites actually deserve what they get.

The liberals have actually mandated this awful ideology to be taught in the US military and
many universities are indoctrinating the young adults that because of white privilege
white people deserve to be killed, beaten or whatever and no one should really care.

That is how I see the Democratic Party of today and definitely the current administration of the US. Just look at Michelle's recent speech, not about how they succeeded in the US and her husband out of hard work and education became president. No, it was about how terrible, awful and evil white people are (she did not say white people, but it was strongly, very strongly implied.)





edit on 12Sat, 16 May 2015 12:53:13 -0500pm51605pmk166 by grandmakdw because: addition format



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

She also said don't use it as an excuse to fail but ad fuel to succeed.

But if course that doesn't matter.

Think you need to look at who makes up the majority of our prison system before you go and say they don't get prosecuted...



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: grandmakdw

She also said don't use it as an excuse to fail but ad fuel to succeed.

But if course that doesn't matter.

Think you need to look at who makes up the majority of our prison system before you go and say they don't get prosecuted...


I'm talking about the mobs who form for the express purpose of attacking a white person, yelling racist things like cracker, etc. They don't normally get found and prosecuted. Normally, it is ignored by both the media and the justice system, because it is not important to them at all, it is something to be brushed under the rug and ignored.

whitegirlbleedalot.com...

This is the media stand and the liberal stand:


Black people are thirteen percent of the American population -- therefore members of the minority race beating up two members of the majority race is quite different in a societal sense than a member of the majority race shooting the minority race in apparent cold blood. White-on-black crime comes from a position of power. The opposite -- the minority oppressing the majority -- is impossible.

www.huffingtonpost.com...
In other words, it is perfectly ok for black people to yell things like "I kill white people, kill the crackers, etc.
and the media and liberals excuse it as acceptable behavior.
conservative-headlines.com...
www.washingtontimes.com...



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

Please just stop. "the liberals this... the liberals that", as if it's carved in stone. Don't speak for me. DO NOT speak for me.

Thank you. Please stop.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: grandmakdw

Please just stop. "the liberals this... the liberals that", as if it's carved in stone. Don't speak for me. DO NOT speak for me.

Thank you. Please stop.


I am not speaking for YOU, you are taking this way to personally.

I am quoting and referencing liberal leaders in the US. As you can see in the quote in my post above from a very liberal newspaper.

When referring to liberals, I am referring to the spokespeople and the leadership who say these things.

Individuals may differ from the leadership line of thinking.

Or better yet, if you are upset at what the leadership says and people quoting the liberal leaders in the country, led and fed by people like Huffington Post which I quoted then you may want to reconsider if you are truly a neo-liberal or a classic liberal.

The difference:
Classic liberals believe in total equality (as in ALL people are created equal and deserve equal treatment and respect), they defend freedom of speech no matter how heinous the speech, the defend freedom of political speech regardless of if it offends others or not. This is the classical liberal, their stand is no longer found in the Democratic Party, their stand is now found in the Libertarian Party.

The neo-liberals, or new liberals, Obama type liberals who along with compliant media are the liberals I am referencing. They, believe in retributive justice to obtain equality (ie punish the people in power [those of certain ethnic, racial or socioeconomic groups] and understand and forgive and justify any and all unacceptable behavior on the part of the people not in power); they believe in strict control on speech (ie politically correct speech), they believe in strict control of political speech (as in Obama wanting to "control" FOX and saying so publicly). That is neo-liberalism, gaining equality through thought control by using speech and political control. That is the type of liberal found in the leadership of the Democratic Party.

You sound more like a libertarian, or classic liberal, think about it, are you following the wrong people for your true beliefs?

If you are going to have a thin skin when people of ATS reference liberals then you should look elsewhere to chat because on ATS there is a great deal of referencing groups by what their leadership says and does, which does not refer to any one in particular.

But I have a strong feeling you are a Libertarian at heart, look at their platform for yourself.

I don't know you and in no way could be referencing you personally, so please don't take it that way. I am referring to neo-liberals who worship at the feet of climate change, politically correct speech and at the feet of the mainstream Democratic Party.



edit on 11Sun, 17 May 2015 11:39:57 -0500am51705amk170 by grandmakdw because: addition



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

The only people who say it is ok that it all gets swept under the rug is those right wing website.

Show me an actual case of a crime getting ignored by the justice system. Not getting caught is not the same as ignored, they can't catch everyone.

Your last soure is kind of an example but the greatest part about it all is all the people wanting the coverage are the exact same people that say that we shouldn't be giving these criminal thugs the coverage.

How does that work out?

It isn't the fault of black people that white people don't protest when cops kill people.
You will notice that is what the media covers, the actual protest that happen after the cases.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw


This is the classical liberal, their stand is no longer found in the Democratic Party, their stand is now found in the Libertarian Party.


Horse pucks, well if you are talking American libertarians anyway. They don't believe in safety nets, or they say it is a drain on our nation. Cause that is big gov ans we all know their stance on that.
No liberal would ever say that.

Not sure you know what a true Liberal is.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: grandmakdw


This is the classical liberal, their stand is no longer found in the Democratic Party, their stand is now found in the Libertarian Party.


Horse pucks, well if you are talking American libertarians anyway. They don't believe in safety nets, or they say it is a drain on our nation. Cause that is big gov ans we all know their stance on that.
No liberal would ever say that.

Not sure you know what a true Liberal is.


I was around and voting when there were true liberals.
They used to believe in free speech, liberals and Democrats no longer believe in free speech, they believe in highly controlled speech.
Even in private, look at the guy who ran a football team and never once acted in a racist manner, but a conversation his jilted mistress recorded that was in private, led to him losing his team, not for his actions but for his speech.
Today's neo-liberals stand firmly against freedom of speech they don't agree with, only for freedom of speech they agree with and do their best to destroy those with speech or ideas that differ from theirs.

I was around when true liberals believed in real equality for all people.
No longer, today's liberals believe in lashing out at anyone they consider "privileged" in any form and trying to enact retributive justice to bring about what they consider equality.
The neo-liberal leadership wants to punish through white privilege and through income inequality those who they consider unequal and not worthy of the same respect and protection under the law as everyone else.
Everyone being equally poor, equally devoid of morals, equally prone to harm others, those are the values I see espoused through the actions of the neo-liberal,
not the rhetoric, but the actions which speak much louder than rhetoric, that is how I see the neo-liberal.

I was around when true liberals worked hard for peace between the races
and doing away with seeing someone as a race or certain ethnicity but just as a person.
Now the neo-liberal leadership is doing all they can to divide the racial and ethnic groups and pit them against each other for political gain.
Look at Sharpton, Jackson, and even Obama, they are all doing all they can do stir up strife and division between the races, and Sharpton and Jackson are doing it for monetary gain; Obama because I think he actually believes white people need to be put in their place. Don't tell me he is 1/2 white, he has NEVER identified himself in any way or at any time as white, he has always identified himself with and as a black person. He even disparaged his white grandmother for being white.

By the way how has the safety net worked?
Since it began there has been around a 14% poverty rate, today we have around a 14% poverty rate. So how have all the safety net programs worked that have been enacted.
Today we have around 800thousand people who have given up looking for work and so the liberal administration ignores the discouraged worker and doesn't count them as unemployed, cooking the books to look like the unemployment rate has improved. More women are out of the workforce now due to not being able to get jobs than before Obama took office, as a matter of fact female participation in the workforce has declined fairly dramatically since 2008.
Vastly more people are on food stamps than ever before. So how has the safety net put in place by liberals worked? It hasn't.

Conservatives by the way are not opposed to the safety net, not at all.

However, the woman who cried that I couldn't disparage her as a liberal, doesn't appear to be liberal at all. She really appears to be more libertarian in her views than liberal. I was just pointing that out to her.

Why are you angry that I would point out to someone where I think their real political views match up with a party.
Clearly hers don't match up with the Democratic Party.

No one's views are going to match up 100% with any party.

However, one has to look at which party, which candidate,
holds more than 50% of the same views you do,
then increase the percentage
until you agree more with one party or candidate than another
regardless of what one calls oneself.

That is what an intelligent, thinking person does
rather than fall lockstep into what your parents did or your friends do ,
or what is cool at the moment, or what the media thinks, if you don't believe in it.






edit on 1Sun, 17 May 2015 13:52:12 -0500pm51705pmk170 by grandmakdw because: format



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

Obama Jessie and al are not liberals, they are establishment democrats, at least get your facts rigjt in your ramblings. Or call them neo liberals if that is what you want.

And yes conservatives have time and time again votesd to cut safety nets.

And Donald Sterling was absolutely racist, if you can't see that you are in denial, but since you brought that up. Do you agree with the lady that got fired for what she said about the cops dying?

I do, as did I with sterling, cause new flash, it is the private sector and things work different when you represent more then just you.


Who is a true Liberal in your eyes?


edit on thSun, 17 May 2015 14:22:49 -0500America/Chicago520154980 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

Oh God. Please don't presume to educate me. ( Look -- I know how to use the bold function too.) So does everybody else. ALL CAPS ALSO. Do you not realize every time you are spouting off "liberals this" and that, you are speaking for entire group of people? Me included. Please stop.

What I am trying to get you to understand is that you cannot pigeonhole people with such sweeping generalizations.





edit on 5/17/2015 by angeldoll because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: grandmakdw

Obama Jessie and al are not liberals, they are establishment democrats, at least get your facts rigjt in your ramblings. Or call them neo liberals if that is what you want.

And yes conservatives have time and time again votesd to cut safety nets.

And Donald Sterling was absolutely racist, if you can't see that you are in denial, but since you brought that up. Do you agree with the lady that got fired for what she said about the cops dying?

I do, as did I with sterling, cause new flash, it is the private sector and things work different when you represent more then just you.


Who is a true Liberal in your eyes?



Right now, I think the Libertarians are the closest to true liberalism, or classical liberalism than any other "group".

They believe in live and let live, which sums up quite nicely the classical liberal stance.

On other things they may differ, but they are the closest to the liberalism of JFK and MLK.

I agree Sharpton, Jackson, and Obama are neo-liberals, they self identify as liberal progressives rather than party line Democrats. They unfortunately are the main spokepeople and leaders of the current liberal ideology and as such form current liberal philosophy (ie neo-liberalism)

I am basically a conservative Libertarian, and will vote as such if there is a viable candidate, however, if not I'll go conservative (Republican) in my vote.

There are liberal leaning libertarians, and I hope they have the courage to vote as such if there is a viable candidate, if not I assume most will go with the liberal candidate (Democrat)

I sincerely hope the Libertarian party can put forth a viable candidate because this year the field is wide open and they would have the best chance. The Republicans have too wide a field right now, and the Democrats are settled on an old, white, rich lady who has a horn dog husband and who slept her way to the nomination or you might say hung on her husbands coattails to get the nomination. Neither party is is good shape right now. Hillary can't win once all her baggage is re-made public and the Republicans will chew each other up before the final nomination. So if the Libertarians find someone dynamic, middle age, with an ethic background who is preferably a female, well they will win hands down.
Why? Because that is the way people in the US vote now, they vote based on ethnicity and gender and looks and charisma, what a stupid bunch of sheeple, but that's the reality of the US electorate right now.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: grandmakdw

Oh God. Please don't presume to educate me. ( Look -- I know how to use the bold function too.) So does everybody else. ALL CAPS ALSO. Do you not realize every time you are spouting off "liberals this" and that, you are speaking for entire group of people? Me included. Please stop.

What I am trying to get you to understand is that you cannot pigeonhole people with such sweeping generalizations.







This is how I feel when I read posts where people pigeonhole all black people, as if we all act the same and walk in lockstep.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

My moms people came from the south, the hills of Tennessee and Kentucky, boy did those people get a raw deal, and they still do
edit on 033131p://bSunday2015 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll




We've got to look out for one another.


That's the only hope we have.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: grandmakdw

Oh God. Please don't presume to educate me. ( Look -- I know how to use the bold function too.) So does everybody else. ALL CAPS ALSO. Do you not realize every time you are spouting off "liberals this" and that, you are speaking for entire group of people? Me included. Please stop.

What I am trying to get you to understand is that you cannot pigeonhole people with such sweeping generalizations.


Grow some thicker skin, it happens on ATS all the time.

I will absolutely not stop complaining about neo-liberal philosophy which
1. seeks to have strict speech control and a strong desire to eliminate freedom of speech if it is offensive to them or might be offensive to a gutter rat trolling the sewers
2. seeks to punish people for incorrect thought by going door to door to businesses until they find one they can goad into making a stupid statement and then run them out of business for it
3. suggests that one should jail or kill those who disagree with climate change
4. seeks to enact retributive justice to create equality, when the fix is unequal and unfair and unjust treatment for
ancestors of those they are trying to punish who had no role in the original injustice
5. seeks to gain equality through dividing the races by goading people into rioting (ie Sharpton and his ilk) and accentuating the differences rather than the commonalities between people
6. seeks to control the media as well as speech in order to create thought control
7. has leaders who are 1%ers claiming to speak for the little guy and who say they want to punish the 1%ers but exempt themselves (ie Hillary who make 1/2 a mil last year alone in speaking fees who claimed she and Bill were "broke" a short time ago when they were getting speaking fees larger than a yearly CEO salary)
8. has leaders who live like kings and say they wish they were like leaders in China so they could just tell the people what is good for them and make them do it (Obama, yes he said that)

Sorry you won't get me to stop using the term neo-liberal. Because these are some of the actions that I see when I look at people who say they are liberal/progressive and are in positions of leadership of liberals/progressives. Actions speak louder than words.

Really, you aren't going to get anyone to stop using the term liberal when referring to people who hold the neo-liberal position.
Why does it upset you? Do you disagree with what liberalism has become but still consider yourself a liberal? Maybe you really aren't. That happens when people grow up, they change and as people experience life they begin to see that "pie in the sky" utopia's don't exist and when people try to form them all that happens is "Lord of the Flies" or "The Giver" or "1984".






edit on 6Sun, 17 May 2015 18:58:19 -0500pm51705pmk170 by grandmakdw because: format



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

So is there a difference between neo liberals and liberals?

You keep going back and forth.

And your list is freaking laughable.
I doubt you could prove have of those.
Before you tell me that I need to prove them, read this.
yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
Maybe you will update your sig one day.



new topics




 
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join