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.

 

Donald Trump supporters rip up sign held by peaceful protesters at rally

page: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408
What would consider the public hate sessions aimed at the white race? Unless you consider it revenge or justice, it fits right along with the others you mentioned.


"what would consider" ???

Not following your context or grammar there. Shall I ridicule you for poor grammar as you've ridiculed the guy with a gun in the pictures for being overweight?

To answer what I think you've asked - in the examples I gave irish potato farmers, russian dissidents and the yugoslav cleansing operatons were against white people. They were atrocites.




posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

You can train and train and train all you want. You are either a real fighter or not. Like a baseball player. There are those who can practice and practice and look good, hit for average and do the job and then there are athletes like Bo Jackson.

First thing I learned about fighting is that if someone threatens you, 9 out of 10, you have already won the fight. Number 2 ,most will stop at the sight of blood. Last but not least, fights are NOT like the movies. I punched a guy one time so many times my arms were tired but he kept getting up...and getting up....and getting up. He was an old redneck...don't judge a book by its cover.

I have also hit Big corn fed boys over 350 that dropped like rocks. Only fight i ever 'lost' was to a shorter asian kid. Little guy.Still don't know how it happened but it was quick and found myself flat on my back. Later found out that he was ex-military. He was all of 120 wet... Kid was a beast and became good friends after that. Like I said, do not judge a book by its cover.

They are also not calling to ban all Muslims. It is a temp ban to address the issue of immigration. What is comical to a point is that they are doing that now but rounding up HIspanics, not Muslims. That's ok though right?

It is all a show and a game but in the end it is us that have to all live together in this # storm called America. Stand together or stand apart we are all against the common enemy which is big government.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: neformore

By all means. But not for talking about the overweight fella. I said something about another poster for his grammar a week or so ago, so I deserve it.

I'm referring to the current hate sessions aimed at the entire white race that we have going on in America though. Would you put them in the category of possible atrocities?



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Like I've said many times on previous threads including my own about Trump. His largest supporter demographic is mid aged men who were WWF wrestling fans in the 80s, and who STILL think it's real.




edit on 7-1-2016 by BatheInTheFountain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408

These things you consider hate sessions... whatever they may be - and I notice you didn't give examples - are they sponsored by someone running for the President of the USA, likely to be the Republican nominee, influencing millions with a chance of becoming President and therefore in charge of the worlds largest military and nuclear arsenal who appears to want to be able to promote state-sponsored bigotry if they come to power?

Or are they pockets of individual or regional dissidence, from perceived social injustices and/or crime without organised structure?

I condemn all hate. Nothing is solved by it at all. I condemn "tit for tat" hate even more so because that implies a level of morose stupidity.

Blaming a majority for the actions of a few is stupid.

For example - Do you own a gun? If so, are you a spree killer? Shouldn't you be barred from being in pubic just in case you are? - thats exactly the same argument Trump is using, just pointed at a slightly different group.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

Take it with a grain of salt my friend. One of the first lessons you're taught in martial arts is not to brag about your skills. I have a story similar to yours. Only fight I ever lost was a 4 on 1 when I was jumped by some dudes on a back road.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: LSU0408

These things you consider hate sessions... whatever they may be - and I notice you didn't give examples - are they sponsored by someone running for the President of the USA, likely to be the Republican nominee, influencing millions with a chance of becoming President and therefore in charge of the worlds largest military and nuclear arsenal who appears to want to be able to promote state-sponsored bigotry if they come to power?

Or are they pockets of individual or regional dissidence, from perceived social injustices and/or crime without organised structure?

I condemn all hate. Nothing is solved by it at all. I condemn "tit for tat" hate even more so because that implies a level of morose stupidity.

Blaming a majority for the actions of a few is stupid.

For example - Do you own a gun? If so, are you a spree killer? Shouldn't you be barred from being in pubic just in case you are? - thats exactly the same argument Trump is using, just pointed at a slightly different group.



Possibly. They sure aren't frowned upon. Unless you're not from the US, you know exactly what I'm talking about. Universities offering students extra credit just for showing up to lectures and seminars about white privilege, etc.

www.whiteprivilegeconference.com...

You can start there. But universities such as Notre Dame and Minnesota have had these types of seminars.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408

Really? You're comparing social inequality programmes to demonising 1.5 billion people, impinging on their freedom to follow a religion by forcing them to open up places of worship to mnadatory inspection, possibly requiring them to carry some form of ID and have their movements restricted?

Really?



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: neformore

Negative. I'm comparing them to what you said here, and asking whether or not the same ideology applies since it's happening to the white race.


once you start down the slippery slope of singling out a group, blaming them for all the problems in the world, tagging them, excluding them and generally giving carte blanche tacit approval for societal hate, atrocites happen.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: neformore

It was not 20 Amish guys on those planes....Immigration, illegal immigration in this country has to stop.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408

Ok.

No. It doesn't. Because the example you cited has come about because of the bigoted actions of "the white race" in the past.

You are suggesting that correcting/making reparations for past enforced bigotry using social equality programmes is "hate".



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

Which planes? 9/11? No.... that was 20 mainly Saudi people - a country that the US took no action against whatsoever and actually allied with to base planes there in order to attack people who had nothing to do with 9/11 on the pretext of a lie.

So I don't get your point - you are angry with immigrants because people from a US ally were the hijackers on 9/11?
edit on 7/1/16 by neformore because: for clarity!




posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408

The "white privilege is the rich 1%'s children" for the most part in University. Most there on full scholarships only after having chopped the heads off of average to poor white children in schools that would have gotten there due to their academic excellence and hard work. The system fails the majority of white children, but then they also now bear the weight of the privileged children's actions and snobbery that is used as an excuse and example.

The examples seen in the tourists across the great oceans are again not a good example of who the middle/poor white class children. They rarely even get to leave their home states let alone travel to exotic and faraway places.
edit on pm131pmThu, 07 Jan 2016 16:36:12 -0600 by antar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: neformore

"So I don't your point"????

Just kidding



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

NO, we are not all together in solidarity against the tyranny of an out of control government and therein lies the foundation for our troubles now and continuing into what is left of American history. This whole divided we fall is happening and people just cant see it for what it is, divide and conquer. This group against that, and opening borders to allow those who have no desire to melt into our pot but rather stir it, while flying the flags proudly of the places they gave all to leave and spitting on, stamping on the Red, White and blue as well as its Constitution and its founding peoples. The back bone of America was not made behind a bankers desk, it was through blood, sweat and tears of the working class.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: eisegesis

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: eisegesis

He already did that.
Donald Trump: Ban all Muslim travel to U.S.

I thought the proposed action was deemed constitutional? A little extreme, but the President reserves the right if they believe National Security is being compromised. Why is it unconstitutional?

truthinmedia.com...


Ok there is a difference there. It is saying that Trump has the authority to do this. Which he would. Presidents have in the past instituted bans on peoples. The difference here is that banning all Muslims is a violation of the first amendment as well. So while he would have the authority to do this, it is still a highly unconstitutional action. All it would take is a challenge in the courts to overturn that policy.

Sorry, I meant to address this earlier. Work and all...

The constitution only applies to those living in and returning to the US that already call it home (returning citizens). Therefore, it would remain constitutional and does not conflict with the First Amendment. Unless I'm mistaken, his proposal only effects non-citizens trying to enter the US.


edit on 7-1-2016 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

What makes this man different than any other "activist"?

If he was in fatigues and carrying an AR, would that change your perception?

All I did was provide the info you requested. Doesn't matter who the man was, he was physically attacked and called a n****r by Trump supporters.
edit on 7-1-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: eisegesis

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: eisegesis

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: eisegesis

He already did that.
Donald Trump: Ban all Muslim travel to U.S.

I thought the proposed action was deemed constitutional? A little extreme, but the President reserves the right if they believe National Security is being compromised. Why is it unconstitutional?

truthinmedia.com...


Ok there is a difference there. It is saying that Trump has the authority to do this. Which he would. Presidents have in the past instituted bans on peoples. The difference here is that banning all Muslims is a violation of the first amendment as well. So while he would have the authority to do this, it is still a highly unconstitutional action. All it would take is a challenge in the courts to overturn that policy.

Sorry, I meant to address this earlier. Work and all...

The constitution only applies to those living in and returning to the US that already call it home (returning citizens). Therefore, it would remain constitutional and does not conflict with the First Amendment. Unless I'm mistaken, his proposal only effects non-citizens trying to enter the US.



You are mistaken. It applies to ALL Muslims reentering the country. But even then, this country was founded on the principle of freedom of religion. If you find it necessary to try to legally argue that JUST because people aren't citizens, they aren't entitled to this freedom then you are walking down a VERY slippery slope. Though I'm pretty damn sure its just flat out unconstitutional anyways.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Could anyone imagine if a Hilary supporter ripped up a trump sign? Topic would have 600 stars. Am I right?



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: theySeeme

You are, because they'd be decrying that persons "freedom of speech" and "right to peaceful process", and there would be calls to have Clinton arrested for allowing constitutional violations at her rally's and meetings - someone would equate it to Benghazi, and then they'd start talking about email security as well before descending into the usual, mind-numbing tirade about liberals and democrats that is designed to obfuscate actual politics.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join