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.

 

"How about the Democratic Party pay for all the misery brought to my race"

page: 6
61
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2019 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Ahh so the minority should be allowed to put up "white people suck" because of freedom of speech? Or is that not okay because it effects white people?




posted on Jun, 19 2019 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: SilentSaturn
a reply to: Lumenari

It's freedom of speech if a majority want the statues of up or teared down. That's my point. People were waking up to the statues that were built out of racism or by people who favored slavery.

But keep defending statues that promote slavery. Real great cause...


Speech does not equal tearing a statue down.

But keep defending SJW Progressive ideologies because...



posted on Jun, 19 2019 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

LOL.

SO removing offensive statues equates to burning history books and rewriting history...

The nonsense of the right...



posted on Jun, 19 2019 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: SilentSaturn
a reply to: UKTruth

Ahh so the minority should be allowed to put up "white people suck" because of freedom of speech? Or is that not okay because it effects white people?


To further boggle your little mind, white people should be able to put up "white people suck" because of freedom of speech.

You again have no damn idea what freedom of speech actually means.

I'm done with you... it's like talking to my cat.



posted on Jun, 19 2019 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

Keep defending racism. Have fun with that.



posted on Jun, 19 2019 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: SilentSaturn

Collective bargaining is not equivalent to individual freedom. Your freedoms end where another begins, however offense is too subjective to even begin to establish rules. People can be offended if you say Sir or Ma'am to them in pleasant manner. Trying to show respect from one is a slight to another.



posted on Jun, 19 2019 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

And if it offends the majority of people in the city, "white people suck" should still be erected? Ahh i guess money and power are the only thing that matter?

Done talking to me? Maybe i am just hitting a nerve that you hold political values of racists.


+1 more 
posted on Jun, 19 2019 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: SilentSaturn
a reply to: Lumenari

And if it offends the majority of people in the city, "white people suck" should still be erected? Ahh i guess money and power are the only thing that matter?

Done talking to me? Maybe i am just hitting a nerve that you hold political values of racists.


No... it's like talking to my cat.

I can tell you the words and what freedom of speech actually means.

You will hear noises.

Then we walk away without you knowing anything about what I was talking about.

And in your case, not knowing anything about what you were talking about either.

You are a waste of my time so I'm going to stop now because there is no reason to go any further.



+3 more 
posted on Jun, 19 2019 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: SilentSaturn
a reply to: Sublimecraft

And yet republicans still defend Jim Crow statues......


You should stay silent, you sound silly.



posted on Jun, 19 2019 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

Have fun defending racist statues.



posted on Jun, 19 2019 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Have fun with another "democrats suck" post. ATS sure is full of those.



posted on Jun, 19 2019 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: SilentSaturn
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Until it offends enough people that they don't want it in their public sphere. Im not advocating removing it from history, just from people having to look at generals who liked slavery..


How much is "enough" people? Who gets to decide what is worthy enough to survive the "offended?"

If I get enough people to hate my neighbor because her face offends me, can I get her removed? I don't mean remove her completely from history, just like maybe down the block so I don't have to see her face anymore.

Does my emotional instability and lack of mental fortitude precede her right to offend me?

Or do I just need to grow thicker skin?



posted on Jun, 19 2019 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: underwerks

Going by the logic in the OP, the Founding Fathers were Democrats. Lol! The irony is too much.



If we are being truly accurate, historically, the Founding Fathers of the US were all probably Independents, but in those early days, there were no political parties.

Soon after independence, in 1797, two major parties emerged, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.

In 1798, the Anti-Federalists renamed them selves to the Republican party but the Federalists called them the Jeffersonian Republicans or referred to them as Democratic-Republicans and, as Jefferson himself favored the name, it became the default.

In 1800, the Democratic-Republican party was registered as such under the Presidency of Jefferson.

In 1815, the Federalists soon ran out of steam due to dubious, and probably traitorous, extremism and secrecy.

From 1817 to 1823 there was only one party, the Democratic-Republicans.

In 1824, the National Republican party split off from the Demoratic-Republicans.

About 1825, the Democratic-Republican party developed divisions into northern-dominated 'Republicans' and southern-dominated 'Democrats'.

In 1829, the Democratic-Republican party dropped the 'Republican' part of their name and became, officially, the Democratic party.

In 1832, the National Republican party renamed itself to the Whig party, in honor of the English party of the same name (with similar ideals).

In 1853, the Whig party came into power again with the election of Zachary Taylor and Millard Fillmore. The policies of Fillmore led to division in the Whig party. The anti-slavery faction of the Whigs, including members of the "Barnburners" anti-slavery faction and the "Free-Soilers" successfully prevented the re-nomination of Fillmore and destroyed the party.

In 1854, the National Union party was formed to further the beliefs of national interest above sectional interests and states' rights. It was organized in opposition to the extension of slavery.

In 1860, Abraham Lincoln (Northern faction) was elected President as the first leader of the National Union party. Upon Abraham Lincoln's death in 1865, Andrew Johnson (Southen faction) became the only other National Union President. The National Union Party then changed its name to the Republican Party of today.

This then is the actual history of the current two parties. Neither of them were the same as their same named predecessors, their divisions and policies were entirely of their time and most of those issues are no longer relevant.

If we could ascribe slavery as a Democratic party invention, we could also do the same with the invention of the wheel or with fire. Prior to the abolition of slavery, there was little opposition to it from government.

The Republican party, however, did seek to abolish slavery in its early iterations.



posted on Jun, 19 2019 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: SilentSaturn
a reply to: Lumenari

Have fun defending racist statues.


Wow! Someone openly advocating for book burning!

Big surprise



posted on Jun, 19 2019 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I Blame the Romans for Enslaving my Italian Ancestors , I Want the Vatican to Pay ME Reparations too ! Will I get them ? No , Statue of Limitations you Know .........

edit on 19-6-2019 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2019 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: SilentSaturn
a reply to: Lumenari

Have fun defending racist statues.


Wow! Someone openly advocating for book burning!

Big surprise


Careful, you might get removed for offending him.



posted on Jun, 19 2019 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Some people do not get it.

The 1st Amendment protects offensive speech, and is the bane of book burners, authoritarians and cowards.



posted on Jun, 19 2019 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: SilentSaturn
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Until it offends enough people that they don't want it in their public sphere. Im not advocating removing it from history, just from people having to look at generals who liked slavery..


Instead of tearing down the statues, why didn't somebody simply sponsor a mass graffiti campaign ?

That way future generations would still see it 😎



posted on Jun, 19 2019 @ 07:17 PM
link   
I haven't read all this thread, getting a bit sick of all the faux indignation and hurt.

I wish someone would pay me for all the suffering and abuse the demographic I come from has endured; white, working class males.

And where's the special interest groups looking after my well being and cares and concerns?

I'm hurt and I want an apology and some money!



posted on Jun, 19 2019 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Statues are books??




top topics



 
61
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join