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.

 

33rd Degree Scottish Rite Mason Michael Richards Loses It...

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
I guess the rumors that the ACLU only works to protect the interests of Richard's people is proving true isn't it?


Emphasis mine.

Who would that be? Washed up typecast actors? Freemasons? People with a first name for a last name?





posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mirthful Me

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
I guess the rumors that the ACLU only works to protect the interests of Richard's people is proving true isn't it?


Emphasis mine.

Who would that be? Washed up typecast actors? Freemasons? People with a first name for a last name?



Then you are being coy with me because you know who founded the ACLU, who runs it and who primarily funds it.

I still don't understand why they were fast to criticize Mel Gibson but I've yet to hear any comments about Abbie Richards.

Is it possible that the former is a threat to their real ambitions but the latter person is someone that they prefer not to attack?

That is my question for you.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
Who would that be? Washed up typecast actors? Freemasons? People with a first name for a last name?


No Mirthful, jews. It's jews he's speaking of....

EDIT- Why don't you just say jews instead of beating around the bush all the time?

[edit on 22-11-2006 by 27jd]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
Who would that be? Washed up typecast actors? Freemasons? People with a first name for a last name?


No Mirthful, jews. It's jews he's speaking of....

EDIT- Why don't you just say jews instead of beating around the bush all the time?

[edit on 22-11-2006 by 27jd]


Why? Because I am afraid that is a crime and I will be punished for it.

Why don't you tell me if you are one?
Why don't you tell me the real reason you support Richards?
Why don't you tell me why the 'skull 3535' avatar... are you secret society?
Why don't you answer the ACLU question since I think it is relevant? and nobody else is.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Why? Because I am afraid that is a crime and I will be punished for it.


No, I make fun of jews all the time, haven't been brought up on charges yet...



Why don't you tell me if you are one?


Nope. I'm agnostic to the core.



Why don't you tell me the real reason you support Richards?


Support Richards? I don't "support" him, I understand he is human, and so are masons, everybody makes mistakes. He may have an anger problem, in which he will say the meanest things he can and not mean it. And I've stated several times I feel the same about Mel Gibson. Why don't you understand that?



Why don't you tell me why the 'skull 3535' avatar... are you secret society?


You never know.


Actually, it's an Evil Dead skull, have you ever seen the movie?



Why don't you answer the ACLU question since I think it is relevant? and nobody else is.


I don't think Kramer's worth the ACLU's time. I think Gibson was a bigger public figure, but I dunno, maybe it is cuz he's a jew. I just don't know why you beat around the bush, but I guess the jews scare you....be careful, they may shift shapes and try to kill you, better throw money at any cockroaches you see.







posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   
First of all I don't have to believe what you say but in this case I'll accept it.

It is quite obvious that the elites have two sets of rules: one for them and one for others.

Richards made a mistake but I believe he is truly a racist. He doesn't deserve to die for that because it is his right but compared to what the media and control system has railed against others recently, I am offended at how they are letting this guy off the hook. You have spent a great deal of time and effort here in this thread to defend him only because you feel he made a 'mistake.' His mistake was being caught.

I don't know where you got your avatar from by it has strong occultic symbolism in it if you are not aware of that.

The ACLU should have commented on Richards by now and their silence confirms what many are saying about themselves: they are a front for Jewish ambitions (also globalists/Illumaniti?) and not concerned with human rights in general.

In regards jewish power (their elites), it is real since they control the USA in concert with others we may call the illumaniti. The greater public needs to wake up to this now before things get much worse for humanity.






[edit on 22-11-2006 by denythestatusquo]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

The ACLU should have commented on Richards by now and their silence confirms what many are saying about themselves: they are a front for Jewish ambitions (also globalists/Illumaniti?) and not concerned with human rights in general.

You call Richards a racist, yet make a statement like this.

Do you consider yourself a racist? You should. At the least, you're anti-Semitic.

[edit on 11/22/2006 by Landis]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Landis

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

The ACLU should have commented on Richards by now and their silence confirms what many are saying about themselves: they are a front for Jewish ambitions (also globalists/Illumaniti?) and not concerned with human rights in general.

You call Richards a racist, yet make a statement like this.

Do you consider yourself a racist? You should. At the least, you're anti-Semitic.

[edit on 11/22/2006 by Landis]


Anyone that supports Richards actions or pooh poohs them is a racist.

Answer the question:

Why did the ACLU not make a statement condemning Richards? I am challenging them as being biased, unfair and having a political agenda that goes against their very reason for existance.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Why don't you tell me if you are one?


This is interesting... if I'm reading this correctly, because a member disagrees with your opinion you now demand to know if he is Jewish?

If I'm wrong my apologies, if I'm right you're quite out of order.

Making your arguments heard without resorting to tactics like that would be very beneficial.


I still don't understand why they were fast to criticize Mel Gibson but I've yet to hear any comments about Abbie Richards.


Who? The man's name is Michael Anthony Richards.



[edit on 11-22-2006 by Djarums]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   
All this fracas because Richards is a Mason?
Wonder if it would have got as much negative coverage if it was also known that
Richards is a JEW?

www.jewwatch.com...

I'll answer that myself. NO, probably NOT. I'm sure the whole of Hollywood wouldnt
covered the whole thing up OR it would not have made the news outlets to begin with.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

Originally posted by Landis

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

The ACLU should have commented on Richards by now and their silence confirms what many are saying about themselves: they are a front for Jewish ambitions (also globalists/Illumaniti?) and not concerned with human rights in general.

You call Richards a racist, yet make a statement like this.

Do you consider yourself a racist? You should. At the least, you're anti-Semitic.

[edit on 11/22/2006 by Landis]


Anyone that supports Richards actions or pooh poohs them is a racist.

Answer the question:

Why did the ACLU not make a statement condemning Richards? I am challenging them as being biased, unfair and having a political agenda that goes against their very reason for existance.


I think in your attempt to be the self righteous I love every one kinda guy you lost the meaning of their "support" through ignorance or malice.

Not one person has said Richards was right in his actions. Not one person said he should do it again. Not one person said they wished Richard would do it more often, or done it sooner. Not one person praised richard in any way.

What people did say is he was (and whites in general) are targeted to racist laws them selves. That is, call a black man a 'n-word' and your going to be sued or put in jail. Call a white man a cracker, a Asian man a chink or a Mexican a wetback and you won't get anything. They complain about the general "lets all feel sorry for mr. black man" attitude.

Personally, for someone touting that everyone who does not say Richards is a racist you sure are your self.

You have a problem with Masons. Not suspicious of Masons, not curious as to their activities, which you have no idea you HATE them don't you? You refer to them as a cult, I would hazard a guess you never bothered to ask a Mason or go to a lodge and see for your self. Sounds like cowardly fear to me. Next you apparently think Jews are out to get people? You think Jews control ACLU?? Get some help.

Flighty:

Who the freaking hell makes a website called "Jew watch" ... honestly.. what freakin difference does it make if someone is Jewish?

Is there a Chrstian watch?

Hindu watch?

Atheist watch?

Buhdist watch?

Hmm..


[edit on 11/22/2006 by Rockpuck]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Sticking to reputable sources is usually a good idea when trying to prove something.

Not hate filled websites written by brainless fools.

How can you insult the readers of ATS by quoting from a site that says their proof that Stalin was Jewish is the fact that he looks like Dustin Hoffman.

Do us all a favor and try to move the credibility level up, just a little bit.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Until you realize how sad it is... What does it matter whether Michael Richards is Jewish or not?

I'm also more than a little confused as to whether the ACLU has deigned to comment on this event. Contrary to some reports here at ATS, it doesn't appear that there is an official stance on the Mel Gibson incident:

ACLU + Mel Gibson

ACLU + Michael Richards

www.aclu.org...

The ACLU makes it's statements through litigation, not the media. The interesting point would be that the ACLU by definition would be obligated to defend the outbursts of both Gibson and Richards should any government body tried to sanction them.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:44 PM
link   
I'm getting the feeling that the "ACLU" is not the group that the criticism is being aimed at but rather the ADL. The ADL were the ones who were rather vocal at the time about Gibson.

Incidentally, the ADL which is "run by Jews" to paraphrase the brilliant words above, issued a statement criticizing Richards which I will both link to and quote simply because I'm rather tired of people misquoting and shaping facts for themselves.


New York, NY, November 20, 2006 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today said it was disturbed at reports that comedian and actor Michael Richards yelled a racial slur and made other racially insensitive remarks during a stand-up routine at a comedy club in Los Angeles.

ADL issued the following statement:

We were deeply disturbed at reports that Michael Richards repeatedly shouted a racial slur and made other insensitive remarks apparently aimed at African-American members of his audience.

Richards' repeated use of the 'n-word' and apparent reference to lynching is offensive in any context. There is no excuse for such insensitive and bigoted language. It has no place in a comedy club and no place in America, and must be clearly repudiated.

We hope Mr. Richards will now take a public stand against appeals to racism and bigotry and publicly apologize for his poor judgment in shouting them from the stage.



The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.


Quoted from www.adl.org...

Perhaps relaxing on the "Jew Jew Jew" aspect of things might be good. The argument is hemorrhaging.

[edit on 11-22-2006 by Djarums]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Apologies for link I provided.
Your right of course. I just blindly took it off another site where this debate is raging also.
No excuse, but apologies.

I agree that it doesnt make a difference what RELIGION Richards is.
I was just getting annoyed with all this heavy anti-mason stuff.
Who cares if hes a Mason or a Jew or both?
It would be great if we could focus on what he said rather than go off rants about what faith the man is. This includes me too.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flighty
It would be great if we could focus on what he said rather than go off rants about what faith the man is.


What is there to focus on really? A man went into a fit of rage and said a bunch of stupid things, even though nobody really knows what led up to it. Both Kramer and the heckler insulted each other's race. Either way, being a comedian you're supposed to be able to turn things around on hecklers in a more proffesional manner.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Oh, here it comes...

*Al Sharpton enters stage left*

www.cnn.com...

Funny, don't see Sharpton jumping on the man who also called Kramer a "mother f---ing cracker ass cracker" I believe it was?



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
For those who can't be bothered to watch it, Kramer called a member of the audience the N-word (repeatedly)

He was then called a cracker by a disgruntled member of the audience. (just doesn’t have the same effect, does it)


While nigga raises relatively few objections when used by black rappers, it generally is considered off-limits to nonblack performers, with exceedingly rare exceptions. According to a 1998 interview with Spin, the Beastie Boys, an all-white hip-hop group, left the stage mid-performance after a friendly but ill-received use of the word to refer to their audience.

en.wikipedia.org...


powerful word indeed…


Well first of all, the use of the word "'n-word'" isn't the best choice of words to use though its basically harmless depending on the context. I've been called a "cracker", "honkey", and "white-bread" so many times in my life. God forbid that I call that person a 'n-word' back for the fear that I am now "the racist". What a joke. The word "nigga", is used so commonly and everyday in clubs and other places I go that I can't imagine anyone taking offense to it. But that really depends on the environment I am in. If I were in a corporate setting and that was said, I would be labeled a racist and most likely fired. Choice of words has to do with when and where you use them. The best thing to do is just avoid the use at all.

Michael Richards, on the other hand, used the word Nigger while referring to a man being hung upside down with a fork in his a$$. When you use the word 'n-word' and refer to the hanging of a black man, you have gone way to far.



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 01:20 AM
link   
ERrrrrrrrr

I sware, there is NO one I hate more then Al Sharpton. Maybe Jesse Jackson. God, those two are pure evil. They don't care about blacks, in fact they damage blacks the worse.. Personally if I where Richards I would tell that jerk to shove it, not his business anyways.



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Wow.. I'm speechless as to this.. I just watched the video and wow... The "N-word" has such a deragatory term to it.. unlike cracker etc, as it has a more comical meaning to it in today's social society...

Ouch.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join