Here Come the Black Haters?

Wow.

I only read the first 4-5 pages ... I want to make a couple of comments and then leave this thread for good.

I believe Gools is right. There will be those type of people coming out of the woodwork. But I also think you will have every other possible type of person/agenda coming out ... things WILL get hairy around here.

I just wish we could put away race, slander, family histories, media attacks, party bias etc and focus on what the heck the next president is going to do FOR (or TO) this country on this forum, on this site, and everywhere else in our lives.

In my neck of the woods, the average low-middle class families (both black and white) are leaning towards Obama solely because he can speak well (ooh look at that edumacated guy!) or towards McCain because he is a war vet (my son's third generation in Iraq Hoorah!).

THESE ARE NOT THE REASONS TO VOTE FOR A LEADER OF A COUNTY, PEOPLE.

Back to Gools' point. I will be staying out of all of these political threads (not that I post much if at all here anymore anyways). The sheer number of people that would use arguments such as those above and argue incessantly in a vicious, circumlocutious manner are really just proving that Orwell was spot-on.

Unfortunately they are already here. They have been here for a while and chances are they're not going away. I have also noticed selective racism in ATS threads which go largely unpunished by the Mods. The level of information accuracy in ATS has also dropped as a result. Both of these things are covered in the T & C.

There's a lot of Muslim hate on ATS. With as many hits as this place gets I'd love to think that these issues would be addressed without having to create a thread about it. In the interest of keeping ATS a reliable place for not just a good discussion, but hard work, research, and information. I understand that during a political season we should expect a certain amount of inflation of the truth or outright misleading sources. But we shouldn't make it a habit to have those kinds of dubious, poorly researched threads(often full of spelling errors and off the deep end claims) to originate from ATS.

Racism on ATS has been a problem for some time now. I just think alot of it either goes ignored or unidentified. And this bothers me deeply. I came here because I found information and resources here I can't find anywhere else. And the people coming here and trolling ATS with this sort of crap should most definitely be something worrying all ATS staff members, because this will eventually hurt the quality of information on ATS. We have earned the respect of the internet WITH HARD WORK. Not with baseless sensationalist crap.

Deny Ignorance. Don't embrace it, it's the ATS way, remember?

[edit on 10-6-2008 by projectvxn]

[edit on 10-6-2008 by projectvxn]

My personal belief is that we are all the same, there is no skin color. I simply have never noticed it. (Silly little illusions!)

Most people I am around on a day to day basis (I live in a pretty nice NE Ohio community) seem extremely racist for reasons I have never been able to understand or explain. I see it everywhere, more often than not, and it baffles me. I have heard so many negative comments about Obama, none of which were legitimate, just a lot about his skin color!!

It would be wonderful if people could sit down and complain about real meat and potato issues, but I don't see that very often if it all. Its always the same nonsense and division that I grow ever tired of.

reply to post by Gools

---

I really do not care that Barak Obama is black, all politicians are crooks and liars.

What I care about is the fact no one has heard of him before his run for Presidential office.

He never made the news once in his former offices, either good nor bad.

That speaks volumes for little to no experience. If there was popular comments politically speaking, that would be experience, if there were bad comments politically speaking, that would be experience. You can not be in politics without causing waves, either positive, or negative, it's impossible.

This means, there's something about him we as the public are not supposed to know.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

Yes playing with small numbers is quite common. These numbers are NOT small, they are NOT the product of one study while 19 other studies were rejected. The statistics posted showed a HUGE and they come from actual conviction rates, not biased trial studies.

Your point makes me laugh, we both know when you read those stats you got happy and thought woohoo! These numbers prove we are right! Until you realized the 5 to 1 ratio, and you were shocked by the truth so instead you bury your head in the sand.

So instead of researching it, you just pretend to ignore it by saying "well they could be statistically insignificant so we will ignore them". You do not show ANY other "correct" statistics, and you can't because there are no others.

All I can do is shake my head in amazement.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by Sonya610]

I honestly have to say that this "statistics" issue is probably the most ridiculous thing I have seen while debating on any forum in many years. I am being really serious here. I find it to be shocking and quite disappointing. People start throwing around statistics to prove their points, and when it turns out the numbers did the EXACT OPPOSITE they either hide, or make blanket ridiculous statements to defend their non-position.

I have been wrong during debates, and if someone shows evidence, or if it turns out the evidence I showed proved THEIR point I have always been an adult about it and admitted their point.

Of course the "black haters" will come out. Unfortunately, it's the way the world is.

If it's not race, then people hate simply because someone else lives on a different part of the planet. Or even on the other side of a line drawn on some map. Or even because they support a different football team. Divide and conquer at it's best.

As a white Australian, I think it's a good thing to see a black presidential candidate. Let's face it, the whites have had a pretty good run.

reply to post by NuclearPaul

---

well that's just it. there's not whites and blacks, etc. there's just people (well, i hope they are people and not figments of my imagination or aliens running a virtual reality test that lasts... (checks how old she is....almost 50 years so far. heh heh heh) . hey, are you real?

Here come the black haters, murderer
We're the closeted racists, murderer
Change from a Dem to Republican, murderer
Coz a white person lost, murderer

No, no, we don’t die
Yes, we multiply
Anyone test will hear the KKK sing
Act like you know, B.O.
I know what Bo don’t know
Stitch them up and go, uh-oh
Ch-ch-chang-chang


Sorry, bored. Starred

Obama is very smart. I hope he can make good decisions that will help this country. Maybe there is enough time left to make a difference. America needs a "tonic", because of it's debilitated state. I don't care if Obama is black.

reply to post by Perplexed

---

I've not "lost" anything. You can argue if you want, but it will not change my observation. Good luck in your "argument".

reply to post by passenger

---

I suggest you re-read my statement in an effort to inform yourself. I never "submitted" that the founders of this country didn't tolerate racism. I know I must have said something to really offend you, but that's no reason to offer up fantastic claims of things I didn't say.

Principle


Tolerance


Now, before you go sticking words in my mouth (again), or arguing over racism playing a part in tolerance, you should closely read the definitions provided by Wikipedia and realized that both of these terms deal with the overall consensus of the majority of the culture at those times.

Slavery was a firm establishment (thanks to those in the European theater) when American was founded. Yet, at least the founders had enough sense to decree that "All men were created equal", thus laying the groundwork for the eventual abolishment of slavery .... though long after other countries had abandon the idea.

When slaves were originally brought to America, we were not yet a founded country. So, yes ... I'm very "Informed" and correct in my statement about those that founded this country in the principles of tolerance.

This is a really slippery slope, you are damned if you do speak up, and damned if you don't, I know dirty Chicago politics, and all I have posted was factual,

No where did I mention the color of his skin, it seems to me that's how his supporters play.

It is ridiculous to accuse the majority of those who do not support Obama as racists, but it is a good way to try and SHUT them UP!

Abortion, This is a big issue with me.

One more thing, you don't know the color of my skin, do you?

Let us talk about the issues and not race, shall we?


Beyond Obama's Beauty
By KENNETH BLACKWELL
February 14, 2008



www.nysun.com...

So in that line of thinking what does this make KENNETH BLACKWELL leading conservative african american newspaper columnist an, uncle Tom?

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

---

He's a post turtle. Flat out.

So by your reasoning (you being the op) even though I am an African American, the fact that I am not voting for Obama makes me a racist against my own race. You are a fool, people won't be voting for him because of his fascist views and inexperience not for race. Americans are hard working honest people, and to make the generalization that all are racist that do not vote for Obama is a slap in the face. We as a people are fairly well educated and can look past the issue of race. What we are looking at is the fact that this man isn't qualified for this position.

Okay, don't know what a post turtle is here, so I'm not sure if I should be offended or not.

You, you, take that back, or give it more...

I was going to make a comment but the above is exactly what I had to say so Ditto that.


Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 11-6-2008 by elevatedone]

Now what do you think of this?

Barack Obama sets up internet 'war room' to fight slurs
Internet ‘war room’ will rebuff false rumours
www.timesonline.co.uk...




Trying to silence the opposition?

What about his trying to silence Lieberman?



www.newsmax.com...

www.stltoday.com...

IT's ABOUT THE MAN, NOT THE COLOR!

reply to post by Gools

---

You mean racial division like the muslum race riots in Paris? The neo-nazi movements all throughout Europe? You meam when blacks took to the streets in LA and burned their own communities down and attacked white people because they had the gall to drive through their "hood"?

The KKK may be a US blight, but Europe is by no means insulated by tea and crumpets. Also, this idea that white preachers spew the level and kind of hate-speech that black ministers spew is a lie and a deception. Prison populations: your inference is that we unjustly imprison blacks. Wrong. Do the crime, do the time (unless your a hot high school teacher accused of having sex with minors and then I have to agree). If she was black, or white and ugly, she would have gotten a much harsher sentence.

The gun loving bit: once again the insinuation that guns are somehow barbaric and primitive. How's your gun control working out for you? Do you plan on instituting bans on "Assault knives' next?

I mean this with no malice: who cares what the old Europe thinks? They are too busy collecting taxes, rationing health care while people die and paying for cradle to grave coddling to do much of anything, about anything.

Stormfront is a US affair? Are you kidding? The home of the Neo Nazi organization(s) ain't the US.

In conclusion: angry at you? Not at all. Angry with what I see as gross misrepresentations thereby making the entire argument moot, absolutely.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

---

Being unknown doesn't always make you unqualified for candidacy. I hadn't heard of Obama before he announced his running for President, though I posted a blog about it the day he announced ... LONG before main stream media picked up on his campaign.

It's like that with many candidates. I had never heard of many of them before this campaign. Who's Ron Paul? Regardless of whether you align yourself with his ideas on foreign policy and his economic agenda, I think he was one of the more qualified candidates in the running ... no matter how much he was shunned. So unknown, in fact, that he used that as one of his slogans: "Who's Ron Paul?" and that begat, "Google Ron Paul.". Playing on the fact that he was relatively unknown before the running.

The only reasons I'd heard of McCain, Edwards or Clinton are obvious ... they'd been in the running or White House before. Thompson ... he's an actor, though I couldn't have told you his name if I'd seen him on the street before the campaign.

Whether he's qualified or not has to do with your area of concern. Are you more concerned about social aspects that a president has influence on, or foreign affairs that the president has to deal with? I based my original vote on economic reform and cast my vote for Ron Paul. Now he's out of the running, so I'll have to decided what's next important on my list because no one currently running has any legitimate plans to turn the economy around. It's about ideals now ... not policy. As was stated above; some are basing their vote on abortion.

In other words: Do you want someone who wants to take care of the world, or someone who wants to take care of the United States? I think there's a candidate for each of these choices and you should cast your vote on which one concerns you most because each choice has a more qualified candidate.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by tyranny22]