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.

 

Racial attacks on Obama

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
funny how, after a second time of bringing it up on my part

you avoid the comments made by ralph nader, rush limbaugh, and karl rove


Avoided?
Actually I directly addressed Naders comments. Reading BEFORE you reply helps.

As to Rove, did you eman this comment?


'His trash talking was an unattractive carryover from his days playing pickup basketball at Harvard, and capped a mediocre night.'"


Yes because we all know that one fo the defining attributes of Blackness, is going to HARVARD!

This is just sad.





it seems you have a racist agenda yourself

Of COURSE! How else could I possible debny the magnamimous benficience of the Great O! I must be a racist!



While i do wish you the best in your question to rid yourself of this problem, i cannot continue to discuss it with you, because you're not interested in discussion, only trolling.

I've learned one thing:

Ignore Trolls.

Have fun talking to yourself, because im not listening anymore


Translation "nyahh Nyahh I cant hear you"



if you change your mind and want to discuss Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, and Ralph Naders racist remarks of Obama, send me a u2u.....


Nahh skippy I have no interest in hearing more of your delusional accusations.


If anything, This article is a perfect example of what would happen regularly in Obama's America



[edit on 7/7/2008 by Shazam The Unbowed]




posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Andrew, you may be surprised to hear this but not all "white" people came over on the Mayflower.

Many are first, second, and third generation Americans, who came to this country well after the civil war. The concept that "Most white peoples ancestors owned slaves, is itself racist and delusional. I am second generation and my people had nothing to do with any of the madness.


I like others who asked the question, are sick to death of this hypergeneralized crud. If people don't like being treated like stereotypes they should stop acting like bad ones. I think this is the lesson of Obama, and why he will be good for black americans.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by SKMDC1
I think part of the problem addressing the issues people have with Obama is that so many of them are contradictory... At the start of the race he "wasn't black enough" then he became "radical black supremist"... he was a "lightweight who would get slaughtered by the Repulican machine" then he became a "ruthless politician who'll do anything to win"... he was a muslim then he was a radical-christian... he was too liberal then he became too centrist. When the anti-Obama crowd decide on what they're issue is with him and stop throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks, then we'll start discussing it.
The problem with Barack Obama is he's like someone with a multiple personality disorder. Who he says he is today, may not be the same person tomorrow. His stance on major issues change like the direction of the wind or more accurately public opinion.

If he gaffs or gets caught in an obvious lie, you can expct a flowery, non-sensical, make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside speech to be forthcoming.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   
While there is a "white-guilt" motivation for a minority of people voting for Barack Obama, there is a racial, though not racist, motivator for the majority. People are desperate for change, and Obama's race itself represents this change. Because he appears so different than any other presidential candidate, for many this in-and-of-itself is change, regardless of what his politics may be. Many are not even sure what his politics are, outside of change, and see in him whatever changes they wish for the country.

And make no mistake, people are both sides are using race in their attacks for and against Obama. Hysterical Obama supporters will use racial-incidents are a shield to protect him from any criticism, portraying any critique or attack as a racially-motivated. At the same time, real racists will prey on that hysteria; they will attempt to dismiss criticism of genuine racist-attacks as part of the hysteria. Both sides feed off one another.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
While there is a "white-guilt" motivation for a minority of people voting for Barack Obama, there is a racial, though not racist, motivator for the majority.

When people vote for a black guy just to show how racist they aren't, they are only proving how racist they are.
Or to put it another way, racial equality isn't proven by a black man running for president, its proven when he can lose, and its not blamed on racism.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by SKMDC1
 


well, comparing him to george w. is actually great
. wouldn't have thought to do that myself.

even though you were trying to address these issues as being non issues bc of president bush, let me inform you that i didn't vote for pres bush, nor do i support him........ so i find it funny


and these ARE a big deal to me THIS year as much as they were 4 years ago to me when i walked into the voting booth.

they are issues worthy of being addressed bc they ARE issues obama has up on his site.


and to the OP, i apologize for missing those threads. will go and search.
i have looked at a ton of these obama threads longer than i have posted on them and have yet to see the real issues addressed properly, but if you say they are there, than they must be.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by LLoyd45
The problem with Barack Obama is he's like someone with a multiple personality disorder. Who he says he is today, may not be the same person tomorrow. His stance on major issues change like the direction of the wind or more accurately public opinion.

If he gaffs or gets caught in an obvious lie, you can expct a flowery, non-sensical, make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside speech to be forthcoming.


What major issue changes has he made a 180 shift on?

Iraq? No. He still plans a 16 month drawdown of combat troops.

FISA? No. He still opposes Corporate immunity. He may have voted for a compromise bill, but there were real security reasons to get the bill passed.

Public Finance? No. He pledged to take public financing at a time when that seemed to be the only option for a guy with no resources. Since then, he's managed to raise campaign money on small donations from the public, not from corporations lobbyists or PACS, and compete. In a very real sense his campaign was already "publicly financed" and the whole point of the McCain-Feingold thing was to encourage candidates to steer clear of corporate money and lobbyists. He's done that as promised.

Now, if you want to talk switching opinions 180, McCain on the following:

Torture
Immigration
Offshore Drilling
Bush Tax Cuts
2008 GI Bill

Those are all issues where McCain *completely* changed his stand.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
Obamas mother was white. The chances that her ancestors owend slaves are high" How is that surprising? LOTS of white people back in colonial days owned slaves. The chances that her ancestors owned slaves is high.


DEAD WRONG.

In 1830 for example - Only 1.5% of white Americans owned slaves .. but 25% of free blacks owned slaves.

'LOTS' of white people did NOT own slaves.

The chances of his white ancestors owning slaves was not 'high'.

And considering how blacks owning and selling blacks in Africa is part of the way of life, it is more likely that Obama's black ancestors were slave dealers then his white ones.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by SKMDC1



Public Finance? No. He pledged to take public financing at a time when that seemed to be the only option for a guy with no resources. Since then, he's managed to raise campaign money on small donations from the public, not from corporations lobbyists or PACS, and compete. In a very real sense his campaign was already "publicly financed" and the whole point of the McCain-Feingold thing was to encourage candidates to steer clear of corporate money and lobbyists. He's done that as promised.

And this is why I say Obama supporters are messianic. Even when they state outright that he did in fact go back on his word, he didnt really because doing so was in his best interest.
In other words, its OK for Obama to break promises as long as its in his own best interest.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
Whats so surprising? His mother was white. The chances that her white ancestors owned slaves is pretty high. Its just more fear mongering and racial bashing. "Look! A BLACK MAN WHOS ANCESTORS OWNED SLAVES"
:


Andrew, Andrew, Andrew. Now who is making stereotypical comments.

You do realize the the vast majority of people in America were immigrants well after Slavery was abolished here, right? For example my family has never owned slaves to my knowledge and if we ancestrally did, they would be Scots or Brits from the Viking days or Roman slaves from the "Good Old Emipire Days" of Caesar and his ilk..



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

DEAD WRONG.

In 1830 for example - Only 1.5% of white Americans owned slaves .. but 25% of free blacks owned slaves.

'LOTS' of white people did NOT own slaves.

The chances of his white ancestors owning slaves was not 'high'.

And considering how blacks owning and selling blacks in Africa is part of the way of life, it is more likely that Obama's black ancestors were slave dealers then his white ones.



DEADER WRONGER



...this percentage is based on slaves being owned by a single person, for purposes of the census. In reality, families tended to own slaves, so more people could probably be considered slave holders (even if they were not technically slave OWNERS because the slaves were owned by their spouse or parent). According to the 1860 census, there were 5,155,608 households in the US. Using this as a basis, the percentage of slave-owning households could be as high as 7.64%.


Slave Owning Population 1850-1860

I'm not sure why we're making a distinction between Black and White slave owners. That point seems ultimately moot. The fact is there's about a 7% chance that Obama's mother's side of the family owned slaves... whatever that's worth.

If there's any word out there on where her family was actually "from" that would be helpful. I know she was born in Kansas, but her dad was in the military so that's a little meaningless. If her ancestors were from the South vs. the North vs. the Midwest vs. the West it would change the chances significantly. For instance all of our chances are roughly 7% when you look at the national data for 1850, however my family lived in South Carolina so my chances are more like 85%.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by SKMDC1
What major issue changes has he made a 180 shift on?

Iraq? No. He still plans a 16 month drawdown of combat troops.

FISA? No. He still opposes Corporate immunity. He may have voted for a compromise bill, but there were real security reasons to get the bill passed.

Public Finance? No. He pledged to take public financing at a time when that seemed to be the only option for a guy with no resources. Since then, he's managed to raise campaign money on small donations from the public, not from corporations lobbyists or PACS, and compete. In a very real sense his campaign was already "publicly financed" and the whole point of the McCain-Feingold thing was to encourage candidates to steer clear of corporate money and lobbyists. He's done that as promised.

Now, if you want to talk switching opinions 180, McCain on the following:

Torture
Immigration
Offshore Drilling
Bush Tax Cuts
2008 GI Bill

Those are all issues where McCain *completely* changed his stand.

So, McCain is a flip-flopper too! Does that somehow make Obama's Flip-flopping better, or relieve him of the responsibility for what he previously said?




posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


Can't you get your point across without being so rude and mean spirited?

If you think that you're convincing people to vote FOR Obama You're wrong.
If anything you are making people not like YOU or Obama.

You have to be the most rude and mean spirited person I've met on ATS and believe me I've met quite a few.

For Petes sake GIVE IT A REST !!!

By the way.....How much does Obama pay you to do this?



[edit on 7-7-2008 by MagicaRose]



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by SKMDC1
all of our chances are roughly 7%

I have stats saying 1.5%. You have them saying 7%.
I'm sure there are stats that fill in the gaps inbetween as well.

EITHER WAY .... what he said was dead wrong. 'LOTS' of whites didn't own slaves and there wasn't a "HIGH' chance.

It is MUCH more likely that Obama's black ancestors owned and sold black slaves. It's just a part of life in Africa and the fact that 25% of freed blacks in this country owned other blacks is something that people don't like to admit to.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by SKMDC1
all of our chances are roughly 7%

I have stats saying 1.5%. You have them saying 7%.
I'm sure there are stats that fill in the gaps inbetween as well.

EITHER WAY .... what he said was dead wrong. 'LOTS' of whites didn't own slaves and there wasn't a "HIGH' chance.

It is MUCH more likely that Obama's black ancestors owned and sold black slaves. It's just a part of life in Africa and the fact that 25% of freed blacks in this country owned other blacks is something that people don't like to admit to.



You are both screwing the stats. Either figure only applies to those Americans whose ancestors were in the country during the time of slavery. And even then most would have 0 chance depending on thier ethnicity. As an example the Irish, whom actually caused the decline in slave usage in the south when they immigrated there as you could hire ten irishmen for the cost of one slave.
Now the fact is any black is far more likely than any white to have ancestors who traded in and owned african slaves simply because the practise of enslving your enemies predates european contact with africa by several thousand years.

However, on point, the reason slave ownership among freed blacks was so high, is that thier first act upon being freed was to attempt to buy thier family (wife children mother father etc) back out of slavery. Which only makes sense when you think about it. Either way, the chances of any American having ancestors who owned slaves in america, except for a very few lineages, is miniscule.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by MagicaRose
How much does Obama pay you to do this?


I tried to find that out. I was searching .. and googling ... and I couldn't find anything on how much they get paid to get online and make excuse upon excuse upon excuse for Dali-bama.

Either those folks get paid really well or Obamessiah's disciples are useful idiots who spend their days online praising Obama for free. Nothing else logically can explain it.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed
, the chances of any American having ancestors who owned slaves in america, except for a very few lineages, is miniscule.

Exactly. Thank you.


I brought some stats to make that point (but you said it better).
It isn't 'LOTS" and it isn't 'HIGHLY' likely that Obama's american
white ancestors owned slaves. However, It is VERY likely that
his black ones (who were in Africa and in the Islamic countries) did.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 

I find it interesting that the Obama campaign kicked off its Fight the Smears effort on June 11, 2008, and that happens to be the same date you registered with our site. Coincidence? Hmmm...

I think not.


That aside, race does play an indirect role in this election by mere fact of the historically significant fact that Obama is the first black presidential candidate. However, I do agree with you that race should not be considered an issue at all. But you must take into account that we as a nation are treading new territory. It's not a good ol' boys world anymore.

Exactly what do you intend to accomplish by waving around the race card? It brings absolutely nothing positive to the table. That said, perhaps your personal effort would best be served if you stuck to the issues facing this great nation, and not stir up any racial mudslinging.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by maria_stardust
That aside, race does play an indirect role in this election by mere fact of the historically significant fact that Obama is the first black presidential candidate.
Actually Maria Jesse Jackson was the first Black Presidential candidate. Obama isn't breaking any new ground here, he's simply following in the wake of someone else.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by LLoyd45

Originally posted by maria_stardust
That aside, race does play an indirect role in this election by mere fact of the historically significant fact that Obama is the first black presidential candidate.
Actually Maria Jesse Jackson was the first Black Presidential candidate. Obama isn't breaking any new ground here, he's simply following in the wake of someone else.


I think I would have voted for jesse before Obama at least I know where he stands.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join