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: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by LLoyd45
 

I stand corrected.
Obama's the first black presidential nominee, thus breaking historical ground.




posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

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.


I see. So i guess the civil war was over something else then?
Perhaps they were fighting over....fireworks!
Because fireworks are illegal (today) in illinois, but legal (today) in Indiana. Yah thats it. They must have realized that 100 years later, fireworks would be outlawd, and started a war over it!

Oh, and i guess Abraham Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation as a testament to why men should be free to buy fireworks.

Yeah. Slavery wasn't prevalent at all. It just sparked a very bloody, drawn out, vicious war that pitted brother against brother in every battle field across the land. :shk:



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 



That's not what he said. He was showing that the amount of slave owners were a relatively small percentage of the white population contrary to what you said. A relative few "owned" a lot of slaves each. He never stated that slavery was not a major problem. You were the one that put your foot in your mouth in the first place with the "Lot's of whites" owned slaves drivel. That simply was not the case. Do you retract that statement of yours? Unless in your universe 7 or less out of 100 = Lots. I'm suprised you didn't say the "typical white person" owned slaves. Jeez.



[edit on 7-7-2008 by pavil]

[edit on 7-7-2008 by pavil]



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin


I see. So i guess the civil war was over something else then?

Wow you actually got one correct. The war wasnt primarily about slavery, no matter how much the undeucated beleive it to be so. In point of fact, Slavery had already been on the decline in the south long before the civil war, due to the cost of upkeep. To put it bluntly, a slave, as property, had to be maintained to keep his or her value. An employee could simply be fired. By the start of the civil war, slavery had already ebcome an social appendix at best. As an example, you are aware I hope that no less than 5 slaveholding states fought on the union side?
Seems kinda oddd that dont it?
Well it would be, if you werent aware that the Emancipation Proclamation ONLY applied to slaves owned by Confederatre states. The slaves owned in those 5 union states? They stayed slaves. Untill the thirteenth ammendment was passed in 1865. After the war ended.




Oh, and i guess Abraham Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation as a testament to why men should be free to buy fireworks.

Actually primary sources from the time seem to indicate he did so more as a way of trying to increase the union army, while at the same time reducing the economic abillity of the southern states than due to any percived "human rights issues"
This is why he only freed the slaves in confederate and not union states.


Yeah. Slavery wasn't prevalent at all. It just sparked a very bloody, drawn out, vicious war that pitted brother against brother in every battle field across the land. :shk:


It was already dying, for purely eonomic reasons outlined above. In fact at the time of the civil war, slavery was already illegal in more than half of all US states.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


Oh i see. So....there wasnt that many white people who owned slaves in Colonial America?

because... OFFICIAL sources say otherwise. Posting a link to a website with zero credibility hardly offers proof that slavery wasnt a rampant issue.

Lots of white people owned slaves in colonial america



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   
the two main reasons I couldn't vote for Obama are his radical stand on abortion, and his radical racist church.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by pavil
 


Oh i see. So....there wasnt that many white people who owned slaves in Colonial America?

because... OFFICIAL sources say otherwise. Posting a link to a website with zero credibility hardly offers proof that slavery wasnt a rampant issue.

Lots of white people owned slaves in colonial america


Really? Then why dont "lots of americans" today own a masserati?
Or a ferrari?
Answer, becasue they can't afford it. Just as most Americans couldn't afford slaves, during colonial times or otherwise.


And you really should read your sources.




Of all 1,515,605 families in the 15 slave states, 393,967 held slaves (roughly one in four),[6] amounting to 8% of all American families.


Keep in mind this figure is about america in 1860. 5 years before slavery was abolished. Less than 8% of american families owned slaves nation wide. How much immigration has there been since then?

Your point is as busted as an HHO engine on Mythbusters.

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



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SKMDC1

Originally posted by justamomma
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


expansion of gov't, taking citizens hard earned money to spread out amongst the ppl,


By "taking citizens hard earned money" I assume you mean his plan to repeal the tax cuts for the top 3% income and roll it back to what they paid in 1999 when our economy actually worked. The Bush administration "expanded government" more than any Democrat has since the New Deal, so it's kind of laughable throwing that tired ol' log on the fire this year.


expanding vague laws that can be used against the citizens,


Like his opposition to wiretapping? Again, it takes some huftspa to charge a Democrat with expanding vague laws in the midst of what the Bush administration has done the past 8 years.


erasing individuality, poking his nose into private businesses and the private lives of ppl, tightening control all around on our lives.


Bush has done more to attack the civil liberties of individuals than any President in history, and you're kidding yourself if you think McCain isn't going to fall right in line with the same policies. We're at a time where Corporations have run over the individual (i.e. Enron, Credit Card Companies, Telecom Companies, Subprime Mortgage Lenders, Payday Lenders) and I don't think it's "Marxist" to hold them accountable for shady actions and protect the hard working citizens.

If you posted these examples as an ironic satire, then I apologize for being so obtuse, but honestly if those are the best issues someone can come up with against Obama this year, then he's a shoe in this November.


And you know what? Obama has a way of turning about and saying "We need more of those" when Bush's plans actually do work. The Economic Stimulus package is one shining example. Democrats scoffed the plan when it was first introduced, saying that because times were hard, people would save that money or pay debt off. What did people do? They did exactly what Bush knew they would do - they went out and spent it. And now Obama has been quoted as saying that America could use a second round of stimulus checks.

So answer me this. If Obama is shown data that the public isn't allowed to see that shows the wiretapping program has been directly responsible for nabbing several wanted terrorists, how long is it going to be before he does an about-face on that issue as well?

So when we talk about where Obama stands on the issues, I don't want to hear about what Bush did on the issues - I want to talk about where Obama stands on them and where McCain stands on them. Basing your issues discussion on "what Bush did wrong" is exactly how John Kerry ran his campaign and you see how well it worked for him.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by sos37]



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
Lots of white people owned slaves in colonial america

No they didn't. YOUR source even says so.


Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
So i guess the civil war was over something else then?

Some of it was slavery, but a whole lot of it was other things
including taxes, trade tariffs, both domestic and foreign economics,
and states rights.

One source of many -
ngeorgia.com...
Educate yourself.


Perhaps they were fighting over....fireworks! ...

blah blah off topic blah blah. Grow up. :shk:


Emancipation Proclamation

Only freed slaves in certain states .. those that failed to go along with what the Federal Gov't wanted to happen.

Interesting little document. I got to see it on display at the National Archieves a few months back. It isn't what people think it is ...



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



blah blah off topic blah blah. Grow up


Hmm.

Your title says "feed me a troll"

So i assume you condone cannibalism then?

Explain to me how i am wrong. You say im wrong because there werent millions of americans in the 1800's who owned slaves

i never said millions

i said lots

a definition of "lots" can vary, but for me, it means too many

what is too many?

Once again - can vary

but for me, "too many" is the # it took to start the civil war

so - LOTS of white people owned slaves.

very simple, non-deceptive language

im sorry that you struggle so much to keep up - i really am. At first i thought this would be a good debate, but the more and more you troll, name call, and derail it, the more it becomes the same ol thing we've been dealign with in this forum since its inception.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin






i said lots

a definition of "lots" can vary, but for me, it means too many



Doesnt work like that. You dont get to define words as you wish. By no defintion of the word can 8% be considered "lots" especially when the other 92% are a lot more.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by maria_stardust
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...


LOL

more desperation. I really love these accusations. Believe me, if i could get paid to do what im doing - i'd sign up for it in a heart beat.

The only downside is that i've made posts that point out the many thigns i dont like about obama

but of course, if you were to force yourselves to read those, you might melt into puddles of goo :*(

Sorry that i offend you by pointing out obvious reasons obama is better than Mccain

you put words in my mouth when you accuse me of saying "obama will be the best ever"

and then you call ME a racist when i say "here are some racist attacks against obama"

Hypocrisy is a NASTY cologne, but some people in this thread wear it proudly



edit: Everything i can find says his fightthesmears.com website opened on June 12th, not the 11th. So, congratulations, you get to join the 3 or 4 others of ATS that have to lie in order to make me look bad




[edit on 7/7/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


Sorry for the off-topic before I chime in. Just wondering Andy, is this you?

www.facebook.com...

Thanks,

Becker



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
the more and more you troll, name call, and derail it,

Amazing. :shk: YOU sit there in long off topic rants and deflections about 'fireworks', and you sneer and talk down to people for three pages, and yet you come up with this? Pathetic.


Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
Hypocrisy is a NASTY cologne, but some people in this thread wear it proudly

Yes it is .. and yes you do.

This thread is a waste of time ... bye. :shk:



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Becker44
 


LOL

wow. A real person is named Andrew Wiggin



Actually i created this character from my favorite sci-fi character

you may know the book by another title though

Enders Game



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Good bye as well.
Thank god for the ignore button

cant discuss the issues, wants to call names, and cant stay on topic


Nice example of "feed me a troll"



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 



more desperation. I really love these accusations. Believe me, if i could get paid to do what im doing - i'd sign up for it in a heart beat.

Not desperation. Just pointing out a very glaring coincidence.


The only downside is that i've made posts that point out the many thigns i dont like about obama

but of course, if you were to force yourselves to read those, you might melt into puddles of goo :*(


I've read many of your posts and threads and have yet to liquify.


Sorry that i offend you by pointing out obvious reasons obama is better than Mccain

I'm not offended in the least when you make comparisons that aren't rooted in the issues of race.


you put words in my mouth when you accuse me of saying "obama will be the best ever"

Are you getting my post confused with someone else's, because I never stated such a thing.


and then you call ME a racist when i say "here are some racist attacks against obama"

I never called you a racist. I said your actions would be better served if you didn't pull out the race card.


Hypocrisy is a NASTY cologne, but some people in this thread wear it proudly

You're right. Hypocrisy is nasty. Perhaps you should keep this in mind, and re-read my original post.


Just for your information, I'm not a conservative attack dog. I'm a moderate democrat.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Just pointing out a coincidence huh? :shk:

I wonder how many other people registered on the same day.
Ill tell ya what. If you think i work for the Obama campaign, why dont you click
Here and let the moderators know why you think so.

Then they can look into it.

I find it hilarious that, MANY times, i get accused of working for Obama. These accusations only come after i


1.) make a statement about obama
a.) people pander on the outskirts of the statement
b.) never address it directly, instead bring up irrelevant side issues
c.) leave the discussion when asked to stay on topic

then - i get - once again - accused of being a paid obama guy.


as sure as day turns into night - it happens every time



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


Okay. You're not a paid Obama staff member, just an extremely vocal supporter who feels the need to wave the race card in lieu of real issues.

As a fellow democrat, I have absolutely no right to express my opinion that perhaps your overly aggressive stance adds nothing to your cause.

I will hang my head in shame for even daring to confront you in any objective form or fashion. Because, after all it is only your opinions that matter.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


I must say you do stand up for what you believe. That has to be admired. I have a legit question for you and would like you to answer it if you can. This is not an attack and once I locate a person who is pro McCain, I or you can ask him or her the same question. I ask that you do not try to attack me because this is not an attempt to go after you. Personally, I am undecided but am willing to entertain what both sides have to offer.

If Obama's plans are so wonderful and capable of solving America's problem, then why did he wait till he was running for President to reveal them?




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join