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: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by maria_stardust
 



Beautiful post Maria. Simply beautiful. Short, concise, and straight to the point. I wish I could give appluases.


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




posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


OK I'll enter your world Andy.

I'd like to start with a question. Forgive me for not reading your 2,346 posts about the Messiah but others may agree they all sound remarkably alike.

Is your support for Obama based on his opponent?

Could we classify you as part of Generation "Y"?

Are you supporting this man because all the others are part of that group that always "keeps you down, or from getting ahead in life"?

We'll start out easy and see where this leads.

Becker



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 06:24 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


Now you are being just downright dense. To use your Official Wiki Source:


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.[


How that translates into someone thinking that every white person or even lots owned slaves is beyond me. Even using your sources the best you can say is that 1 in 4 southern familes owned slaves. That, while condemnable, is not lots, when it only amounted to 8% of all American families.

Darn, Shazam The Unbowed and FlyersFan beat me to the punch!

[edit on 7-7-2008 by pavil]



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   
I think that the point of this debate is to establish Obama as a Racist/White Hypocrite. Of course once that is established, the Republican Extremists will be able to justify that sort of behaviour to themselves, and seek to assassinate American politics for the first time since........ 2000.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
[


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 dealing with in this forum since its inception.



Spoken like a true Clintonian when the word "Lots" means 8%. It's pretty easy to be right when you set up all the definitions and can't be argued with eh?

Also, I find it rather weak when you have to ignore people since you can't seem to convince them of your argument. You do realize that you are PO people on this board who are Democrats and "progressive". Really, it's not just conservatives that are lambasting you for your remarks, it's your own side.

So in your world "a lot" can mean a minority of 8%, right? Just want to be clear on this subject since your comments are so fast I can hardly keep up with them. You know conservatives can't keep up with such blindly fast logic. To us "a lot' actually means "a lot" I know, it's silly, but were kinda slow like that.

I think you are doing a great job at swaying people to join the Obama camp, keep up the great work!



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   
I think it's pretty clear that there is a strong racial subtext to much, (though certainly not all) of the unusual hostility directed at Obama.

There are many varieties of racism, and not all are of the KKK variety.

There are plenty of people who don't use the "n-word", and don't consider themselves "racists", but when you scratch the surface, they see all blacks as either criminals, welfare dependent bums, or affirmative action cases


Get to know them well enough and they'll start confessing how "everyone knows blacks are genetically intellectually inferior" and how terribly unfair it is that due to "political correctness" you can't say it in public. They've been conditioned to see blacks as somewhat less than fully human all their lives, and they can't see that there's anything really wrong with that, buty they can't come out and admit it either.

I think it's this crowd that fills out most of the "Democrat's against Obama" crowd - it's not his ideas that they're turned off by, frankly they are not that dissimilar to Hillary's...

Fortunately I don't think there are enough of them to make a difference.

America really isn't as racist as it once was, thankfully.

[edit on 7/7/08 by xmotex]



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


I'm sure there is some of that but Obama's camp can't going crying "racism" at every little attack of his person or policies. The whole Wright Fiasco is a prime example. It's not so much that he was caught up with the Rev. Wright, but that when it became obvious to everyone that there were some serious issues there, he didn't distance himself fast enough. It's a cause for concern.

The trying to please all people stance that Obama seems to take with everything ie Gun Rights, Abortion, Israel and Palestinians over Jerusalem, and now Troops in Iraq are going to be the death of him. This is coming from someone on the other side of the fence. Just wait till he flops on drilling offshore or on gay marriage. He talks out of both sides of his mouth with the best of politicians, some "Change we can Believe in".



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   


The whole Wright Fiasco is a prime example.


It's the perfect example of what I am talking about.

The "reverend Wright is a racist" thing was a joke: he's a "racist" because he believes whites have oppressed blacks in this country?

That's an undeniable historical fact, but people have turned the definition of "racist" around until it means whatever they want it to mean


Apparently racism now means "any statement mentioning race that makes me feel bad" - we're supposed to believe that some loud preacher spewing hyperbole & odd theories about AIDS is morally equivalent to centuries of slavery, Jim Crow, etc.


If someone could point out to me where Wright says whites are by their very nature oppressive, evil, etc... that would qualify as "racism."

Meanwhile McCain is closely associated with a preacher calling for a genocidal war against the entire Islamic world, and nobody bats an eye


Similarly his "reversals" or "flip flops" seem to get a lot off attention from the same bunch on here, despite the fact that they have been neither as dramatic nor as numerous as McCain's...

Obama is held to a higher standard than other politicians, largely due to his race IMHO.






[edit on 7/7/08 by xmotex]



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex


The whole Wright Fiasco is a prime example.


It's the perfect example of what I am talking about.

The "reverend Wright is a racist" thing was a joke: he's a "racist" because he believes whites have oppressed blacks in this country?


No, hes a raqcist because he believes there are fundamnetal differences in the biology, physiology, neuro-chemistry, rythm, and learning of blacks and whites. Interestingly enough thats also exactly what the KKK believed. Also, because at the end of the day, his propensity to always beleive the worst of the "white man" and always beleive the best of the "black man" demonstrates a perfect mirror image of the KKK's attitude.

Its statements like this, that make wright a racist




Left brain is logical and analytical. Object oriented means the student learns from an object. From the solitude of the cradle with objects being hung over his or her head to help them determine colors and shape to the solitude in a carol in a PhD program stuffed off somewhere in a corner in absolute quietness to absorb from the object. From a block to a book, an object. That is one way of learning, but it is only one way of learning.

African and African-American children have a different way of learning.

They are right brained, subject oriented in their learning style. Right brain that means creative and intuitive. Subject oriented means they learn from a subject, not an object. They learn from a person. Some of you are old enough, I see your hair color, to remember when the NAACP won that tremendous desegregation case back in 1954 and when the schools were desegregated. They were never integrated. When they were desegregated in Philadelphia, several of the white teachers in my school freaked out. Why? Because black kids wouldn't stay in their place. Over there behind the desk, black kids climbed up all on them.

Because they learn from a subject, not from an object. Tell me a story. They have a different way of learning. Those same children who have difficulty reading from an object and who are labeled EMH, DMH and ADD. Those children can say every word from every song on every hip hop radio station half of who's words the average adult here tonight cannot understand. Why? Because they come from a right-brained creative oral culture like the (greos) in Africa who can go for two or three days as oral repositories of a people's history and like the oral tradition which passed down the first five book in our Jewish bible, our Christian Bible, our Hebrew bible long before there was a written Hebrew script or alphabet. And repeat incredulously long passages like Psalm 119 using mnemonic devices using eight line stanzas. Each stanza starting with a different letter of the alphabet. That is a different way of learning. It's not deficient, it is just different. Somebody say different. I believe that a change is going to come because many of us are committed to changing how we see other people who are different.


And because of comments like this


African music is different from European piano music. It is not deficient, it is different. In most school systems today, the way most of us over 40 years of age were taught is still being taught. We were taught a European paradigm as if Europe had the only music that there was in the world. As a matter of fact, if you just say the term, classical music.

Today, most here, use of that term will automatically refer to Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, and already cited Mozart and Handel. European musicians. From grammar school to graduate school, we are taught in four, four time. That the dominant beat is on one and three. Our band directors, our choir directors, our orchestra director start us off how?

And One, two, three, four. One, two, three. Now, that's the European dominant beat. For African and African-Americans, it is not one and three, it is two and four. I don't have to teach you. Listen to black people clap to this song. Glory, glory hallelujah, you are clapping on beats two and four. If you got some white friends, they'll be clapping like this. You say they can't clap. Yes, they can. They clap in a different way. It's the same fact holds true with six eight time. Europeans stress one, two, three, four, five, six. One, two, three, four, five, six. Dum dum, dum, dum, dum. The stress is on one and four. Not for black people. When you got six eight time, blacks stress two three and five six.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   


That's an undeniable historical fact, but people have turned the definition of "racist" around until it means whatever they want it to mean


Apparently racism now means "any statement mentioning race that makes me feel bad" - we're supposed to believe that some loud preacher spewing hyperbole & odd theories about AIDS is morally equivalent to centuries of slavery, Jim Crow, etc.


Racism is Racism. Period. Thats why I an many others dont trust Wright, or any man who sat and listened to his poison for 20 years.




Obama is held to a higher standard than other politicians, largely due to his race IMHO.



No, Sadly, and as is usually the case with liberals, he is being treated to a much lower standard than any other politican. If George Bush or John Mccain had said


" Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America."

Then you know damn well every single media outlet, democrat, and pundit would have been calling him a wannabe messiah sent by god to save us.

If there were media stories of people fainting at McCain rallies, of them tatooing his face on thier body, or taking his middle name as thier own, all of which have been reported about Obama in positive, if not glowing terms, the language and imagery would be much much different. Instead they would be talking about Berlin in 1932 and fanatical masses who areeerily similar to Hitlers crowds. If he was held to the same standards as other polticans the Tony rezko scandal wouldnt have blown over and would be major news now. If he was any other politican calling a female reporter "sweetie" as he dismisses her questions would be seen as nothing but naked sexism. Hell even Bill Clinton couldnt get away with crap like that. But instead its a black man, and so it all gets swept under the rug.

No, as usual, the dems are doing what they always do to blacks. They are lowering the standard as fast as they can, because deep down they dont beleie he can actually comepte on the same level. And in so doing, ensuring he isnt prepared to do so. And BTW thats racism too.








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



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   
I started with the Karl Rove piece.

What's racist about Rove talking about Obama trash talking, or that his trash talking came from his basketball playing days at Harvard?



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 08:35 PM
link   
What I like is the racists pretending they're not.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Becker44
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


OK I'll enter your world Andy.

I'd like to start with a question. Forgive me for not reading your 2,346 posts about the Messiah but others may agree they all sound remarkably alike.

Too bad. If you DID read my other posts, you'd realize how ignorant you sound when say this.




Could we classify you as part of Generation "Y"?

Im sorry, but you'll have to tell me what generation Y means. I dont label myself accordingly. Do i group myself with ALL of Obama's followers? Absolutely not.



Are you supporting this man because all the others are part of that group that always "keeps you down, or from getting ahead in life"?

It seems from your tone, that you may assume (like so many other ignorancemongers) That im black. I am not black.

That being said

I consider myself very blessed in my life. I have a lovely home, a beautiful wife, and no kids (yet). We both do well for ourselves, far from rich or wealthy, but we are able to do more than "just get by"
if that answers your question?

I changed my mind about McCain much in the way he changes his mind about everything else.
I realized i was letting others influence my opinion. I realized people like Bush and McCain are for big business, and i once adopted to the idea that 'big business helps the little guy' by creating jobs.

Then i realized something: Its a sham.

It is true that big business creates jobs.
But if big business is for the little guy - then why are so many illegal immigrants employed in this country.
Unrelated: Why are so many americans unemployed?
For 8 years, the conservative Bush administration has pumped billions into the big business sector, and given fecal remains to the middle class. "incentive check" was nice, i'll give him credit for that. But 1 600 dollar check in 8 yeras is hardly suitable enough to merit "for the working class"

Big business is able to write off expenses like business lunches, gas for work, limo rentals, private jet trips, etc, and get that money back on their taxes. Boo hockey in my opinion.

Tax cuts for the rich? Why? What do they do with them?
They export jobs to mexico and china

they hire illegal immigrants back home

they charge ridiculous sums of money for life saving operations

all in the name of getting richer.

Well im sorry, but there is a limit to big business being for the little guy.

There comes a time when they are longer helping people, rather hurting them.

Enron.
Tyco.
The lending industry as a whole

all out to get the little guy

example:


"why the hell did my interest rate jump to eleventy-billion % this month"?

-credit card company
"well sir, technically, and if you read your contract its there, you missed the coefficient of the tanjents circumference, creating a bi-product that reflected the light from venus. So. Thanks for your money, have a great day.

5 years later, the credit card company is garnishing the guys wages because he cant afford his 5000 dollar balance on a 500 dollar limit credit card.

I do not support bad-big-business. In my opinion, you have to go 'bad' anymore to get ahead. So i guess you could say i dont support the ideal of the elite businessman telling me that liberals are elite'ist minded, so i should vote republican because republicans are for big business.

it stinks of horse feces, and i wont buy it.



We'll start out easy and see where this leads.

Starting out by insulting people, is never the way to start 'easy'.

Becker



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

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


Now you are being just downright dense. To use your Official Wiki Source:


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.[


How that translates into someone thinking that every white person or even lots owned slaves is beyond me. Even using your sources the best you can say is that 1 in 4 southern familes owned slaves. That, while condemnable, is not lots, when it only amounted to 8% of all American families.

Darn, Shazam The Unbowed and FlyersFan beat me to the punch!

[edit on 7-7-2008 by pavil]



Ok so you found one site that may or may not clear your family history of ever owning African slaves in the US, Congratulations! Keep in mind a big part of history is covering up the truth. As far as the "8%" yes that's a small percentage, but i find it odd that such a small percentage could contribute to the racial injustice that went on. If only 8% of the US were racist bigots, then Blacks gaining American citizenship would have been a cake walk, and there would have been no need for the civil rights movement which began over a hundred years later. That must have been a very powerful 8%.

Have you considered that there were forms of slavery in Europe as well? You can wiki that too! Not only were there Europeans that owned slaves, but they also assisted in the African slave trade. Also Through out history, parts of Europe have had slaves of many different ethnic backgrounds.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by tazm_99

Have you considered that there were forms of slavery in Europe as well? You can wiki that too! Not only were there Europeans that owned slaves, but they also assisted in the African slave trade. Also Through out history, parts of Europe have had slaves of many different ethnic backgrounds.


I'm a little rusty on my history, but didn't Egyptians have jews as slaves? And isn't Egypt part of Africa?



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 
Obama has a number of people to distance himself from,I can't believe you work for him,it would just be one more to get rid off when he found out just how RUDE you are in what I guess is in his defence.



[edit on 7-7-2008 by Battleline]



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by tazm_99
 


its hilarious how they try to hide their racist ideals behind percentages and "statistics" from obscene websites.

Whats next? You gona tell me the holocaust didnt happen because the iranian presidential website says so?


I make a thread that says "here are racial attacks on obama"

It is not titled "everyone who's against obama is racist"
but these ignorance-mongers automatically assume it is out of their own racist guilt.


The fact that slavery existed when there was a document written by the founders of this country that reads "all men are created equal" is enough to support the claim that racism existed back then.

"black folk" werent considered equals then, and a lot of politicians (and an ever growing group of select members of this website) still dont' consider them equals today.


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



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83

Originally posted by tazm_99

Have you considered that there were forms of slavery in Europe as well? You can wiki that too! Not only were there Europeans that owned slaves, but they also assisted in the African slave trade. Also Through out history, parts of Europe have had slaves of many different ethnic backgrounds.


I'm a little rusty on my history, but didn't Egyptians have jews as slaves? And isn't Egypt part of Africa?


Africans had African slaves everybody knows that. I was making a statement in regards to to people who, claimed that their ancestors never owned slaves because they migrated to The US after slavery.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by tazm_99
 


Furthermore, what does it matter if there were slaves in african and egypt?

Are you trying to pass the 'guilt' off of yourself onto others?

Im not saying ANYONE alive today should feel guilty of the slavery of yesterday (unless you support it, condone it, or try to dull it down to a level of insignificance, or are a racist yourself)

I am saying that it existed. Slavery existed then, despite "all men are created equal"

Slavery (as it were then) no longer exists today. But the IDEAL of racism as it pertains to slavery still exists very abundantly among certain groups of people (and predominantly in certain ggroups of white people)

Especially politicians.

I post about attacks on Obama, and you last back and call me a racist



someone needs to explain that to me



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin




Then i realized something: Its a sham.

It is true that big business creates jobs.
But if big business is for the little guy - then why are so many illegal immigrants employed in this country.

Because there are so few jobs where they are from and honestly, they are better employees than we are. They work harder, longer, and for less pay. They dont expect to be coddled, or have thier hands held, they dont bitch about every little tiny thing in the office, and unlike most americans now adays, they actually beleive in doing a full days work for a full days pay.



Unrelated: Why are so many americans unemployed?

Answer? "So many" americans AREN'T unemployed. The unemployment rate is 5.5 percent. that means that 94.5% of americans have jobs. That NOt including the 12 million or so Illegal immigrants. in point of fact most US employers are finding it hard to fill positions because of the high employment.





Tax cuts for the rich? Why? What do they do with them?
They export jobs to mexico and china

Not really, and those they do, its because we drove luxury industires off our shores with "luxury items taxes" and such. Also, the fact is "the rich" are paying a HIGHER percantage of total taxes collections now than at any point in the last 40 years.



they hire illegal immigrants back home

Yes, but usually only for unskilled grunt work. To put it bluntly, if a immigrant who doesnt even speak english can take your job, you need to get soem skills.



they charge ridiculous sums of money for life saving operations

all in the name of getting richer.

So let me guess, the doctor who spent 8 years or more learning his skills shouldnt be able to earn what those skills are worth? The hospital which had to spend millions on high tech devices and medicnes, and atiseptics, shouldn't be allowed to pay for them? So in other words thecompanies that spend billions to develop a new MRI scanner should have to give them away for free, and eat all that R&D

No problem so long as we can "price control" the wages of factory workers and the like to keep consumer products cheap. From now on no blue collar worker gets more than 10 bucks an hour so everything can be cheaper. Deal?



Well im sorry, but there is a limit to big business being for the little guy.

There comes a time when they are longer helping people, rather hurting them.

Enron.
Tyco.
The lending industry as a whole

Micrsoft, Apple, Dell, Boeing, GE etc. for every bad apple you can name I can name 10 corporations that have improved your life, your prodctivity, and thus your wages.






"why the hell did my interest rate jump to eleventy-billion % this month"?

-credit card company
"well sir, technically, and if you read your contract its there, you missed the coefficient of the tanjents circumference, creating a bi-product that reflected the light from venus. So. Thanks for your money, have a great day.

Actually its usually printed on the letter that comes with the card. Its thier fault you borrow money without reading terms? More to the point, your interest rate is based on the risk them lending you money represents. Would you rather not be able to get any credit if you dont have a 750 credit score or better? Cause it used to be liek that in the 60-70s when only the rich could get personal credit. Is that what you want?



5 years later, the credit card company is garnishing the guys wages because he cant afford his 5000 dollar balance on a 500 dollar limit credit card.

Dont spend what you cant afford, and pay your balance on time. Problm solved.


But then, I guess everything I suggested would require that you take responsibillity for your choices. How likely is that?


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

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



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join