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.

 

U.S. will NEVER be ready . . .

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   
I have come to a conclusion that the U.S. will never change its thoughts of being a narrow-minded nation. The world leader nation has never changed its prejudiced thoughts; it will bend the rules of things it cannot change. Although many good things had happened in a not so distant past, a lot of progress needs to be done.

I am talking about the fact that the U.S. will NEVER be ready for a Black or Female President. Even if Obama gets elected, sadly he will not last.

Already an attempt of an assassination against him had taken place and he is just running for the Presidency, not yet a President.

What would a Female or a Black President do to the U.S? Is the U.S. still under the provocative thought of the “white power” or “machismo power” where the nation can ONLY be run by a white man?

What are its Citizens afraid of? What do the Citizens think it may happen if that takes place? Do you think a Female or Black President can’t do their job as Command and Chief of the U.S?

Forgive me if my comments sound harsh. I simply disagree with the thinking of the U.S. Citizens. (Don’t give me wrong, I am not saying ALL Americans are like that, but the majority is).

Could someone be so kind to explain, WHY this is?



MODS: IF this is the wrong section, please move.




posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   
I am confident that the U.S. haters will never move beyond using rhetoric to cause division and blame the country for all the problems in the world.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   
I am white. I would vote for a black man or woman, or a woman for President. If that black man or woman shares my ideals. Let us not forget that the Democrat Party went to legnths to off the white woman to ensure a black nominee. People are not racists for not voting for Obama. They just don't like having done to them what the Demo Party accused the Repubs of doing to them in Florida in 2000. So they will not vote for Obama for that main reason. The other is because he is a Marxist and a very dangerous man...



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheEnlightenedOne
I have come to a conclusion that the U.S. will never change its thoughts of being a narrow-minded nation. The world leader nation has never changed its prejudiced thoughts; it will bend the rules of things it cannot change. Although many good things had happened in a not so distant past, a lot of progress needs to be done.


But the beauty of what America was intended to be is that everyone CAN be prejudice. An opinion is an opinion and we should all be afforded those opinions. Women (and realize that, obviously from my screen name, I am a woman) have proven to base their decisions and actions on emotion rather than logic and the black folk, for the most part (although I have known and heard some rather great things from black ppl) as better off not being in leadership. *flame away* I can handle it



I am talking about the fact that the U.S. will NEVER be ready for a Black or Female President. Even if Obama gets elected, sadly he will not last.


I am not biased on skin color when it comes to a president, but Obama's stance on the issues are very socialistic and THAT I AM against. Just ask me to and I will be happy to make a thread that *proves* he is anti constitutional based on his issues... same goes for McCain (and he is white, *der*).

Having a woman president though is out of the question for me. I REFUSE to vote for a woman bc we, no matter how hard we try to escape this, base things on emotions (even Rosa Parks herself said she was merely lucky that her stance made the impact it did bc it was based on emotions rather than logic).



What would a Female or a Black President do to the U.S? Is the U.S. still under the provocative thought of the “white power” or “machismo power” where the nation can ONLY be run by a white man?


In the case of a female it is up for grabs. There have been a few good things that came about as a result of women following their emotions, but there have been MANY negative things come about as well. It is pretty much up for grabs whether her decisions will turn out good or bad considering that most likely they will be based on emotion (as is our nature) rather than logic.

If, let's say Obama, were to have proven that he never showed an inclination toward the black race and proven to never shown dislike for the white population AS WELL AS been consistent in his history as elected official and through his stances on issues to be SPOT ON in line with the constitution as given to us by the founding fathers of this country, then I would vote for him despite his race and/or affiliation with a certain party.


What are its Citizens afraid of?


I can't speak for anyone else, but I am no more afraid than I was before considering who will most likely be elected. I am not so much fearful as I would like to have hope that my children will grow up in a world that doesn't downgrade individuality for the more popular view of socialism.. My sons are the reason that I seek with EVERYTHING inside of me the truth. They are the reason that I would never settle on a woman calling the shots or for someone, despite skin color, who would erase everything that makes them who they are in order to turn them into mindless unthinking drones!

Bring it on though! I will fight till death to protect THEIR rights as humans to think and live how they should choose. Come up against a momma who actually understands the value of life and you may have met your match, if only for all of 5 seconds




What do the Citizens think it may happen if that takes place?


Study the stances and what we have been given by our founding fathers and THEN line them up against the issues and maybe you will understand. Otherwise, don't ask such retarded questions.


I am dropping the rest of your post. I grew bored with you mindless ignorance.

*Flame away* but at least bring fact to the table!




[edit on 26-8-2008 by justamomma]



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   
It's not just the US, France had a choice between a woman and Sarkozy. The woman offered better everything, the man offered nothing. They chose the man. People are uneducated and don't know how to form opinions so they base their opinions on perceptions which as we know are formed by institutions. If one day we teach our children how to process information and how to challenge our perceptions then we would advance as a society very rapidly. Until we do that people will behave exactly as the elites predict they will. In Italy the centre right won the vote based on hatred for immigrants, people were exstatic...problem is they also voted two immigrants to parliament for the first time in history...they just didn't bother checking who they were voting for they just ticked the box centre right. Is the centre right going to tackle immigration and burn them at the stake? No, but they will give people the perception that they will and get votes. In the UK all goverments have done it for thirty years and people vote for those that appear more racist, but of course immigration increases and strict laws are passed to compensate for their rhetoric. People need to be taught about how propaganda, mind control and opinion forming works, they also need to learn how to prioritize problems. Example: immigrants are needed because we need more taxes because money is wasted and stolen so people would think lets tackle the debt and the money going missing before we tackle immigration and start burning people at the stake...anyway I doubt we will ever live in a society that actually teaches kids these things. When a goverment comes to power using racist overtones as also Sarkozy did, don't believe them, they will probably do the opposite as Sarkozy is doing. I don't believe this is a US issue, it is a human issue, people don't have the same information the top 2% of the population have available to them to make informed decisions so they guess based on perceptions and lies. In the US white people are being fed the idea that they are constantly at risk internally and externally, (note poster above calls Obama a marxist, he is probably a remnant of cold war propaganda) and so they are very weary of anything that looks different, in Italy the economy collapsed ages ago and immigrants are being blamed (although nobody can explain to you why they blame immigrants for petty crimes as opposed to the corporate Mafia that has been jailed several times in Italy for emptying the coffers, in Italy they actually know who the problem is)....anyway what I wanted to say is it is not the US it is world wide, we need to educate our children about the tricks they use,about humanity, how the human brain works and how the elites think and what information they use to screw us....at the moment the few people that have this information write books that only get read by few people, the information that is available to us needs to become a mandatory school subject possibly to be studied forcibly every year, only then will we be fully free and independent and able to make informed decisions. We need to understand that it matters not if it is is a woman, a native, a man, a handicapped or an alien as long as they give us what we need for the better, why should anyone care if their president is a lesbian from Congo that enjoys sunbathing naked when she wants to make our life better? Ultimatley it is about logic and people lack it because they are not taught how to use it.
If we lived in a civil society politicians would be screened for sociopathy, we don't do that, we are only interested in their sex lives even though they will never be able to harm through their choice of sexual partner/s and they will definitley be able to harm us if they are socio/psycopaths.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   
people need to stop confusing marxism with being rational, realistic and uniting. Lets face it america has it's head up it's ass about a lot of things. one of them being how we play with others in the sandbox. another problem we have is our run away capitalism. capitalism is good. everybody emulating paris hilton and thinking me first screw everybody else is not. In fact being anti the community is anti human. yes we as a species need to take care of our folks. america with it's narcassistic attitudes towards everything is not in the best interests of the basic human. The country hasd a slogan. E plurbrius unum. but that notion has run off into e plurprius...plurbrius. and that doesn't make the world go round. As a species we need to rely on each other not compete with them and try and screw our breatheren over a trite petty piece of nothing. like it or not we as a nation are ignorant, selfish, and unconcerned about our fellow humans. we like to think we are but there is no real cohesiveness to help out one another. look at how many people scuff at the homeless or don't offer a dollar to someone in need.

America has gotten this notion that absolute darwanisim "survival of the fittest, or of those who have" works withing a society. it does not. human ity has gotten to where it has byu supporting one another. to now say to me that to strive for that or to remind people about how human interaction really works is marxist is obviously missing the point. the grand scheme of things and are dismissing humanities needs which are to reinforce our society to bring back vitality. right now all the people pissed at the other guy in the drive through line who is taking too long to order have missed this point.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
In fact being anti the community is anti human.


The fact is that what you said isn't a fact.


yes we as a species need to take care of our folks.


This is a great idea and may be beneficial to civilization. The problem I and many other people have with a statement like that is that it is expected to be brought about by government forcing people to take care of others. The problem is, these values aren't always instilled in people. Charity and generosity should be voluntary. I would agree that more is desirable, that that would require a social change, and should never require a governmental one.


As a species we need to rely on each other not compete with them and try and screw our breatheren over a trite petty piece of nothing.


I will partially disagree on this. While trying to screw each other is counterproductive, I think humanity would be better off if everyone were more self sufficient and more responsible for their actions. This would solve more problems than government could ever fix.


like it or not we as a nation are ignorant, selfish, and unconcerned about our fellow humans.


I'm not completely sure what angle you are approaching this from. Are you saying the government is more like that, or the majority of individuals? I assume you mean individuals as our government gives far too much of our money to other countries than we should, and the US is almost always the largest response to countries in need of aid. So, on an individual level, I think you may be right. That all goes back to a problem with values and raising people.


human ity has gotten to where it has byu supporting one another.


Not exactly. In history, great leaps in civilization often take place when a monarch or similar leader is in control imposing their will for growth. It become in their personal interest. The people left to their own controls tend to break apart into tribal structures in which it becomes a family interest.


[edit on 26-8-2008 by Wolf321]



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 


I just can't stand looking at your quote. Maybe if you had not written out who quoted it, all would be fine considering. Go... study the civil war and then you will understand the contradiction in that quote and who said it (considering that he was anything BUT constitutional). Just saying...



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 


hehe... I know what you mean. But that fact is he did say it. He may have done things that seem contradictory to the premise, but he was still a wise and good leader, even if there are decisions that one may find disagreeable.

It's still a good quote.


[edit on 27-8-2008 by Wolf321]



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Reply to post by justamomma
 


You may do better if you cordially presented the quote and your perspective...rather than just implore...


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 


Sorry for the off topic posts OP, but since you are not here to keep it on topic, oh well



And to the poster I am replying to: Yes, good saying but I just can't get over that HE said it. He was anything BUT a wise and good leader. He was the one who ushered in this anti constitution (i.e. anti individual) way of life (what ultimately has come to this). He wanted to impose on the southern land owners which is what the Civil War was about (not slavery). He hardly deserved the nick name "honest Abe."

I have no respect for his memory and blame him as the representitive for the ushering in of the anti constitutional movement.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 


Shall I start a new thread since it is off topic or reply with the evidence here?



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 


No need for a new thread unless you want to get others opinions on it. I don't plan to keep this topic up. I simply disagree with your overall assessment.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Reply to post by justamomma
 


I would love for you to start a new thread. And please be civil...honey and vinegar.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join