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.

 

South Carolina NAACP rally covers statue of George Washington to not offend anybody

page: 3
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by topher475
 


Thank you. Can't dispute it now.




posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
So, what is the point here? That we should be OFFENDED that these people supposedly covered this statue to avoid being OFFENDED? They should have left it uncovered so that YOU wouldn't be OFFENDED?

Don't they have a right to cover a statue for an event if they want? Isn't that the FREEDOM that people want? Whatever their reason, I say it's their freedom to cover anything they want for their rally.

Isn't that FREEDOM? Are you guys arguing against FREEDOM here?



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Hey SG, why not walk on over and dispute the thread I wrote about the New York Times?


Why would I need to "walk the talk"? I never said the new york times was never biased neither was I aware of your thread. More assumptions.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
You know what after seeing the rally signs I think I am agreeing with them, they do need education equity because if they took a standard history class they would not have covered the statue.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Advantage
SOme here in their support for the NAACP will claim that was to protect the statue..


I do NOT support the NAACP, I support freedom. The suggestion that it could be to protect the statue was just that. A SUGGESTION, not a claim.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So, what is the point here? That we should be OFFENDED that these people supposedly covered this statue to avoid being OFFENDED? They should have left it uncovered so that YOU wouldn't be OFFENDED?


That appears to be the argument here. Around and around in circles we go.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So, what is the point here? That we should be OFFENDED that these people supposedly covered this statue to avoid being OFFENDED? They should have left it uncovered so that YOU wouldn't be OFFENDED?

Don't they have a right to cover a statue for an event if they want? Isn't that the FREEDOM that people want? Whatever their reason, I say it's their freedom to cover anything they want for their rally.

Isn't that FREEDOM? Are you guys arguing against FREEDOM here?


The US is a BIG place.. if things in place and that are permanent offend people, perhaps have the rally elsewhere? Nahh, not when you can make a point.

To argue freedom on this one dosnt take into account having the freedom to hold the rally wherever you want rather than interfere with previously erected permanent statues or religious symbols for that matter.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


It's what motivates this free act is what is in question.

Not the act.

I see it as a politically correct, motivation. Which has far darker implications than just the simple act.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
If you think the first President of the United States and first Commander-in-chief of the Continental Army is offensive then the dream you are espousing is in no way compatible with this country. You are an utter disgrace also your 'civil rights' organization is pathetic and racist.

And the NAACP wonders why they are hated by so many white people.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
well they are wrong, I'm offended, and I'm sure many more are offended, so it's kind of funny when you do something to not offend anyone and half the country (if not the whole country) becomes offended. Project failed.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
As a black male, I can say this is the type of sh*t that boils my blood about the NAACP. Racism stemmed from racism. Two wrongs definitely don't make a right. And I don't even personally know any black people that care for the NAACP anymore, let alone our "leaders" Jesse and Al.

This, behind reading that Detroit is thinking of closing half of it's schools to pay unions, has absolutely blown my mind today.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by topher475
 


Yes, the picture is real, nobody was actually desputing the picture, rather the reasoning behind it.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by newBodyoldSoul
As a black male, I can say this is the type of sh*t that boils my blood about the NAACP.


As an ATSer, you are jumping the gun on this blogs claims no differently than the others here.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by searching4truth
You know what after seeing the rally signs I think I am agreeing with them, they do need education equity because if they took a standard history class they would not have covered the statue.


Maybe they did it because George Washington had slaves and supported the idea of slavery. There were over 300 slaves at Mt. Vernon.


Originally posted by beezzer
I see it as a politically correct, motivation. Which has far darker implications than just the simple act.


You may see it that way, but we don't, as yet, know their motivations, do we?

As far as I can see, the politically correct thing to do would be to uncover the statue so you and those with whom you agree on this thread won't be offended.
You are as politically correct as the people you accuse of same.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Seriously, this is as silly as me attending a college or university and being offended by some white slave holder pic on the wall that I whine and DEMAND it be covered. I mean he DID participate inthe wholesale slaughter of my people.. I feel ancestors calling to me. They say.. cover the white guy up and you wont be reminded of the past... Thats my freedom?? Thats absurd..

Hey! I want my trial held elsewhere.. there are WHITE PEOPLE statues on the courthouse grounds and pictures of evil white devils in the halls! I cry freedom.

Christians aided in the slaughter of my people and the destruction of my ancestral lands. I want ALL religious symbols covered or better yet destroyed because it offends me.

I really have a problem with the constitution and etc because I am not a white American and I did NOT say you can come to my lands, take them, and make them what you wanted. I want it removed from my sight. Its freedom you know.


This is absurd.. the idea of freedom being perverted into this BS really irks me to no end..



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
... it's kind of funny when you do something to not offend anyone and half the country (if not the whole country) becomes offended.


If you guys are correct and they did this so as not to offend, they didn't do it for the whole country. They did it for those in attendance at the rally. So, it doesn't really matter what the country thinks.


Originally posted by Advantage
This is absurd.. the idea of freedom being perverted into this BS really irks me to no end..


They exercised a freedom that you don't agree with. Read my signature.


edit on 1/18/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by newBodyoldSoul
As a black male, I can say this is the type of sh*t that boils my blood about the NAACP. Racism stemmed from racism. Two wrongs definitely don't make a right. And I don't even personally know any black people that care for the NAACP anymore, let alone our "leaders" Jesse and Al.

This, behind reading that Detroit is thinking of closing half of it's schools to pay unions, has absolutely blown my mind today.


Heh.. same here. Native Americans dumped the whole bunch like a hot potato after we saw how they wanted to use us.. and you too.

Detroit is a travesty.. I cant understand how we can look at these pics and facts, cluck our tongues, and walk away from it. Same as where I live now. Im in the same county, the city right next to, East St.Louis.. the dreaded 618. We got transfered here due to my husbands job with the DoD. You talk about racist hell. Its incredible.. truly incredible. The NAACP keeps the blacks here in the absolute crap they live in and use them. The blacks here buy into it for the most part and it makes me truly physically ill. ESL makes detroit look like disney land...



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


As an American, I can clearly see the President blocked. The facts that Im black and an ATS'er are just extra.

I mentioned I was black as I was addressing the stupidity of the NAACP. It's not the same organization anymore, by far.

And I'm not jumping any guns. To block the first president behind a box, with no given explanation, shows me their arrogance in thought. Don't turn a blind eye to the evils of the past. George Washington did some evil things, but I can look at someone in the context of their time. I mean c'mon, more slaves were sold to Brazil than America but this is still the most evil place? Right. I'm glad I'm here as opposed to experiencing genocide and famine like the other branches of my family tree. So yeah, I feel like I have a right to be upset.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


They denied MY right to view a statue. They took away my right to view a statue of the first president of the United States.

They, for a brief time, stole my right. They took that away from me.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Yes, thank you for verifying that you and BH are about the only ones on this site that admit there are problems in the media.

Why do you think I stay here.

I have now come to the conclusion that network and cable television should not be listened to at all unless they provide PROOF.

Sorry to tell you this, but GLENN BECK is the only one that provides sources to ALL of his assumptions. Sorry to tell you this, if you ACTUALLY watched his shows over the last year, you would realize that either he is listening to ATS or somehow he is absorbing everything we discuss here.

One observation, who was it that partnered with ATS? Do you know?

I have always felt that one thing was consistent, that what we discuss here at ATS always seems to make it on the FOX channel. Hmmmm.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join