It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


I Am Tired Of People Who Insist On using My Skin Color As Thier Weapon!

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 02:50 PM
reply to post by tombangelta

u should look deeper into hip hop and not whats presented by the main stream. Big Record companies are perpetuating this crap by offering ignorant clowns record deals. Its not all like that. I could counter that artists like Kesha or whatever are teaching young white girls that being the drunken slut at a party is empowerment.

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 02:54 PM
reply to post by irsuccubus

Yeh i totally agree with you , the entire music industry is bent.
its sad they allow anyone to put out a record these days.

i just feel that if they don't respect themselves enough to not refer to each others as "N" then why should anyone else.

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 03:03 PM
reply to post by KennibleLecter

Divide and conquer, that's what a majority of these people are trying to do

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 03:04 PM
reply to post by tombangelta

I have caught flack in the past for pointing it out but there is a specific point where hip hop began to become what it championed against in the years before and it started in the 90's when Diddy began pimping rappers and promoting a lifestyle of material excess and moral ambiguity. One can listen to a Public Enemy Record and not find a single fashion designer's name dropped or corporate boot licked. But blacks werent shopping enough when they were all about pride in themselves and dealing blows to the unjust. Enter this dancing idiot and his Versace shirts and German cars. Take a group of people and start dangling that perceived status in front of them and many will do just about anything, including sell each other out and going against all that many have fought to achieve as far as overall perception of our race. Its sad really because the lust for money will be our undoing every time. And Im not just talking about blacks any more. Look at the state of this nation. When the bottom line is all about dollars and cents, how they get there...even if on the backs of their fellow humans...ceases to matter. Greed is encouraged as are cutthroat and underhanded methods of wealth acquisition. We are taught that without the right amount of money we are nothing. And who wants to be considered nothing right? Its okay to shuck and jive for a dollar if you get to go home to a mansion right...RIGHT??


posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 03:12 PM
reply to post by crimvelvet

But you consistently blame everything on the liberals and Clinton in particular.

Newt and the repubs promised lots of thing, but what they delivered is power to K street, and set up a system were the lobbyist wrote their bills for them.

Breach of Contract
In 1994, the right wing gained control over the House of Representatives on the strength of a series of reforms embodied in the so-called "Contract with America." The contract ostensibly "aimed to restore the faith and trust of the American people in their government" and end the “cycle of scandal and disgrace” in government. A year later, then-Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX) was already plotting to breach that contract by undertaking a project to develop cozier relations with Washington,D.C. lobbyists. High-minded policy goals would take a backseat in DeLay’s pay-to-play system where the success of lobbyists would be dictated not by how compelling a case they could make, but rather by how willing they would be to line the pockets of DeLay and his colleagues. Conceptualized as a tool for the right-wing preservation of power, the “K Street Strategy,” as it became known, created the culture in which Jack Abramoff’s criminal activity was encouraged and rewarded.

The contract was a deal that said that as soon as the Republicans took charge in the House, they would bring to a vote (not even vote on, certainly not necessarily pass, and heaven forbid, not fund) each of a list of items, within a certain limited amount of time. Bringing something to a vote, especially if your party is in charge of the house, is trivially easy. (This could not have been done in the Senate.)
The only item from the Contract on America that turned into law as far as I can remember (and I may be a little wrong on this, but not much) was the one item that happened to be on President Bill Clinton's To Do list as well: A Welfare to Work bill.

Campaign of influence-buying

They had good reason, to be sure. The banking, insurance and brokerage industry lobbyists have combined their forces over the last five years to mount the best-financed campaign of influence-buying ever seen in Washington. In 1997 and 1998 alone, the three industries spent over $300 million on the effort: $58 million in campaign contributions to Democratic and Republican candidates, $87 million in "soft money" contributions to the Democratic and Republican parties, and $163 million on lobbying of elected officials.
The chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Texas Republican Phil Gramm, himself collected more than $1.5 million in cash from the three industries during the last five years: $496,610 from the insurance industry, $760,404 from the securities industry and $407,956 from banks.
The separation of banking and the stock exchange was ordered in response to revelations of the gross corruption and manipulation of the market by giant banking houses, above all the House of Morgan, which organized huge corporate mergers for its own profit and awarded preferential access to share issues to favored politicians and businessmen. Such insider trading played a major role in the speculative boom which preceded the 1929 crash.
The Wall Street Journal celebrated the agreement to end such restrictions with an editorial declaring that the banks had been unfairly scapegoated for the Great Depression. The headline of one Journal article detailing the impact of the proposed law declared, "Finally, 1929 Begins to Fade."
This comment underscores the greatest irony in the banking deregulation bill. Legislation first adopted to save American capitalism from the consequences of the 1929 Wall Street Crash is being abolished just at the point where the conditions are emerging for an even greater speculative financial collapse. The enormous volatility in the stock exchange in recent months has been accompanied by repeated warnings that stocks are grossly overvalued, with some computer and Internet stocks selling at prices 100 times earnings or even greater.
And there is a much more recent experience than 1929 to serve as a cautionary tale. A financial deregulation bill was passed in the early 1980s under the Reagan administration, lifting many restrictions on the activities of savings and loan associations, which had previously been limited primarily to the home-loan market. The result was an orgy of speculation, profiteering and outright plundering of assets, culminating in collapse and the biggest financial bailout in US history, costing the federal government more than $500 billion. The repetition of such events in the much larger banking and securities markets would be beyond the scope of any federal bailout.

What the republican congress said, and what they did were completely different.

Deregulation and lower taxes on the super rich have lead to the destruction of our economy, time and time again. That is what the TPers foolishly support. Are you going to be fooled again?

And the repub welfare plan was aimed at eliminating the welfare reform already put in place that established a work program which Clinton supported.

What did repubs have in mind for minority communities?

Same source

The sticking point was the effort by Gramm to gut the Community Reinvestment Act, a 1977 anti-redlining law which requires that banks make a certain proportion of their loans in minority and poor neighborhoods. Gramm blocked passage of a similar deregulation bill last year over demands to cripple the CRA, and bank lobbyists were in a panic, during the week before the deal was made, that the dispute would once again prevent any bill from being adopted.
Gramm and other extreme-right Republicans saw the opportunity to damage their political opponents among minority businessmen and community groups, who generally support the Democratic Party. Gramm succeeded in inserting two provisions to weaken the CRA, one reducing the frequency of examinations for CRA compliance to once every five years for smaller banks, the other compelling public disclosure of loans made under the program.
The latter provision was particularly offensive to black and other minority business and community groups, who have used the CRA provisions as a lever by threatening to challenge mergers and other bank operations which require government approval. In most such cases, the banks have offered loans to businessmen or outright grants to community groups in return for dropping their legal actions. These petty-bourgeois elements have been able to posture as defenders of the black or Hispanic community, while pocketing what are essentially payoffs from finance capital and concealing from the public the details of this relationship.

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 03:20 PM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 03:21 PM
It's time that INDIVIDUALS are judged on their own merits. I too am sick of the race card. I judge each individual on the person they are, Not on race, or their beliefs, or what their ancestors did. You show me you are respectable, and I will respect you until you show otherwise. I'm referring to ALL people. I highly respect MLK, and I think in his memory, we should move past all this crap. Treat people with respect and ignore the fools.....they are a dying breed and will soon extinguish themselves.

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 04:36 PM

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
Who else sees the irony here?

A thread about stopping the racism that is filled with racism.

Well... depends. Just for the fact that I recognize differences between races, you can call me a racist. I do not believe we're all equal. We're not all the same shade of gray... some are black, some are white, some are yellow or brown, some are even pink or red.

And you know... as an historian, I can say for myself that the beauty and richness of human kind lies on its differences, not on their similarities.

So, there ya go... I'm a racist for assuming and recognizing differences between races of the same species and we're far from being all equal - which is a good thing. No one, no people, culture, creed or race should bend itself to another's will, culture for it faces its own annihilation.

A toast to differences!

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 04:40 PM
I just have to laugh at your hypocrisy.

You say you are tired of people using YOUR skin color..not skin color.

You are using YOUR skin color in the hopes that it will further support your argument..See, I am a black man so this this makes my argument more valid than if a white man were making it

If you wish for people to stop using skin color as a weapon..please start with yourself .


posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 05:58 PM
reply to post by poet1b

But you consistently blame everything on the liberals and Clinton in particular.

Newt and the repubs promised lots of thing, but what they delivered is power to K street, and set up a system were the lobbyist wrote their bills for them.

Thanks poet,

I was not getting anything useful when I searched. The Wiki Article is a back patting piece of crap from what you are saying.... Why am I not surprised.

I generally do not bother with Bush 1 & Bush 2 because they have been done to death and everyone should know about what they did to the USA by now. Reagan and Clinton have been dealt with more "Kindly" so that is why I go after them. They both had a big hand in wrecking the economy, but they got away with it because the damage they did does not show up until years later. Believe me I am very angry with what Reagan did with the leverage buyout crap. Every company I or my hubby worked for in forty years has been taken over and that scares me to death.

Nixon also did us no favors by setting us up for possible run away inflation. You can see what I mean by a glance at the numbers at

The chart starts in January 1959 with $50.525 billion and ends in July 2011 with a money supply of $2683.838 that is a heck of a lot of dollars to print out of nothing.

For what it is worth the GDP in 1959 was $2,441.3 billion (in 2000 dollars) link

The GDP for 2005, which is probably close to todays was $11,131.1 billion (in 2000 dollars) No wonder the dollar is worth about a tenth or less of what it use to be.

Actually I am not sure which of the three, Nixon, Clinton or Reagan did the worst damage. Clinton's just happens to be more recent.

edit on 28-8-2011 by crimvelvet because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 06:09 PM

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
im sick of the race card all together.

i think its time we start getting as offended @ the term "racist" as they do with actual racial slurs.

know what i mean vern?

No, that's stupid.

Let's solve arson by getting offended at the word "arson."

Come on dude, racism exists and is a major problem for countless people every day. I understand you're upset but what you're mad at is people using it politically against your belief system.

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 06:10 PM
reply to post by tombangelta

Yeh i totally agree with you , the entire music industry is bent....

The Music Industry isn't even American any more.

A WHOPPING 97% of the sound recording industry has foreign owned controlling interest. That is more than 50% of the company is foreign owned. LINK

I wonder who the heck now owns the recording industry especially since they have an impact on our teenagers.

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:53 PM

yeah,,go ahead and call one of us a 'n-word' to our face, and explain that's ok because the origin of the word is non-offensive. ya know, words, over time have their meanings changed. in today's society, it's incredibly offensive; to hide behind the origin is a copout. do you enjoy offending people just for the sake of it? are you ignorant of how that word was used as a weapon against us, during slavery, during whippings, during hangings, and everything else that went along with the slave trade? I will never understand white people's utter dascination with saying the word. I have jewish friends; the "k-word" to them is offensive, so I don't say it. period. is that so hard?
edit on 30/8/11 by masqua because: Quote removed

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:56 PM

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by tombangelta

Yeh i totally agree with you , the entire music industry is bent....

The Music Industry isn't even American any more.

A WHOPPING 97% of the sound recording industry has foreign owned controlling interest. That is more than 50% of the company is foreign owned. LINK

I wonder who the heck now owns the recording industry especially since they have an impact on our teenagers.

I sent you a PM about something else but speaking of this matter too... if you find out ANYTHING about what's going on in the music business these days, do spill the beans because it's definitely a topic of interest of mine.

There is some crazy stuff going on these days... some of it very good... some of it very bad, and I'm not just talking about the music. CRAZY stuff. I see the signs all over it, but it's all still so elusive and mysterious. As bad as greedy record people are getting or whatever, music has STILL changed the world, but that's all about those good writers isn't it?

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 09:08 PM
I think what a lot of people writing in this thread have failed to recognize is that "racism" is not the problem nor has it ever been. This may just be semantics to a lot of people but the problem is


racism is something that lives in the mind and will always exist. It can not be regulated, made un-lawful or put out to pasture as it is simply a thought. A thought that people arrive at with their individual thoughts, just as those of us (like me) who despise racism have come to that conclusion with our individual thoughts.

I will probably get a lot of flack for this BUT Racism doesn't bother me. I think they are limiting themselves and wrong, I don't like racist or associate with them and would try to change their mind but what an individual thinks is of little concern it is what they do that causes problems.

I may just be stating the obvious here but discrimination is the problem, attacking racism is just the activity of policing thought.

We may not like what some people say or think but Freedom of speech does not exist to talk about the weather. Tolerance is what is needed. Tolerance in the USA is of very low supply(this thread and many like it on ATS, proof). The majority of the country is not racist (Obama elected president, proof) but discrimination is still prevalent. Discrimination is what should be fought.

I am not a democrat or a republican but I would just like to point out to democrats who call the republican party "racist" that it is the democratic party that has the history of supporting slavery and Congressional records show it was Democrats that strongly opposed the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.

I am not calling democrats of today racist, only stating facts of history. I don't think it is a large jump of logic to assume that policies that are favorites of democrats could have a long ago source of wanting to keep Americans that are black in poverty. Just watch a Thomas Sowell video and see what he thinks about it. Of course many democrats will just call him a "uncle tom".

That is how democrats dismiss ideas based in logic and facts that are counter to their "best intention" programs that don't produce actual results, steal from people to achieve their ends (wage taxes) and ignore the logical truth that is staring them in the face. Just to be clear, republicans do this as well. I am just picking on democrats right now because it is they in this thread who have decided to generalize an entire political party made up of individuals as "racist" or a political movement that is made up of a large diversity of people such as the "tea party" as "racist".

To be a bit more clear, I think it is a bit racist for white democrats to assume that Black Americans want or need the help of social programs that they propose.

edit on 28-8-2011 by sageofmonticello because: eta, eta+

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 10:14 PM
What's funny, your a racist if don't believe the OPs opposition.

Your post will be removed if don't agree with Blacksatindancer.

What I have to say.. Is whatever dude.

But I will say, I rarely ever report anyone. And never once have they removed their posts. But, will remove mine.

Fine, Whatever. More power to you.

It's okay for my stalker to stalk me and never remove his posts, but god forbid if I do it?

Oh, the IRONY.. Could care less if I get banned. Because it's a 2 sided argument.

They did nothing to remove his posts.

**If they remove his posts, like they did mine. I will drop the whole issue. Which I doubt.
edit on 28-8-2011 by Manhater because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 11:35 PM
reply to post by Sternblut
I was in NYC which was an at risk academic and vocational education program. One of my instructors was living with an organizer for Ceasar Chavez before the UFW was sanctioned. The other academic instructor was a hippy type psych student at our local University. We were supposed to be getting educated. We were being indoctrinated into liberal politics. We were told to register to vote though we were not of voting age, and we were to vote for the Democrat. I was asked to leave the room when some people came to speak to the students of color. The speakers created some unrest with the students; it seems they were being encouraged to act up over racial issues.

When I was in college getting another degree, one of my classmates, a person of color, was receiving pay from the government to take an advanced digital electronics course. He showed up just enough days a week to keep from being dropped from the classes. He was given a failure notice so he could bring up his grade. He told our professor that he had to give him a "D" so he could go on academic probation and repeat the course. This was the counselling which he received from our campus representatives from ethnic based organizations. Because our math requirements for the course was so high that our attrition rate dropped the classes below the legal limit for too many semesters and it would not be made available in the future at that college. That is the only thing which kept the special interest groups off his back. I ended up tutoring my classmate which got him a low "C" so he could pass.

I could write a book, but this forum is not a venue for long drawn out reports. Trust me, I have a great deal of study under my belt and I have seen some freaky stuff. The 60's were a trip, but I prefer them to what I am seeing now.

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 01:41 AM

Originally posted by crimvelvet
As I recall the whole oath taking was FLUBBED and re done in PRIVATE.

My Grand Father was Muslim. If you change your faith YOU CHANGE YOUR NAME. Think Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr. becoming Muhammad Ali. On top of that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was also a "Converted" Muslim. Obama converted to Christianity because he was TOLD to. It was standing in his way as an effective "Community Organizer"

After the flub heard around the world, President Barack Obama has taken the oath of office. Again.

The bible is no where to be seen it the picture in the article by the way.

Not sure what the exact objection is? Is it that Obama is untrustworthy because he is a Muslim pretending to be a Chirstian by faith? If so, it would be quite silly of him not to use a bible for swearing in. Because for a Muslim an oath on the bible is not even binding on him, just as an oath on the Quran would not be binding for a Christian. Why should a pretender refuse to take a non-binding oath, that others believe is binding on him?

In all likelyhood, his religion was simply for whatever political advantage it offers and he took the oath as an atheist would, not by 'swearing', but by 'affirming', which would explain the lack of any book. If anyone can find the exact word he used 'swear' or 'affirm' it would rule this explanation in or out.

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 02:45 AM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:51 AM
reply to post by Observor

I apologise for not doing the research before posting my theory there. Obama did take the oath of office using the word 'swear' and ending with 'so help me God'. So it could not have been a secular oath he was taking and had to be a religious one. So the book by which he was swearing becomes significant. In that video I couldn't see the book by whcih he was swearing.

new topics

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in