Obama’s ‘Constituency Groups’ Checklist Offers No Options for Whites or Men

page: 5
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 

playing nice is great but after the fact is a bit shallow, don't ya think ?

After some quick research....Obama does occasionally tweet. When he does, he adds BO to the message. If you go to his twitter account, you'll see it is updated by staff who even sign with their own name or directly say " the president said" etc.

@barackobama

See....I can play nice
since i don't ever tweet, i wouldn't know but i don't make random assumptions as you did. thanks for clarifying that you were wrong for even jumping on my assertion.

since i would never follow BHOs tweets (or anyone's for that matter), to me (and other's like myself) whether he, himself tweeted it or one of his team did, it's all the same source.




posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Connector
 


I didn't address any of your other points because I was only addressing the one
one that was never addressed to you in the first place.
then, you chopped it to suit your argument, then you claim i'm the one who lacks debating skills.

ok then, i'm still waiting to see any of yours


no debate on the topic, no debate on the commentary in full context, no support or dissent for the message delivered to the "constituency" and no comment about the OPs commentary ... usually means, you have no opinion.


Barrack doesn't tweet his own tweets.
any proof of that ?? he certainly has the ability to do so, why wouldn't he ?


I debate facts
you haven't presented ANY.





See my above edit.

I didn't give any opinion 'cause I'm not american, so figured I'd get the usual response " Leave America to Americans and keep your foreign opinions out". Being polite I guess.....

I'll peruse a thread and if I see something factually wrong or at the very least needing some fact checking, I'll point it out. Adios for real this time....I've got 3 eps of Dexter cued up.....and this is all getting to far off topic.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Connector
 

playing nice is great but after the fact is a bit shallow, don't ya think ?

After some quick research....Obama does occasionally tweet. When he does, he adds BO to the message. If you go to his twitter account, you'll see it is updated by staff who even sign with their own name or directly say " the president said" etc.

@barackobama

See....I can play nice
since i don't ever tweet, i wouldn't know but i don't make random assumptions as you did. thanks for clarifying that you were wrong for even jumping on my assertion.

since i would never follow BHOs tweets (or anyone's for that matter), to me (and other's like myself) whether he, himself tweeted it or one of his team did, it's all the same source.


edit on 21-11-2012 by Connector because: can't be bothered, you still don't get it



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by FreebirdGirl
 


This is not an official site of the president
to the best of my knowledge, Twitter never has been. why would BHOs twitter account be managed/manipulated by any outside group that merely supports him ??

regardless who published the story, the Obama Administration produced, sponsored, tweeted and now has to defend such belligerent tactics of divide & conquer.

it's well known that in his first 4yrs, Obama has been recognized as the BEST salesman in the weapons industry and it certainly wouldn't suprise me if his second 4 produce the biggest Klan resurgence in history.


Did you read my post? It's not who published the story. It 's who created and administered the survey. Some are just too blind with hatred to get to the truth. The Obama administration has nothing to do with this survey.
The op knows this and only wants attention and to divide people. The title of this thread should read "Obama supporters survey ---" But that wouldn't get people's attention would it?



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



The US is the first nation that ever stood up for rights, anyone's rights, "dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."


So there was no such thing as rights in lets say ancient Greece?

The "rights" of the people have been evolving for thousands of years, the US was simply the first nation to actually uphold these rights with law (and I can't make that statement without adding that it is not necessarily true).


While people in the US were able to support voting rights and other rights for women and minorities, most of the rest of the world was practicing conquest and slavery.


You are right a lot of the world was, but not most of the western world. If I am not mistaken the English abolished slavery 100 years before we did. Women had the right to vote in some European nations nearly a decade before the US did, women also could not directly own property in the US until the early 1900's.


Not only do old fashion American values include freedom of speech and religion, still not protected in most countries, they also include principes like help thy neighbor.


Are you suggesting that prejudice and bigotry were not rampant in Colonial and post Revolution America? Such a notion is absurd. You think the "help thy neighbor" mentality only existed in America and not in England or France, or Germany, or Italy, or Spain, nonsense! In fact I would be bold enough to state that such compassion was more prevalent in early European communities than early American ones.

The early US was a very live free and die hard kind of place. Where the rich flourished and the poor begged scraps.



Those who want to pretend third world leaders are a bunch of saints, superior to US values are living a fantasy.


Well in the 18th century the US was a third world country with imperialistic goals.
edit on 21-11-2012 by Openeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by SaturnFX
 



there is no constitutency group for white people...nor men.


Plenty of men's groups !!

And even some for "Caucasians" ....

Welcome to the Men's Rights Association


google "men's rights" and get 100's of hits.

google "caucasian rights" and get 100's of hits..


The "bubble" on the level is not in the center of the glass tube





Thanks for that. I didn't know such groups existed.
I guess their numbers are too small to be considered relevant overall.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Openeye
 


The northern colonies in the US did away with slavery, and some never accepted slavery, as early as the Europeans.

And the Brits actually supported the South, where slavery was institutionalized, over the North where slavery was abolished.

But, what you ignore is that you are talking about the decency of European white men over US white men, and more accurately, northern European white men.

You still are ignoring the record of non-whites on slavery.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Trustfund
 


I expect everyone to get an equal chance to identify themselves, as opposed to a special privileged few groups.

Obviously you fully support have specially privileged groups.



I have no clue what you're talking about or how you discern that from me stating historical facts.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



You still are ignoring the record of non-whites on slavery.


Honestly I was not acknowledging the other parts of the world at all, I was simply comparing early America to early Europe.

If you wish I will for the sake of setting this point to rest state that the the vast majority of Asia and Africa had a much more brutal slave trade. However exceptions can be made such as in Japan where slavery was officially banned as early as the 17th century (although indentured servitude did continue in some provinces). This was upheld until the Nationalists took power.

The point of my post was to point out the hypocrisy of the early American notion of "All men are created equal" which was not true, because women did not have the same rights as white men, blacks did not have the same rights as white men, and the whole western imperialist expansion of the United States went against everything that "All men are created equal" stands for. Our interpretation of our rights and the rights of others became more enlightened as old ideas died and new ones formed.

We (as I am a citizen of the US) were not an enlightened nation in those days, we were idealists who could not fulfill our idealism because of the system we created, a system of survival of the fittest.
edit on 21-11-2012 by Openeye because: forgot to add the word not
edit on 21-11-2012 by Openeye because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by FreebirdGirl
 


So you say that the website barackobama.com is NOT an official Obama website ??




Paid for by Obama for America

© 2011–2012 Obama for America. All Rights Reserved.


It is.


I think his administration people know all about this.

The questionnaire is probably a well planned bait tactic.

No accidents or mistakes....it was planned exactly as we see it.

No doubt about it.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 





minorities were often denied voting rights due to the mere fact that they were not property owners, period


No. Black people were LARGELY denied the right vote regardless if they had money or didn't, whether they owned property or not. Voting was mostly available to WHITE land owners. By the mid 1850's the whole land owner thing was abolished, then it went onto discriminating against women, blacks, and other minorities.


When the Constitution was written, only white male property owners (about 10 to 16 percent of the nation's population) had the vote. Over the past two centuries, though, the term "government by the people" has become a reality. During the early 1800s, states gradually dropped property requirements for voting. Later, groups that had been excluded previously gained the right to vote. Other reforms made the process fairer and easier.

Read more: U.S. Voting Rights www.infoplease.com...




1790 Only white male adult property-owners have the right to vote.

1850 Property ownership and tax requirements eliminated by 1850. Almost all adult white males could vote.

1855 Connecticut adopts the nation's first literacy test for voting. Massachusetts follows suit in 1857. The tests were implemented to discriminate against Irish-Catholic immigrants.

1870 The 15th Amendment is passed. It gives former slaves the right to vote and protects the voting rights of adult male citizens of any race. (But with Jim Crow era discrimination, didn't really protect minorities)

1889 Florida adopts a poll tax. Ten other southern states will implement poll taxes.

1915 Oklahoma was the last state to append a grandfather clause to its literacy requirement (1910). In Guinn v. United States the Supreme Court rules that the clause is in conflict with the 15th Amendment, thereby outlawing literacy tests for federal elections.

1920 The 19th Amendment guarantees women's suffrage.

1924 Indian Citizenship Act grants all Native Americans the rights of citizenship, including the right to vote in federal elections.

1944 The Supreme Court outlaws "white primaries" in Smith v. Allwright (Texas). In Texas, and other states, primaries were conducted by private associations, which, by definion, could exclude whomever they chose. The Court declares the nomination process to be a public process bound by the terms of 15th Amendment.

1965 The Voting Rights Act protects the rights of minority voters and eliminates voting barriers such as the literacy test. The Act is expanded and renewed in 1970, 1975, and 1982.



African Americans and Native Americans were excluded, and, at different times and places, the Protestant majority denied the vote to Catholics and Jews. In some places, propertied women, free blacks, and Native Americans could vote, but those exceptions were just that. They were not signs of a popular belief in universal suffrage.


www.history.org...



surprisingly, the US was the first and ONLY country in the world to give voting weight to property, and that is what the 3/5's clause is about. until you understand that, you know nothing.


I already know what the 3/5ths compromise is about. The whole point was that slavery was mentioned in the constitution. You should read as to what I was replying to.



however, if you keep picking at the scab, it will bleed again.


Yes, cry over people discussing historical facts. Better not celebrate the 4rth of July, we might offend the British.



the whole truth, not the fables and partial truths of the Northern Aggression.[


The north was more segregated than the south. Detroit was the most segregated city in the USA. Racism before and after slavery was rampant in both the north and south. So I have no clue what you're talking about.

edit on 21-11-2012 by Trustfund because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trustfund
The outrage in this thread is being caused by white men not being put first place in society, like they were historically.

That's my e-psychologist diagnosis. It is an extreme insecurity and self importance issue.





Alphabetical would have been OK.......and eliminated those "special" priorities.

Oh wait, it is in alphabetical order !!!

just missing "Caucasian" and "Men"


busted again



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 





Then why did you talk around the facts that prove you wrong, that the US was the first to recognize any human rights.


You don't know anything about facts or history.

Do you not realize the US constitution was modeled after the Magna Carta and British Bill of rights? The British BOR and US BOR is almost identical and that was written in 1689.


In the United Kingdom, the Bill of Rights is further accompanied by the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 as some of the basic documents of the uncodified British constitution.[6] A separate but similar document, the Claim of Right Act, applies in Scotland. The Bill of Rights (1688 or 1689) was one of the inspirations for the United States Bill of Rights.[7]


en.wikipedia.org...




Compared to how slaves were treat in Latin America, Asia, or Africa, slaves in the US got a very good deal.


No. Slavery in the USA was awful, and not a good deal at all. Maybe you should go read some slave "diaries" so you can understand the horror.




You are talking about the way the US was over a century ago,


1965 isn't a century ago.


edit on 21-11-2012 by Trustfund because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
We sure have a long effin way to go in the next thirty days.
This is a piece of propaganda folks.....but even lets call it a unity poll, and its still just propaganda....cunningly structured to divide ANY group who tries to discuss it because its flawed at its incept.....
The thing it has done however , is DIVIDE you all.........
Now you are perfect meat for the HEGELIAN SOLUTION that i feel certain to come THIS TERM>
MHO



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 


See my above edit.
i did and commented on it.


I didn't give any opinion 'cause I'm not american, so figured I'd get the usual response " Leave America to Americans and keep your foreign opinions out".
hmmmm, presumptions seem to be your thing, why stop now ?


Being polite I guess.....
ok, if you say so.


I'll peruse a thread and if I see something factually wrong or at the very least needing some fact checking, I'll point it out. Adios for real this time....I've got 3 eps of Dexter cued up.....and this is all getting to far off topic.
i'm glad you are considerate enough to check your own assumptions before insisting they are facts


Dexter ??? sorry, i don't know what that is.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by FreebirdGirl
 


Did you read my post?
yep, the whole thing.
i only quoted the part that was incorrect.


It's not who published the story. It 's who created and administered the survey.
hmmmm, according to the survey, it was paid for by an Obama/Biden campaign group. doesn't say anything about who prepared it.
so, where are the facts to back up your assertion ?

you must be referring to the group that PAID for it, right ?
from the OPs links (within the story posted)

Paid for by Obama for America
so, since a third party paid for it, you assume the Administration had nothing to do with it, is this your position ?? boy, that's a stretch.


The Obama administration has nothing to do with this survey.
proof please or your words are simply that, words.

you would have to ask the OP about his/her intentions.
i found the title appropriate as the survey is discriminatory.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Openeye
 


Well in the 18th century the US was a third world country with imperialistic goals.
????

the US didn't exist until the last 24yrs of the 18th century so how 'bout some facts to back up your BS ?

anytime during the 18th century, until the US was formed, America was already an imperialist group of English colonies, remember ?

the US broke from the Imperialistic designs of the Empire and created a new vision, one which has been consistently bombarded ever since.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Renegade2283

Originally posted by shelookslikeone
After all, we need to make sure that a woman has her womanly right to murder her unborn child, but God forbid a man have a say so in absolutely anything that happens in his marriage - let alone his country.....

.....But God forbid a white person take pride in his race.


Though I do appreciate that you brought this to our attention, could you leave abortion and god out of it? I'm not trying to nitpick here, it just turns some people off right away when you divert off into such things. I'm really just trying to help you reform your post to one that will prevent people from straying off from the main topic into ones that don't exactly pertain to it, like abortion and religion.

Anyways, thanks for posting.



It fits. Abortion is an issues about marginalizing men in general. Not taking sides at this point.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Trustfund
 

until you get your history straight, you'll have to direct this nonsense to an appropriate thread, this isn't it and you're still wrong.

i never said anything about $$ (personal wealth), i said property owners, many of whom were equally broke by the way.

and, fyi, even in the south, property owners (regardless skin color) voted.
land owner thing abolished by 1850s ?? yeah, sure ... got a link ?


give it up, you're still full of it and IT isn't facts.
i see you are also ignoring the whole "must be literate" to vote as well and everyone knows the slave population as well as minorities were the most illiterate of the groups available during that time.

perhaps you should review this rather "infoplease"
www.aclu.org...

one important FACT you are either glossing over, purposely ignoring or simply wish to forget is this ... it wasn't until 1866 that ALL white men were granted the right to vote in one single state (NC to be specific) ... are you following that ?? ... in a southern slave state, all white men did NOT have the right to vote until after 1866.
and by 1870 {just 4yrs later} Amendment 15, granting voting rights to all black males was ratified.

it was NOT a racial thing no matter how hard you try to make it one.
the facts are there for those who wish to know.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Trustfund
 


there is no such thing as almost identical but thanks for the chuckle.

also the US Bill of Rights does not grant rights as the MC does, it guarantees that those specific and unalienable rights shall not be infringed.

in summary, they aren't even close let alone almost identical.


pssssst ... there was no such "slavery" in 1965.
and what's moreso, there was no such "slavery" in 1912 either (a century ago).

ETA - contrary to your own opinion, a history buff you're not.
you might wanna brush up before you attempt to engage the other threads mentioned.
edit on 22-11-2012 by Honor93 because: ETA





new topics
top topics
 
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join


ATS Live Reality Remix IS ON-AIR! (there are 24 minutes remaining).
ATS Live Radio Presents - Reality Remix Live SE6 EP6

atslive.com

hi-def

low-def