logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Will White People Riot if McCain Loses?, Who will lose it and go off?
nighttimer
post Oct 30 2008, 07:33 PM
Post #1


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Newspaper columnist Wendi C. Thomas writing for The Root.com speculated on what might happen if Barack Obama lost the election.

Oct. 20, 2008-- "Would black people riot if Sen. Barack Obama didn't win the election?" That was the question a white man in Memphis recently asked a racial reconciliation group with which I am involved.

After five years of being a columnist for the daily paper in Memphis, I wasn't surprised by the absurdity of his query. Many whites still labor under the illusion that black folk act en masse and that if you ask the right one, you can get the official position of some 40 million people. If a few of us get angry, that logic allows, it must surely result in a riot.

The reply to the curious white gentleman: "No! There is no reason to believe black people will riot if Obama does not win."

But soon after getting this man's e-mail, I started to wonder if he was on to something, if he had noticed what I had: a seething, barely constrained, ugly anger and frustration that makes good riot fuel. The kind of anger that prompts people to shout "Kill him!" and "Off with his head!" at rallies. The kind of hatefulness that would prompt a man to bring a stuffed monkey with an "Obama" sticker on the toy's head to a campaign event.

That kind of group-fueled nastiness must surely beg the question: Will white people riot if Obama wins?
link

In what has been a highly volatile campaign there have been numerous reports of racially motivated ugliness directed at Barack Obama. Some of the low points include the Ashley Todd hoax, the ATF arresting two skinheads who wanted to kill Obama along with shooting 88 people and decapitating 14 African-Americans and Obama being hung in effigy on the University of Kentucky campus.

The question for debate:

1. What's more likely? John McCain loses and White people riot or Barack Obama loses and Black people riot?

2. If neither scenario occurs, is that a sign of progress and maturity?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
lederuvdapac
post Oct 30 2008, 09:06 PM
Post #2


*********
Mr. Free Market

Sponsor
August 2006

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,940
Member No.: 2,573
Joined: March-4-04

From: A New Yorker in DC
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(nighttimer)
1. What's more likely? John McCain loses and White people riot or Barack Obama loses and Black people riot?

2. If neither scenario occurs, is that a sign of progress and maturity?


I do not care who wins the election. I will either spend the next four years explaining why McCain is wrong or why Obama is wrong. Makes little difference. However, i am interested in the outcome of the election for the reasons you alluded to. Obama is way ahead in the polls. He has blueified (patent pending!) many former red states like New Mexico and Colorado and has put into play traditionally red states like North Carolina and Indiana. With such a large lead in the polls, everyone's expectations are high. If the polls turn out to be inaccurate and Obama loses, then a number of things will happen.

First, racism will definitely be determined as the deciding factor. People would be hard pressed to find another explanation for why the polling data five days before an election was so off. It would certainly be very telling of the state of our country.

Second, it would make people question all polling companies in the future. "Our polls are accurate...except when it comes to black politicians."

Thirdly, our international image will be tarnished. How can we claim to be defenders of liberty and equality around the world when the polls that showed Obama winning handily turned out to be a farce? Talk about a tough sell.

Now if the election is closer than the polls suggest, which I am inclined to think, but Obama still wins then nobody will pay too much attention to the issue of race as a factor. Will people riot? Probably not, at least i hope not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnfrmCleveland
post Oct 30 2008, 09:28 PM
Post #3


********
Master Debater

Sponsor
September 2009

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,459
Member No.: 8,090
Joined: November-1-07

From: Cleveland, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Oct 30 2008, 05:06 PM) *
Second, it would make people question all polling companies in the future. "Our polls are accurate...except when it comes to black politicians."


Should Obama lose at this point, I would be more suspicious of election stealing than bad polling. Was anyone else a little creeped out by McCain's "guarantee" of victory?

So I don't see any chance of a riot if McCain loses. There will probably be some ugly (but isolated) incidents, but no riot. On the other hand, if the election looks too fishy, I'll be looking around for a stick. Well, probably not, but I'd be pretty ticked, anyway.

And now, there is little left to do but vote. Electronically, with no paper printout this time. (Even in Ohio, you could look at the paper printout of your electronic selections, under glass. Couldn't take it with you, but you could look at it.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 30 2008, 09:50 PM
Post #4


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,351
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



1. What's more likely? John McCain loses and White people riot or Barack Obama loses and Black people riot?

Oh, I think it's much more likely that White people will cause some sort of trouble if Obama wins. I'm just uncertain if rioting is what they (don't count me in on this, please!) will do. I'm thinking more like burning churches, clandestine meetings wearing some ridiculous getup, maybe a couple of states get a secede-from-the-Union thing going. I'm judging this strictly on historical profiling mrsparkle.gif

Rioting is for poor people. We all know that the typical McCain supporter thinks she or he will eventually be hauling down $250k per year. Sure it's dreaming, but you think these people have any handle on reality?

Rioting is for deeply hurt people. If Obama loses, it's not like they shot MLK, is it. Got within a fly's breath of the White House, pretty darn good I'd say. Got to fight with a White woman and didn't get thrown in the slammer, not bad!

2. If neither scenario occurs, is that a sign of progress and maturity?

Sure thing mrsparkle.gif

And I probably wouldn't miss the Southern states if they decide to CS it again. Just think, no more Florida . . . no more worries about monster Gulf hurricanes . . . maybe both Virginia and West Virginia will stick around this time . . . and of course no more Memphis. Bummer, good music out that way. Maybe they'll let an expatriate visit?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lesly
post Oct 30 2008, 09:53 PM
Post #5


********
'Bryos before Hoes!

Sponsor
May 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,477
Member No.: 2,838
Joined: April-1-04

From: Columbus, OH
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



I like the thread's unexpected and refreshing title.

What's more likely; John McCain loses and white people riot or Barack Obama loses and black people riot?
This question has come up for months, although this is the first time I see it asked of McCain supporters. White people don't riot and sabotage the democratic process. It's not in their genes. Or something.

Leder brings up several good points, but like John, I think it's more likely we'll see pitched battles than anything resembling a King riot. I'm not so concerned about presidential election results as ballot measures that rock the boat.

After the Schiavo legal fiasco Paul Weyrich predicted the right lost the culture war. Since then ballot measures restricting abortion have been defeated, but gay marriage didn't do as well. This year states have kinder, genlter abortion restrictions up for vote, including giving fertilized eggs the same legal rights you and I enjoy in Colorado, and Californians are voting to ban gay marriage. It doesn't look good, partly because Obama is doing well in the polls, and going by some of the videos I've come across I think some people might act out if the public doesn't vote to their liking on values issues, regardless of race.

This post has been edited by Lesly: Oct 30 2008, 09:53 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bikerdad
post Oct 30 2008, 09:58 PM
Post #6


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,830
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



The question for debate:

1. What's more likely? John McCain loses and White people riot or Barack Obama loses and Black people riot?

Barack loses and black people riot. Sorry Nighttimer, but your question is pretty much on line with "which is more likely, cartoonists mock Jesus Christ and Christians riot (.001%), or cartoonists mock Mohammed and Moslems riot (99.5%)", albeit not with the extreme difference in likelihood that my question raises.

Feel free to run down the list of "racially motivated" riots by whites in this country in recent decades versus the list of such riots by blacks. (to be fair, if, by some freakish circumstance, we were asking this question in the early 1900s, the list of racially motivated white race riots would be much longer than the reverse.) Even the violence of the Toledo riots (2005) wasn't conducted by the National Socialist Movement (Neo-Nazis), but rather by the local black street gangs and out-of-town anarchists and agitators of inderteminate ethnicity.

I would put the probability of a McCain/white race riot at about 0.5%. An Obama/black riot? About 5%. Obama/moonbats of all stripes riot? About 20%. I believe that the radicals, the Kossacks and MoveOn and ACT UP types are far more likely to lose it if McCain wins. You know, the sort of people that composed the Weathermen Underground, like Obama's good buddy Ayers. biggrin.gif

2. If neither scenario occurs, is that a sign of progress and maturity?
If McCain wins and there's no riots, it will be a modest sign of progress (by, ironically enough, the "Progressives") and maturity, in large part because the level of "dashed hopes and expectations" will be much higher, hopes held largely by the most infantilized segments of our society (college academics, inveterate Leftists and those in the thrall of black poverty pimps {Sharpton, Jackson, Wright, Mfume, etc}). Disappointed infants tend to throw tantrums, which when undertaken collectively by those who are physically grown ups are termed "riots." If Obama wins and there's no riots, it will be a sign of yet another normal power transition in the oldest democracy in the world, i.e. maturity. The lack of rioting in such case won't signal "progress", because it's where we've been for 200 years.

My question for you is, what if Obama wins, and there are BLACKS rioting in celebration? While I agree that seems a bit far fetched, given the idiocy that has accompanied too many recent sports championships, its certainly possible.

What should we conclude then? ph34r.gif Would rioting in celebration be more or less damaging to the "black cause" than rioting in protest/disappointment? What if the celebratory riots reach far beyond the black community to encompass idiots of all colors, classes and ethnicities? Will that be a sign of "progress and maturity"?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wertz
post Oct 30 2008, 10:02 PM
Post #7


Group Icon

*********
Advanced Senior

Sponsor
January 2003

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 3,235
Member No.: 181
Joined: October-23-02

From: Franklinville PA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



What's more likely? John McCain loses and White people riot or Barack Obama loses and Black people riot?

At this stage, it looks more likely that McCain will lose. If he does, I expect a spike in white on black violence, but I'm not sure if there will be outright rioting. I suspect it will be more isolated incidents of random attacks on African-Americans.

Should Obama lose, there will be widespread disappointment and a lot of suspicion of a rigged election. This would probably lead to demonstrations - at least. From there, it depends on how the police (and election officials) handle the situation. There could be similar isolated attacks against some whites, but I suspect most of the anger will be directed at election authorities and so on.

I hope there isn't wholesale rioting. That's exactly why the Bush administration has been sinking so much money into weapons to be used against civilian populations, why internment camps are being built, and why troops are now stationed on US soil for domestic deployment. Should there be widespread unrest and violence, it could well usher in the full police state that Bushco has had waiting in the wings for years now.

If neither scenario occurs, is that a sign of progress and maturity?

I think so, yes. But something tells me that, regardless of the outcome, there will be some violence.


Further to John's point, it is a national disgrace that there will be polling with no paper trail again this year. Unless and until every polling station in the country has individually verifiable ballots, I will not trust any election results, no matter who wins.

Further to AM's sentiments, I wouldn't mind a red state secession from the union, either - and this time we shouldn't make the mistake of wanting them back so that they can live off the taxes of the blue states. If we did fight and win another civil war, we should do what we didn't do in 1864: imprison the rebel population for life, raze their cities, and salt the freakin' earth. But I'd much rather leave them to languish in their own poverty and ignorance. us.gif


This post has been edited by Wertz: Oct 30 2008, 11:37 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
quick
post Oct 30 2008, 10:07 PM
Post #8


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 824
Member No.: 6,407
Joined: August-22-06

From: USA
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(nighttimer @ Oct 30 2008, 03:33 PM) *
Newspaper columnist Wendi C. Thomas writing for The Root.com speculated on what might happen if Barack Obama lost the election.

Oct. 20, 2008-- "Would black people riot if Sen. Barack Obama didn't win the election?" That was the question a white man in Memphis recently asked a racial reconciliation group with which I am involved.

After five years of being a columnist for the daily paper in Memphis, I wasn't surprised by the absurdity of his query. Many whites still labor under the illusion that black folk act en masse and that if you ask the right one, you can get the official position of some 40 million people. If a few of us get angry, that logic allows, it must surely result in a riot.

The reply to the curious white gentleman: "No! There is no reason to believe black people will riot if Obama does not win."

But soon after getting this man's e-mail, I started to wonder if he was on to something, if he had noticed what I had: a seething, barely constrained, ugly anger and frustration that makes good riot fuel. The kind of anger that prompts people to shout "Kill him!" and "Off with his head!" at rallies. The kind of hatefulness that would prompt a man to bring a stuffed monkey with an "Obama" sticker on the toy's head to a campaign event.

That kind of group-fueled nastiness must surely beg the question: Will white people riot if Obama wins?
link

In what has been a highly volatile campaign there have been numerous reports of racially motivated ugliness directed at Barack Obama. Some of the low points include the Ashley Todd hoax, the ATF arresting two skinheads who wanted to kill Obama along with shooting 88 people and decapitating 14 African-Americans and Obama being hung in effigy on the University of Kentucky campus.

The question for debate:

1. What's more likely? John McCain loses and White people riot or Barack Obama loses and Black people riot?

2. If neither scenario occurs, is that a sign of progress and maturity?



1) Since there is so much racial crossover in this election, I think your question is tantamount to race-baiting, but I'll bite.

I think the better answer is blacks will be much more likely to riot if Obama loses. Why? There are a number of reasons, but one stands out: The MSM has made the actual voting seem like a fait accomplis; the polling data (according to the MSM) shows an Obama landslide so "how can he lose except for the Man stealing from a brutha?" This gap between perception and result, by itself, could cause serious issues and, potentially, rioting among blacks who may have never voted before and are emotionally invested in this election to the nth degree. On the other hand, if McCain loses, his supporters will say, "Well, that's what CNN said would happen," shrug, and be done with it (and promptly move all assets offshore).

2) No comment.

This post has been edited by quick: Oct 30 2008, 10:09 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
logophage
post Oct 30 2008, 10:25 PM
Post #9


********
Millennium Mark

Sponsor
August 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,456
Member No.: 3,058
Joined: May-8-04

From: California
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



1. What's more likely? John McCain loses and White people riot or Barack Obama loses and Black people riot?

I don't believe there will be riots in the classic sense should either candidate win.

This gives me an opportunity to present my theory should Obama win. If Obama is POTUS, we will see a spike in right-wing-based domestic terrorism just like we saw during the Clinton years. We will see more right wing militias doing crazy militia things like blowing up medical clinics (that perform abortions) and government buildings. We will see more lone bombers and gunmen. We will see more right-wing religious groups stockpiling weapons and fighting the "jack-booted thugs" known as the ATF, DEA & FBI. In other words, the right wing crazies will come out of the woodwork to "celebrate" an Obama presidency. They will be white. We're already seeing assassination plots being foiled. Leave it to the right-wing crazies to be against terrorism before they're for it...

Should McCain be POTUS, we will see more demonstrations. Some of these demonstrations will be tainted by small groups of left-wing crazies who will destroy property and fight against the crowd controllers. Radical green-based terrorism may spike but I doubt it: McCain is pretty "green" as it is.

Overall, I predict a greater spike in domestic terrorism for an Obama win than for a McCain win. Riots...unlikely.

2. If neither scenario occurs, is that a sign of progress and maturity?

No.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SuzySteamboat
post Oct 30 2008, 10:48 PM
Post #10


******
I'm in ur White House, packin ur courts.

Sponsor
July 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 410
Member No.: 962
Joined: August-3-03

From: Cincinnati
Gender: Female
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None




1. What's more likely? John McCain loses and White people riot or Barack Obama loses and Black people riot?


At the root of this double-standard - "black people will riot if they don't get what they want," while white people are forever seen and hailed as law-abiding, peaceful citizens is really just a matter of the old deeply held belief that black people, or really, anyone who looks "dark" (see Hispanics, Arabs, etc.) are just naturally unevolved, reactive, barbaric, and violent. It wasn't that long ago that some of these evolved Caucasians were forming lynch mobs, but today they are civilized. It's kind of a Bell Curve effect, as I label it. We'll openly denounce the conclusions, but deep down we've internalized the meaning. The darker you are, the less evolved and civilized you are. Why else would there be such surprise when we're so "eloquent" and "well-spoken?" Did they expect a stream of "ugga boogas?" Why are cops so quick to draw their weapons at people of color? When was the last time you heard of a young white female being tasered? I guarantee you it's not because they don't fight. I don't think the Minutemen would be so eager to use lethal force - or would even exist - if Maria Gonzalez was Natasha Petrova.

It's social conditioning, and the media plays a big part. There was recently an 18-year-old white guy who attends my former high school who was accused of violently raping a young teen. You wouldn't believe how people were tripping over themselves in the comments to rush to defend this young looking white face. Somehow the fact that he actually confessed eluded them - there were several pages of debating over statuatory rape laws, because of course this must just be a case of a senior dating a freshman, who falsely cried rape to get revenge. One person asked if we really had to show his photo. Another hypothesized - admittedly so - that he must have just broken down in the interrogation room and falsely confessed.

If Obama loses, I think there might be violent outbursts from people of all races. He wouldn't be winning in the polls if he was only supported by blacks. On the other side, if McCain loses, any possible acts of violence would likely be limited to whites, simply due to the racial makeup of Republicans. Tensions are, of course, extremely high in this election. But I would definitely argue that the evidence supports (based on my observations of the violence and threats made toward McCain vs. Obama) that Republicans might be more upset and reactive if McCain loses - they've been conditioned to believe that Obama is a Muslim terrorist out to destroy their America, after all. Is there such widely held fear among Obama supporters, that McCain will not only be just "bad" for America, but will actively engage in destroying it because he's "anti-American?" Not that I can see. We think that McCain will further harm America, but we've survived bad policies before. There are McCain supporters, however, who seriously believe that Obama is the anti-Christ.

2. If neither scenario occurs, is that a sign of progress and maturity?

I honestly couldn't tell you. We'd really have to have a similar event in history to compare it to in order to say whether we've progressed and matured one way or another, and I can't think of any. Like it's been said, America is an experiment of sorts, and we've just never tested this particular hypothesis before.

QUOTE(quick)
"how can he lose except for the Man stealing from a brutha?"
Dude, we all exactly talk like this! You know us so well! Thank you for proving my point about "ugga boogas."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gordo
post Oct 30 2008, 11:03 PM
Post #11


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 864
Member No.: 6,220
Joined: June-28-06

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Oct 30 2008, 09:58 PM) *
My question for you is, what if Obama wins, and there are BLACKS rioting in celebration? While I agree that seems a bit far fetched, given the idiocy that has accompanied too many recent sports championships, its certainly possible.

What should we conclude then? ph34r.gif Would rioting in celebration be more or less damaging to the "black cause" than rioting in protest/disappointment? What if the celebratory riots reach far beyond the black community to encompass idiots of all colors, classes and ethnicities? Will that be a sign of "progress and maturity"?


I think race is a very dangerous issue right now. Giving that it is what it is in America I would hate to see it become something of a permanent fixture during a presidency. Think of the political spin machine but with racism, who would want to see an America like that? Even with all the bush hating obama has not even got into office and already two ignorant people have been taking into custody on what could only be some form of “organized” lunacy.

Its ridiculous and it would be a shame for such a thing to loom during a presidency.

I think this just goes to show the adult world or mature world of communication barriers. I mean I know we are all vertebrates but talking is not impossible. Its also lame to think of disgust over a loss for instance being something that would fuel such.

I don't have any high hopes for great things if Obama wins, the country is such a mess right now I will be happy if we don't implode making any more wars and what not. Hey maybe even the debt might not clime at some frantic rate. Beyond that he is just a person and not my personal messiah. I mean if you can accept a person who would uses claims of communion with some higher power hand in hand with logic for why to go to a war I don't know how you can have overly stringent criteria for being a human while still being able to live with people.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Oct 30 2008, 11:21 PM
Post #12


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,685
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



1. What's more likely? John McCain loses and White people riot or Barack Obama loses and Black people riot?

I'll be surprised if either happens. I'll be even more surprised if John McCain wins though.

With regards to white people rioting, it happens all the time here, we even had another one last night. (and I'm sorry logophage but they're always left wingers).


2. If neither scenario occurs, is that a sign of progress and maturity?

Only if you have very low expectations.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
logophage
post Oct 30 2008, 11:32 PM
Post #13


********
Millennium Mark

Sponsor
August 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,456
Member No.: 3,058
Joined: May-8-04

From: California
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(moif @ Oct 30 2008, 04:21 PM) *
I'll be surprised if either happens. I'll be even more surprised if John McCain wins though.

With regards to white people rioting, it happens all the time here, we even had another one last night. (and I'm sorry logophage but they're always left wingers).

Heh. Well, you'll note in my earlier post that I specifically said that there wouldn't be riots in the US. I'm not sure what you're apologizing for. But, apologies accepted.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bikerdad
post Oct 31 2008, 01:40 AM
Post #14


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,830
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(SuzySteamboat @ Oct 30 2008, 05:48 PM) *

1. What's more likely? John McCain loses and White people riot or Barack Obama loses and Black people riot?


At the root of this double-standard - "black people will riot if they don't get what they want,"

Unfortunately for you, over the last 40 years in this country, black people HAVE been more likely to riot en masse when they don't get what they want than white people. That's not a double standard, its simply a fact.


QUOTE
while white people are forever seen and hailed as law-abiding, peaceful citizens is really just a matter of the old deeply held belief that black people, or really, anyone who looks "dark" (see Hispanics, Arabs, etc.) are just naturally unevolved, reactive, barbaric, and violent. It wasn't that long ago that some of these evolved Caucasians were forming lynch mobs, but today they are civilized.
"forever seen", yet you point out the lynch mobs, which, in your formulation seems to be exclusively a Caucasion failing? Sorry, but your claim of double standards and insinuation of historical ignorance on the part of those seeing more likelihood of black rioting than white falls flat, completely undermined by your own historical ignorance and double standard.

Its a simple fact of human existence that recent actions of people are a better indicator of future actions than are actions in the more distant past. Also, actions of one cultural group are better at predicting the actions of similar culture groups than they are at predicting the actions of dissimilar culture groups. Thus, Asian-Americans serve as a better predictor of the behavior of black Americans than do black Africans.

QUOTE
It's kind of a Bell Curve effect, as I label it. We'll openly denounce the conclusions, but deep down we've internalized the meaning. The darker you are, the less evolved and civilized you are. Why else would there be such surprise when we're so "eloquent" and "well-spoken?" Did they expect a stream of "ugga boogas?" Why are cops so quick to draw their weapons at people of color?
Because "people of color" commit a disproportionate percentage of crimes in this country, mostly against other people of color.

QUOTE
When was the last time you heard of a young white female being tasered? I guarantee you it's not because they don't fight.
hmm, a few weeks ago I believe. The main reason why young white females aren't tasered very often, certainly not compared to young black males, is because YWF are both less likely to fight, and much easier to subdue. Of course, if you can demonstrate that Young Black Females are being tasered at a rate higher than Young White Males, then you might have an argument.

QUOTE
I don't think the Minutemen would be so eager to use lethal force
If they're as eager as you claim, then why haven't they used lethal force yet? hmmm.gif hmmm.gif

QUOTE
- or would even exist - if Maria Gonzalez was Natasha Petrova.
Wow, yet more historical ignorance. Just jump start your "McCarthyism" meme and you'll see that Natasha Petrova would likely have fared a mere 2 decades ago....

QUOTE
It's social conditioning, and the media plays a big part. There was recently an 18-year-old white guy who attends my former high school who was accused of violently raping a young teen. You wouldn't believe how people were tripping over themselves in the comments to rush to defend this young looking white face.
As opposed to those who rushed to villify the Duke lacrosse team? As an anecdote, the Duke lacrosse circus is much more powerful in demonstrating reverse discrimination than your anecdote.

QUOTE
If Obama loses, I think there might be violent outbursts from people of all races.
Which goes to my prediction.

QUOTE
But I would definitely argue that the evidence supports (based on my observations of the violence and threats made toward McCain vs. Obama) that Republicans might be more upset and reactive if McCain loses
Really? What threats? The unsupported and baseless allegations of "kill him" from a Republican rally? (The Secret Service investigated, and found no evidence of any such utterance.) The two losers? I don't know about you, but I always figured it took a lot more than two people to make a riot.

Here's what some black talk show hosts have said:

Black talk-show hosts and black-themed Web sites are being flooded with callers and bloggers reflecting a nervousness -- and anger -- over the campaign. Bev Smith, a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host, devoted her entire three-hour show Monday night to the question: "If Obama doesn't win, what will you think?"

"My audience is upset," she said in an interview. "Some people said they would be so angry it would be reminiscent of the [1960s] riots -- that is how despondent they would be."


What does another "person of color" have to say about what will happen if McCain wins?

If McCain wins, look for a full-fledged race and class war, fueled by a deflated and depressed country, soaring crime, homelessness - and hopelessness!


QUOTE
- they've been conditioned to believe that Obama is a Muslim terrorist out to destroy their America, after all.
And, of course, significant minorities, if not the majority of white Republicans believe that... rolleyes.gif Most conservatives believe that Obama is a modest to hard-core socialist bent on remaking a "broken America" into a socialist utopian paradise. Does this amount to "destroying" America? Depends on whether you live in the redevelopment zone!

QUOTE
Is there such widely held fear among Obama supporters, that McCain will not only be just "bad" for America, but will actively engage in destroying it because he's "anti-American?"
No, but that's only because there is a limit to the psychosis of Obama supporters. They've got too much energy wrapped up in believing that Bush is bad and actively tying to destroy America that they haven't been able to shift focus onto McCain. tongue.gif

QUOTE
Not that I can see. We think that McCain will further harm America, but we've survived bad policies before. There are McCain supporters, however, who seriously believe that Obama is the anti-Christ.
I have it on good authority (New York's ever present street art) that Obama is not the anti-Christ. That would be Sarah Palin. devil.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Oct 31 2008, 04:33 AM
Post #15


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Bikerdad)
Unfortunately for you, over the last 40 years in this country, black people HAVE been more likely to riot en masse when they don't get what they want than white people. That's not a double standard, its simply a fact.

Can you back that with evidence, a comprehensive list of riots for instance?

I suspect that more of the recent race riots have (understandably) involved blacks.

But riots in general?

Show us some numbers.

QUOTE(Bikerdad)
Because "people of color" commit a disproportionate percentage of crimes in this country, mostly against other people of color.

...and yet people of all races are far more likely to be victimized by a member of their own race.

This post has been edited by turnea: Oct 31 2008, 04:39 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Oct 31 2008, 08:41 AM
Post #16


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Oct 30 2008, 09:40 PM) *
Unfortunately for you, over the last 40 years in this country, black people HAVE been more likely to riot en masse when they don't get what they want than white people. That's not a double standard, its simply a fact.


It is a fact that many of the most recent riots have been sparked by Blacks mad as hell and not going to take it anymore over something that sparked racial resentment into racial rage. The 1992 Los Angeles riots were terrible and 53 people lost their lives in the lawlessness that followed the exoneration of the policemen accused of beating motorist Rodney King.

However the New York Draft Riots of 1863 killed somewhere between 100 and 120 people, most of them Black, who were set upon by angry Whites.

Barnet Schecter's "The Devil's Own Work" gives the most thorough account yet of the riots that consumed New York over the course of four days, costing more than 100 American lives and leaving hundreds more injured, destitute or homeless. The infamous draft riots retain the dubious distinction of having the highest confirmed death toll of any riot in American history - claiming more White and Black casualties than the Tulsa riot of 1921, the Watts riots of 1965 or the Los Angeles riots of 1992.

Irish laborers subsisted only a notch above Black Americans - but it was a significant notch. There was no kinship between the downtrodden Irish and the lowly Blacks. Schecter writes: "[Irish Catholics] made the most of the racial caste system they saw all around them... Having once been the 'blacks of Europe,' the Irish insisted on their membership in the white race." Irish labor unions of the time were notoriously segregated. Irish craftsmen and longshoremen insisted upon segregated workplaces - and if necessary resorted to violence to enforce the mandate.

It was popularly, and falsely, believed among the Irish that if Black slaves were emancipated, they would steal Irish jobs. Schecter writes: "Blacks, rather than posing a competitive threat, in fact, occupied a lowly niche that kept the Irish on a slightly higher rung of the economic ladder."
link

Everyone is motivated by self-interest, Bikerdad, and when Whites feel their interests are being marginalized, they aren't adverse to picking up a rock or a torch and bashing in some poor bastard's skull, burning down some buildings and dusting off some cops and civvies.

The city's black citizens were perhaps the most obvious and visible targets of the rioters' wrath. By the end of the first day of rioting, It was not safe for African Americans to appear in public. Rioters beat individual black citizens and, in several instances, brutally murdered and mutilated African-American men. Black New Yorkers weren't even safe inside their homes as roaming bands of rioters attacked black neighborhoods. Not only were African Americans in danger; rioters also attacked white New Yorkers who provided shelter for endangered African Americans, sacking and burning the homes of white sympathizers. The crowd even attacked and burned brothels that catered to both white and black New Yorkers. link

Black people don't have a monopoly on violent and anti-social behavior. I'm not going to try and justify the Black riots of Watts, Newark and L.A. Don't try to sugarcoat New York or Tulsa and we'll be straight. There's a propensity by some people to act as if something horrible becomes less so as it recedes into history.

White people are just as likely as anyone else to go off when they don't get their way.

I seriously doubt White people will start breaking stuff if Barack Obama wins on Tuesday. A hardcore few will have to blow off steam, but the same principle will hold should a few knuckleheads of a darker persuasion decide to go outside and act a fool.

Most everyone else will handle any disappointment they may feel by getting quietly stoned or drunk on their butt. beer.gif dazed.gif

QUOTE(quick @ Oct 30 2008, 06:07 PM) *
1) Since there is so much racial crossover in this election, I think your question is tantamount to race-baiting, but I'll bite.


I rather expected you would and a large chunk at that. dry.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Zack
post Oct 31 2008, 12:04 PM
Post #17


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 570
Member No.: 8,030
Joined: October-11-07

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(nighttimer @ Oct 30 2008, 03:33 PM) *
Newspaper columnist Wendi C. Thomas writing for The Root.com speculated on what might happen if Barack Obama lost the election.

Oct. 20, 2008-- "Would black people riot if Sen. Barack Obama didn't win the election?" That was the question a white man in Memphis recently asked a racial reconciliation group with which I am involved.

After five years of being a columnist for the daily paper in Memphis, I wasn't surprised by the absurdity of his query. Many whites still labor under the illusion that black folk act en masse and that if you ask the right one, you can get the official position of some 40 million people. If a few of us get angry, that logic allows, it must surely result in a riot.

The reply to the curious white gentleman: "No! There is no reason to believe black people will riot if Obama does not win."

But soon after getting this man's e-mail, I started to wonder if he was on to something, if he had noticed what I had: a seething, barely constrained, ugly anger and frustration that makes good riot fuel. The kind of anger that prompts people to shout "Kill him!" and "Off with his head!" at rallies. The kind of hatefulness that would prompt a man to bring a stuffed monkey with an "Obama" sticker on the toy's head to a campaign event.

That kind of group-fueled nastiness must surely beg the question: Will white people riot if Obama wins?
link

In what has been a highly volatile campaign there have been numerous reports of racially motivated ugliness directed at Barack Obama. Some of the low points include the Ashley Todd hoax, the ATF arresting two skinheads who wanted to kill Obama along with shooting 88 people and decapitating 14 African-Americans and Obama being hung in effigy on the University of Kentucky campus.

The question for debate:

1. What's more likely? John McCain loses and White people riot or Barack Obama loses and Black people riot?

2. If neither scenario occurs, is that a sign of progress and maturity?
1. If whites and blacks didn't riot in 2000 or 2004 why should they now? On the other hand blacks have a record of rioting when group emotion overwhelms them as a group. I think this is a result of being propped up by Democrats as victims for decades, but I could be wrong. I think the death count could be greater than that in your signature block if Obama loses and it will be five to one black counts and race relations in America will be set back six decades.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Oct 31 2008, 12:12 PM
Post #18


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Zack @ Oct 31 2008, 07:04 AM) *
1. If whites and blacks didn't riot in 2000 or 2004 why should they now? On the other hand blacks have a record of rioting when group emotion overwhelms them as a group.

...and whites don't?

Again does anyone have any evidence for this assertion?

QUOTE(Zack)
I think this is a result of being propped up by Democrats as victims for decades, but I could be wrong.

You are, in so many ways.

QUOTE(Zack)
I think the death count could be greater than that in your signature block if Obama loses and it will be five to one black counts and race relations in America will be set back six decades.

Just pulling numbers out of the air aren't we?

Care to summarize race relation's in the late 1940's?

This post has been edited by turnea: Oct 31 2008, 12:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SuzySteamboat
post Oct 31 2008, 12:33 PM
Post #19


******
I'm in ur White House, packin ur courts.

Sponsor
July 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 410
Member No.: 962
Joined: August-3-03

From: Cincinnati
Gender: Female
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Oct 30 2008, 09:40 PM) *
QUOTE(SuzySteamboat @ Oct 30 2008, 05:48 PM) *

1. What's more likely? John McCain loses and White people riot or Barack Obama loses and Black people riot?


At the root of this double-standard - "black people will riot if they don't get what they want,"

Unfortunately for you, over the last 40 years in this country, black people HAVE been more likely to riot en masse when they don't get what they want than white people. That's not a double standard, its simply a fact.


Um, and what exactly is it about the last forty years that makes that number so special? Is there any reason you are arbitrarily deciding to begin with the era of civil rights marches, besides the fact that it lends greater evidence to your feeling that blacks are spoiled, tantrum-throwing kids when they don't get silly things like oh, say... equal rights?

I make no judgment on "who's rioted more." How do you quantify that? By number of initial cases? By length of riot, or by number of people involved in the riot? How do you decide how far back in history to go? Are revolts in the 20th century okay, but the 19th century "ancient news?"

If there is any perception that white people riot less (however you can begin to quantify that) than minorities, perhaps it is because there has never been such massive widespread government-endorsed systematic oppression of them.

QUOTE
QUOTE
while white people are forever seen and hailed as law-abiding, peaceful citizens is really just a matter of the old deeply held belief that black people, or really, anyone who looks "dark" (see Hispanics, Arabs, etc.) are just naturally unevolved, reactive, barbaric, and violent. It wasn't that long ago that some of these evolved Caucasians were forming lynch mobs, but today they are civilized.
"forever seen", yet you point out the lynch mobs, which, in your formulation seems to be exclusively a Caucasion failing? Sorry, but your claim of double standards and insinuation of historical ignorance on the part of those seeing more likelihood of black rioting than white falls flat, completely undermined by your own historical ignorance and double standard.

Its a simple fact of human existence that recent actions of people are a better indicator of future actions than are actions in the more distant past. Also, actions of one cultural group are better at predicting the actions of similar culture groups than they are at predicting the actions of dissimilar culture groups. Thus, Asian-Americans serve as a better predictor of the behavior of black Americans than do black Africans.


I have a double standard? rolleyes.gif Ah, but you have provided more insight as to how you chose to conveniently select the last 40 years as your sample size. Anything further back would be "more distant" and obviously have no bearing whatsoever on how we act today. History has never repeated itself when the history is older than that magical four decades.

As an aside, please educate yourself about logical inductions and deductions. My citing an example of "some of these evolved Caucasians were forming lynch mobs" cannot be extrapolated to mean that I only believe that whites can and have lynched people.

QUOTE
QUOTE
It's kind of a Bell Curve effect, as I label it. We'll openly denounce the conclusions, but deep down we've internalized the meaning. The darker you are, the less evolved and civilized you are. Why else would there be such surprise when we're so "eloquent" and "well-spoken?" Did they expect a stream of "ugga boogas?" Why are cops so quick to draw their weapons at people of color?
Because "people of color" commit a disproportionate percentage of crimes in this country, mostly against other people of color.


I would expect nothing less from you than an attempt to justify racial profiling. Too bad some innocent minorities lose their lives when a cop jumps the gun, but really, it's much better that a member of the executive branch kill an innocent American than a member of the executive branch lose his or her life in a decidedly dangerous profession. We should all be armed and so nervous and easily intimidated by people different from us.

I do notice that you ignored my point about eloquence being surprising, which really was more relevant to my assertion. Can't say that I'm surprised.

QUOTE
QUOTE
When was the last time you heard of a young white female being tasered? I guarantee you it's not because they don't fight.
hmm, a few weeks ago I believe. The main reason why young white females aren't tasered very often, certainly not compared to young black males, is because YWF are both less likely to fight, and much easier to subdue. Of course, if you can demonstrate that Young Black Females are being tasered at a rate higher than Young White Males, then you might have an argument.


Of course. I can't derive parallels between two situations unless the two situations are exactly alike in every possible manner. How about you just continue to proclaim that violence is not more easily used against people of color out of one side of your mouth while also trying to say that violence is used against us more often due to "proportions" out of the other side of your mouth, and I'll sit back and watch you justify holding both positions simultaneously.

QUOTE
QUOTE
I don't think the Minutemen would be so eager to use lethal force
If they're as eager as you claim, then why haven't they used lethal force yet? hmmm.gif hmmm.gif


Swing and a miss. Why is it that the more clever someone seems to think that they are, the less clever they actually are? There seem to be patterns of an inverse relationship. In any case, my point still stands. Having not killed someone yet in no way supports that they are not willing to use lethal force. If you have a loaded gun, you are obviously willing to use lethal force.

QUOTE
QUOTE
- or would even exist - if Maria Gonzalez was Natasha Petrova.
Wow, yet more historical ignorance. Just jump start your "McCarthyism" meme and you'll see that Natasha Petrova would likely have fared a mere 2 decades ago....


I'm sure my historical ignorance displayed in the form of not agreeing with you and having a different perspective is absolutely astounding to you. rolleyes.gif So who were these original Minutemen border patrol? I always thought that was a relatively recent project, began in 2005. But here you are telling me that no, it actually began in the 80s to keep the Russians out of the country. Any link to a Wiki article or something? I'm always willing to expand my historical knowledge for accuracy.

QUOTE
QUOTE
It's social conditioning, and the media plays a big part. There was recently an 18-year-old white guy who attends my former high school who was accused of violently raping a young teen. You wouldn't believe how people were tripping over themselves in the comments to rush to defend this young looking white face.
As opposed to those who rushed to villify the Duke lacrosse team? As an anecdote, the Duke lacrosse circus is much more powerful in demonstrating reverse discrimination than your anecdote.


Of course the anecdote is more powerful in your opinion, because it holds more sway - with you. So let's play the tit-for-tat. "My persecution is worse than your persecution." I began with a rape case, you raise me Duke lacrosse. I will volley an Ashley Todd at you, but am anticipating your return of Tawanna Brawley.

The difference is that one scenario is extrapolated across an entire culture, while the other is received more on an individual basis. I've used this example before - if I go to a police station ten years from now and report that I was assaulted by a white male, are you honestly going to tell me that they will not have a single doubt about my report due to Duke Lacrosse and all the other "reverse discrimination" Hail Marys? On the flip side, if I were a white woman and said I was assaulted by a black man, who's going to remember Ashley Todd?

There are stereotypes and discrimination on all sides. The prejudice against whites (and white males) however, seems to have a freakish pattern of rarely culminating any fatalities.

QUOTE
QUOTE
If Obama loses, I think there might be violent outbursts from people of all races.
Which goes to my prediction.

QUOTE
But I would definitely argue that the evidence supports (based on my observations of the violence and threats made toward McCain vs. Obama) that Republicans might be more upset and reactive if McCain loses
Really? What threats? The unsupported and baseless allegations of "kill him" from a Republican rally? (The Secret Service investigated, and found no evidence of any such utterance.) The two losers? I don't know about you, but I always figured it took a lot more than two people to make a riot.


Uh, Bikerdad, how are you going to question what evidence I am using, assume that it's just three examples that you know of (and have, of course, dismissed out-of-hand), and then ridicule me for your assumptions of what my evidence is?

There should be a strawman smiley. It is Halloween; a scarecrow would be might cute (and appropriate) laugh.gif

I'm not going to bother going through every threat that has been leveled against Obama, because you aren't receptive to anything but reverse discrimination when it comes to bias. What you feel like you could "reasonably" "call me out" on, you would. For everything else, you'd simply ignore.

QUOTE
Here's what some black talk show hosts have said:

Black talk-show hosts and black-themed Web sites are being flooded with callers and bloggers reflecting a nervousness -- and anger -- over the campaign. Bev Smith, a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host, devoted her entire three-hour show Monday night to the question: "If Obama doesn't win, what will you think?"

"My audience is upset," she said in an interview. "Some people said they would be so angry it would be reminiscent of the [1960s] riots -- that is how despondent they would be."


What does another "person of color" have to say about what will happen if McCain wins?

If McCain wins, look for a full-fledged race and class war, fueled by a deflated and depressed country, soaring crime, homelessness - and hopelessness!


Apparently, the entire point of this little segment of your post was that there are other black people who have their own opinions, so... I should care? I should replace my opinion with theirs? As far as I've been on AD, I haven't known of any thread on this political debate website that have opened with questions for debate not aimed at fellow members, but at columnists and radio show hosts who aren't. This is my opinion - property of SuzySteamboat. That is what I have responded with. Obviously, there are other black people who disagree (which I find curious that you allow for us to have individual mindsets in this particular instance, but when it comes to how "violent" we all are, it's okay to use force against all of us - because of our "proportionality" and all). That is their. opinion. How does it relate to my own and what I said, the points that I raised??


QUOTE
QUOTE
- they've been conditioned to believe that Obama is a Muslim terrorist out to destroy their America, after all.
And, of course, significant minorities, if not the majority of white Republicans believe that... rolleyes.gif Most conservatives believe that Obama is a modest to hard-core socialist bent on remaking a "broken America" into a socialist utopian paradise. Does this amount to "destroying" America? Depends on whether you live in the redevelopment zone!


Oh, okay. So you mean, I guess all the people I have witnessed talking about their fears of how Obama will enslave the white race, take their guns and leave them defenseless, and will teach explicit sex to kindergardeners doesn't act as red meat to appeal to the worst common demoninator... it is simply received as a mild disagreement. They feel that these fears are harmless, really. I mean, who has ever in the history of America ever acted on baseless fears?

Yet I'm the one ignorant of history.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Is there such widely held fear among Obama supporters, that McCain will not only be just "bad" for America, but will actively engage in destroying it because he's "anti-American?"
No, but that's only because there is a limit to the psychosis of Obama supporters. They've got too much energy wrapped up in believing that Bush is bad and actively tying to destroy America that they haven't been able to shift focus onto McCain. tongue.gif


Uh, so our lack of equally vehement vitriol for McCain isn't because we don't genuinely see him as bad as McCain supporters see Obama, but because we are still hating Bush?

No wonder Olbermann's been making special comments about Bush every night! I was befuddled by his amazing lack of coverage of McCain.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
trumpetplayer
post Oct 31 2008, 12:48 PM
Post #20


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 438
Member No.: 7,739
Joined: May-22-07

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE
1. What's more likely? John McCain loses and White people riot or Barack Obama loses and Black people riot?

2. If neither scenario occurs, is that a sign of progress and maturity?



1. Black people are going to riot whether Obama wins or loses in Chicago at a minimum. ANY excuse to rape, pillage and destroy will do this. One would have to live with one's collective head up their rear end to not know this as it's happened about every time there is some sort of major event like the Bulls winning etc... Best thing that could happen is that it drops below 30 degrees and pray for early hibernation from the street corners as usual in Chicago.

As a side note, pollsters and people that live off of polls should understand a poll is NOTE a ballot or a vote. I would suggest the race is closer than polls show and recent history will bear this out saving of course for the tin foil hat crowd. It could be that more Conservatives simply don't wan't to be hassled with pollsters and machines calling their houses at 9 at night.

2. IF it occurs? I think it's a forgone conclusion it will happen and history bears this out. Libs have it in their collective minds that Obama is a shoe in because of polls and not ballots. They will AGAIN think they have been cheated when nothing of the sort will have happened if McCain wins...and this could be a very real possibility.

This post has been edited by trumpetplayer: Oct 31 2008, 12:50 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: July 20th, 2018 - 02:31 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.