Liberals' Warnings About Obama Loss May Prove Self-Fulfilling

[franklie 0]

yah... and on the flip side...apparently some women will vote for McCain/Pailin simply because Palin is a woman...

not just a woman but a relatively good-looking woman. Unfortunately for Hillary, she was NOT blessed in the beauty department and that did have a small negative effect in some people's perception of her.

Obama, in comparison, has much more physical beauty than Hillary.

As much as we enlightened ones would like to think that we are truly egalitarian, the little details, like personal beauty, can still trip us up.

[Ban Hammer 13,332]

Gee... I guess I better buy a rifle then.

just to be on the safe side, i'm stocking up on ammo.

[kaydee457 13]

Just a few months ago - people were decrying that Obama beat Hillary unfairly because he had a unfair racial advantage, and that Geraldine Ferraro was therefore perfectly correct in her assertion that race explained the majority of Obama's approval.

Now - if Obama loses, it must be due to race. Who honestly believes that...

Liberals, and liberal democrats will believe that as this article postulates. The article is very prophetic.

There will be anger, most likely manifesting itself into riots and property damage in the streets of most big cities where blacks reside.

As an aside-

One reason is the liberal elite's contempt for white Americans with less education -- even if they are Democrats.

There's that word associated with "librul" again...

If you say so - but given that you've already painted me as a stereotypical librul I wonder how you'll react when I subvert your expectations...

And how would you do that? You're not whom I expect to be rioting in the streets......

Wow, I'm having to deal with a very sloooooow connection today....

Rioting or no - I'm not likely to assign blame to racism if Obama loses.

The majority of "libruls" will though.....

[Peikko 1,575]

Can this get any more ridiculous? Who is promoting this absurd view that 'libruls' can't cope with the democratic process and will 'riot' en masse if Barack Obama fails to win the election? After Barack was nominated there was this fear mongering put out the Hillary couldn't cope with the 'rejection' and would somehow subvert the democratic process and sieze the nomination and guess what happened?

If some people do object and start rioting they are many things but they are not democrats. Why this need to smear by association? It gets more pathetic by the minute.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Just a few months ago - people were decrying that Obama beat Hillary unfairly because he had a unfair racial advantage, and that Geraldine Ferraro was therefore perfectly correct in her assertion that race explained the majority of Obama's approval.

Now - if Obama loses, it must be due to race. Who honestly believes that...

Liberals, and liberal democrats will believe that as this article postulates. The article is very prophetic.

There will be anger, most likely manifesting itself into riots and property damage in the streets of most big cities where blacks reside.

As an aside-

One reason is the liberal elite's contempt for white Americans with less education -- even if they are Democrats.

There's that word associated with "librul" again...

If you say so - but given that you've already painted me as a stereotypical librul I wonder how you'll react when I subvert your expectations...

And how would you do that? You're not whom I expect to be rioting in the streets......

Wow, I'm having to deal with a very sloooooow connection today....

Rioting or no - I'm not likely to assign blame to racism if Obama loses.

The majority of "libruls" will though.....

In a word:

Bollocks

This is what happens when you paint broad-brush with silly stereotypes. You bet the farm on your preconceptions, then look rather silly when your predictions turn out not to be true.

You're already revising your definition of "libruls" to exclude me (i.e. the "stereotypical liberal" according to you) from the rationale.

Edited September 23, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[HAL 9000 96]

Can this get any more ridiculous? Who is promoting this absurd view that 'libruls' can't cope with the democratic process and will 'riot' en masse if Barack Obama fails to win the election? After Barack was nominated there was this fear mongering put out the Hillary couldn't cope with the 'rejection' and would somehow subvert the democratic process and sieze the nomination and guess what happened?

If some people do object and start rioting they are many things but they are not democrats. Why this need to smear by association? It gets more pathetic by the minute.

I suspect it will get even more ridiculous.

Free entertainment to be provided by lunatics of all kinds.

[Peikko 1,575]

I am now going to spend my day wondering which of the people around me subscribe to which 'extreme view' of the election. Entertainment? Who needs television?

[kaydee457 13]

I never said that "libruls" would riot but rather blacks in most U.S. cities will take to the streets if Obama loses this election.......

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

<<shakes head>>

[kaydee457 13]

<<shakes head>>

What do you hear, anything rattling about in there? You need to have it looked at, you know. Go to the emergency room and have me pay for it.

It's sad to say that they've rioted over far less....Anyone in WATTS after Rodney King? I'm afraid that the article brings up the possibility, a very real one, that blacks in particular will have a very hard time accepting an Obama defeat.

It's the nature of his candidacy and the superficiality it encompasses.

Edited September 23, 2008 by kaydee457

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Superficial is in the eye of the beholder (or indeed, the stereotyper).

[kaydee457 13]

Superficial is in the eye of the beholder (or indeed, the stereotyper).

I've archived this thread for future reference.....

[Peikko 1,575]

The article itself is unnecessarily inflammetory. I am sure that I am not alone in thinking that if Barack Obama loses the election it will be entirely because he failed to convince a majority of the electorate that his proposals are what the US needs.

As for your personal assertion that 'blacks in US cities' will take to the streets, I feel that is equally inappropriate if your suggestion is that a majority of inner city black voters will be so discontent that they will riot in an attempt to subvert the democratic process.

There may be a small proportion of discontents who feel that violence is a proper reaction to a failure to meet their expectations, but I would be entirely surprised if this was a widespread phenomenan. I am not living in fear of some 'black backlash' to an Obama rejection at the polls.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If I remember rightly race riots of the past have been fairly localized and over specific issues related to to those communities (police shootings, beatings etc).

There's no reasonable reason to expect some sort of uprising simply because Barack Obama doesn't get elected.

[kaydee457 13]

If I remember rightly race riots of the past have been fairly localized and over specific issues related to to those communities (police shootings, beatings etc).

There's no reasonable reason to expect some sort of uprising simply because Barack Obama doesn't get elected.

Well, given that they read and hear what you and I do, and some of those idiotic, race baiting comments are outlined in this article, I find it hard to believe that you could come to that conclusion.

They (those that are black) are being conditioned to make the connection between racism and Obama's (eventual and obvious) loss of the election by idiots, all "libruls" BTW, that feel they need to preemptively analyze an event that hasn't happened yet.......